Misplaced Pages

The case was not made that policy requires all Fringe to be removed on sight. JJ seems to be opposed to the consensus finding of that RfC, and he is opposed to all the text we have painstakingly negotiated since May.

Can it really be true that all short term EQ forecasting methods deserve to be treated with the same Misplaced Pages policy that was developed to deal with Flat Earth, Creationism and other blatant pseudoscience? And even if it is, doesn't that make this the equivalent of an article about Flat Earth, in which views of Flat Earth proponents should be neutrally presented along with mainstream rebuttal? I think this is the real topic of the debate JJ and I have renewed again above, in the section "How To Move Forward". JerryRussell (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to remind you that NPOV "cannot be superseded ... by editor consensus." And also that "IP202" is a non-neutral partisan advocate, a single-purpose editor who is not here for the encyclopedia, but for his promotional advocacy and "balancing" of anything touching on VAN. We tolerate his comments, but his "votes" should be given no weight in reckoning any kind of consensus.

False balance was not dealt with in the RfC. If you want to discuss that, fine, but please raise that in the proper section, instead of dragging it through a bunch of other discussions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

None of us here are trying to supersede NPOV, we just disagree about whether the False Balance policy is applicable to this situation. I explained above in the section on False Balance, why I believe that this issue was indeed addressed in the RfC. And I am happy to continue discussion in whatever section you feel is most proper. JerryRussell (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you really call the proposed text "false balance" though?

Professors P. Varotsos, K. Alexopoulos and K. Nomicos – "VAN" – claimed in a 1981 paper an ability to predict M ≥ 2.6 earthquakes within 80 km of their observatory (in Greece) approximately seven hours beforehand, by measurements of 'seismic electric signals'. In 1996 Varotsos and other colleagues claimed to have predicted impending earthquakes within windows of several weeks, 100–120 km, and ±0.7 of the magnitude.

The VAN predictions have been criticized on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible, "vague and ambiguous", failing to satisfy prediction criteria, and retroactive adjustment of parameters. A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters. The VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show "a much better association with the events which occurred before them", according to Mulargia and Gasperini. Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant.Both positive and negative views on VAN predictions from this period were summarized in the 1996 book "A Critical Review of VAN" edited by Sir James Lighthill and in a debate issue presented by the journal Geophysical Research Letters that was focused on the statistical significance of the VAN method. VAN had the opportunity to reply to their critics in those review publications. In 2011, the ICEF reviewed the 1996 debate, and concluded that the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated.

Essentially the only positive statement it has is "Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant.", which is very little compared to what the paragraph starts and finishes with. --tronvillain (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's getting better. But the positive statement that "the VAN results ... were statistically significant" suggests that that result has equal validity with the contrary results, as if it is a simple matter of normal "scientific dispute". Which is false.

If I get a chance (and the power doesn't go out) I'll try to prepare some text for consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, as a partial resolution I propose that:

• The first two paragraphs of the current version be retained as is (perhaps some minor ce). I think they provide a fair explanation to the reader of what VAN claimed, why it is notable, and gives some idea of (and links to) the specific predictions.
• The third paragraph to be revised, perhaps more in line with the paragraph proposed above.
• The last three paragraphs (about the Pirgos event, and the claim about saving lives) to be removed on the understanding that they are too detailed to be included in a summary. Though Pirgos might be mentioned in a footnote, lest some reader (or, heaven forbid, any future editor) think we were ignorant of some important detail. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, could you clarify if you are OK with the one sentence Several reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant. ? Meanwhile, this proposal has been implemented, using the 3rd paragraph I proposed. I don't mean to preclude further revisions to the 3rd paragraph. JerryRussell (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry: stop it. Your edits are not (contrary to your edit summary) implementing what I just proposed, nor anything we have agreed upon. Combined with Staszek's gutting of the first paragraph the total effect is pretty nearly the antithesis of what I proposed. I have therefore rolled it all back. Can we have some discussion now, without any anticipative cannonballing off the wrong side of the levee? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, @Staszek Lem:, I could use some support here. I did my best to implement JJ's proposal, I'm at wit's end. Rather than edit my proposed 3rd paragraph, JJ has reverted to the massively oversize original. JerryRussell (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of my "gutting": The section is called "Notable predictions" I removed the part which does not speak directly about predictions. The method itself and how it was "enthusiastically saluted" is prominently described in its own article, linked right at the beginning of the edited section. Please be respectful to co-wikipedians, otherwise there will be no "some discussion now". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer to describe this edit as an evisceration? Is that a nicer term? At any rate, it is a substantial excision of the first paragraph, and quite contrary to what I proposed, to retain the first two paragraphs. Do we have different understandings of the word "retain"? Or are you exempted from showing respect, or engaging in discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I clearly explained my "evisceration"; if you prefer to use insulting terms. You ignored my explanation. You are angry. Please take a wikibreak. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Slow down, cowboy. In regard of your questioned edit and my reversion, it seems to me there are two issues presented. The first is one of process, where you imply that I have been less than "respectful to co-wikipedians" (23:20), and then state that I ignored your explanation (00:04). The chronology of the edit history shows otherwise:

• 21:18, 16 Oct: your edit, with no edit summary.
• 22:29, 17 Oct: my reversion ("Rolling back edits that are NOT what I proposed, NOR agreed upon.")
• 22:46, 17 Oct: my comment on this (above).
• 23:30, 17 Oct: your explanation, and charge to "be respectful".

So it is absurd for you to complain I ignored your edit, as I could not have done otherwise: at the time of my reversion (22:29) your explanation was still an hour in the future (23:30). YOU are the editor who deleted text contrary to the on-going discussion, failed to summarize your edit, and offered no explanation at all until after my comment. And then you complain that I was disrespectful. I submit that you have disrespected the on-going discussion, and the process (including your reversion), and me. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak.

As to the substantive edit (the second issue), you reduced this:

In 1981 "VAN" – Professor of physics Panayiotis Varotsos at the University of Athens and various collaborators over the years – claimed to have found an association between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES) (see electromagnetic variations, above). In 1984 they claimed there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes", – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted" – the SES appearing between six and 115 hours before the earthquake. This was "enthusiastically saluted by some as a major breakthrough". They also presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes.

to this:

The authors of the VAN method presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes.

I point out that what you deleted – about a robust one-to-one correspondence between SES and earthquakes, etc. – is the basis of VAN's notability, and the reason for their notoriety. You have cut out the heart of why these predictions are important, and even interesting. Regardless of whether it is mentioned anywhere else, this needs to be mentioned here, or the reader's understanding is seriously short-changed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I rather liked Staszek Lem's position that we are not even going to talk about content, until mutual respect is established. Before making his edit, Staszek had participated in discussion here in the thread 'UNDUE', and observed a consensus in this section favoring reduction of the size of the VAN content. Out of the pre-existing text, Staszek deleted three sentences. You described this as "gutting", which he considered disrespectful. Then he offered an explanation (23:30) and rather than actually deal with his explanation, you re-iterated your view that it was an "evisceration" and stated that it was contrary to your intent. (That was at 0:04.) I don't agree that what he did was 'contrary' to your intent, but it was orthogonal. So what? At any rate, it wasn't until you repeated your insult (no, 'evisceration' is not a nicer term than 'gutting') and failed to deal with the explanation offered, that Staszek complained you had ignored his explanation, at (00:15).

Normally I would not be interested in such a minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow breakdown. But this is a pattern, JJ. Rather than accept responsibility for anything, you all too often blame your fellow editors. We have been discussing the problem that the VAN sections are too long since at least August 15 in the section 'Libel on VAN' above, and you have resisted all attempts to fix it, while blaming everything on IP202. But, IP202 has always been a voice in the wilderness here. He has been repeatedly reverted by many editors on the vast majority of his attempts to insert text into the article. There has never been any danger of an IP202 takeover of the page. We also need to take responsibility for the fact that we are still dealing with this three months later. JerryRussell (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough! I don't care about insults or blame. The edits by Staszek Lem were not what JJ explicitly agreed to. This is not a major insult, but it does justify rolling back the edits. We are here to discuss the merits of the additions and/or deletions to this text. If you are not explicitly proposing something for the text or explaining why your proposal is the best in accordance with WP policy and the state of the science, please take your comments to a different section or page. (The section 'Is this Embarrassing' below would seem to be the current place to talk about 'bias' and 'tone' and 'behavior patterns' and so forth. Though I would, personally, prefer such discussions take place on user pages and COI noticeboards and so forth).

For my part, I agree with the approach suggested at the beginning of this section, to basically reboot the VAN coverage and move most of the detailed coverage of VAN history and methods to the VAN article page. I am unclear what the arguments are for and against Staszek's edits to the first couple paragraphs, since the following discourse rapidly devolved. If we remove

In 1981 "VAN" – Professor of physics Panayiotis Varotsos at the University of Athens and various collaborators over the years – claimed to have found an association between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES) (see electromagnetic variations, above). In 1984 they claimed there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes", – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted" – the SES appearing between six and 115 hours before the earthquake. This was "enthusiastically saluted by some as a major breakthrough".

from the Notable Predictions section, perhaps some portion of it should be included in the VAN Method section above? It does serve to make clear the extent to which VAN scientists claim the method works (basically perfectly), which contrasts nicely with what they've proven to other scientists (very little). And direct quotes make it difficult for anyone to argue misrepresentation of VAN claims. Elriana (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we all share the view that some reduction is warranted. But that doesn't give Staszek (or anyone else) a warrant to whack away freely without any further discussion, and certainly not deletion of three sentences of a four sentence paragraph that I had just proposed retaining.

Good to see you again, Elriana. My argument for retaining the first paragraph is (in brief) that it states (as I said above) the basis of VAN's notability, and the reason for their notoriety. Regardless of whether this is mentioned anywhere else, it needs to be mentioned here, as this is the basis of why the VAN predictions are important, or even interesting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. The fact that it was thought of as a 'major breakthrough' when first proposed is significant to showing its notability. That and the degree of correlation and confidence in those early claims also go a way to explaining why VAN has been able to get so much press for so long. We do, in fact, give similar information about the origins/background of other predictions. So Staszek's argument that only the prediction itself belongs here is not consistent with the rest of the article. I would support returning those three sentences to the text.

If we're editing for length, we should move the book references to footnotes and try to eliminate some of the overlap between the VAN method and VAN predictions sections. Elriana (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Whack away" - Strike three. You are not improving your wiki-image, colleague. FYI what they claimed about themselves and was was "saluted by some" are not the basis for their notability for wikipedia. Everybody claims they have found the 'magic bullet'. @Elriana: - the Van section actually summarizes all this: The article says they claimed to predict, as well as that others criticized them. Extensive literal quotation of a single author is precisely what WP:UNDUE is about. The minute details go to their individual article, VAN method. My argument "prediction itself belongs here" is about the subsection "Examples". The method itself is to be discussed in the text which describes the method. We don't repeat all biography of VAN authors in every place the word VAN is mentioned. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

1) I would be greatly obliged if everyone would stop with the judgemental and inflammatory back-and-forth. It really doesn't add anything to this discussion.

2) There is significant background text in several of the other "Examples". And VAN *was* well-received in the beginning. That *is* why their early predictions were notable. Without the early support from the scientific community for testing the method, we would probably not be discussing VAN at all on this page. In the early '80's, scientists thought earthquake prediction should be right around the corner, and VAN's initial data seemed very promising. Without that attitude and perceived promise, VAN would never have gained the traction it did. If you want to contest the direct quotes, then propose something different. But it is important to communicate the degree of confidence scientists had in the correlation that led to that first list of predictions. Could this be said in one sentence instead of 3? Probably. Elriana (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: There is significant background text in several of the other "Examples"- no there is not. Every section after a brief mentioning of the notability of the case as cited from independent sources (e.g., "The M 7.3 1975 Haicheng earthquake is the most widely cited "success" of earthquake prediction") goes straight to the point. You are welcome to add a similar brief introductory claim of notability cited from independent sources. Once again, I deleted a profusion of bragging claims by VAN themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Elriana, and thanks for helping to get the conversation back on track. FYI, there seemed to be a snowball conclusion at COI/N that professionals are not considered to have COI unless they are editing articles specifically about their own projects. As a newbie, I find that surprising, but I've been surprised before. Elriana, this also means that there's absolutely no reason you should feel reluctant about editing this article, even though you are a geological scientist.

My primary goal at this point is to get the length of the section cut back, while maintaining neutrality. I don't mind mentioning VAN's early extraordinary claims, and especially not if it can be done in one sentence instead of three. JerryRussell (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: we need an independent ref which says something about VAN making extraordinary claims, not citing VAN's extraordinary claims, i.e., in this overview article we need a judgement of these claims, not claims themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Going a little further, we should take the mainstream point of view, for which the ICEF report is the latest and best for EP as a whole. There is also a 1997 "Review of Electric and Magnetic Fields Accompanying Seismic and Volcanic Activity" Malcolm Johnston, and his 2008 reply to Varotsos in BSSA (when the latter complained about SES not being observed at the Parkfield quake) could be taken as a limited but very specific and very definite judgment by an independent expert. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your initial restoration of the first paragraph, but then you proceed to cut out several important parts. Even worse, in trying to edit the text strictly at the level of the words, without reference to the sources, you disconnected specific material from their source. This violates a key policy, WP:V. As to the material removed, do we need a point-by-point discussion? Note that for continuity this might be best done at (and your and my comments moved to) the end of this section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I disagree that I violated WP:V. There is now a single sentence supported by four sources summarized into a single footnote. Any interested reader can check those sources and verify that the sentence is supported. (I confess I did not check for myself, I have relied on the information provided in the earlier version of the article.) Elriana suggested summarizing the information in one sentence. Staszek Lem said we needed an independent ref. I'm assuming he didn't notice that two such sources had already been provided. Jytdog thinks the entire section is much too long for due weight (and I agree); I was able to cut the length by ~40%.

In trying to please everyone (and myself) it may be impossible to please you. I've done my best. You and them fight if you want, I won't revert anything you do to this material. JerryRussell (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-boot (2)

WP:FALSEBALANCE says While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.... plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. The way I read this policy, it certainly doesn't require us to omit information about VAN. Moreover, having made the decision to include a section about VAN, we are required to put their ideas in their proper context, but we must include sufficient information to describe their findings.

As we have discussed many times before: presenting only negative information about VAN while deleting all support, is not only a violation of NPOV, but also a BLP violation against the VAN scientists.

Considering that the page has been edit protected for a week, we have some time to sort through this. We should be re-working both VAN sections to eliminate as much redundancy as possible. I made a proposal for the prediction section, and JJ made a counter-proposal. However, he didn't say what he wanted to do with the third paragraph where I included the apparently controversial sentence Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant.

JJ, are you willing to withdraw your objection to including that sentence, with its sources? JerryRussell (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In a word: no. And it appears we still have this fundamental disagreement about this enduring view that all criticism of VAN is "negative information" that must be balanced. While time precludes any thorough response, I will note that your "Other early reviews sentence is controversial, because (as has been previously discussed) it leaves the impression that "statistically significant" is an equally valid view. Which it is not. Also: I "didn't say" what I wanted to do with the third paragraph because I hadn't resolved that. But until the first paragraph is restored further discussion on that seems rather pointless. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There certainly are sources which deny that VAN is statistically significant. However, other RS continue to argue that it is statistically significant. But supposing for the sake of argument that you are correct about the dominant opinion of seismologists, that VAN is completely bogus: then how can we incorporate the information about the RS arguing to the contrary, without giving the impression that it is an equally valid view? JerryRussell (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We already (and still) have two key pieces of information on EM VAN method hidden inside footnotes (SES propagation and noise rejection criteria), leaving only the impossibility statements visible to the reader. I hope we will correct towards the right direction and not get a bad example here, too.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

For any newcomers here I point out that "IP202" is a WP:SPA, 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. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry: In the first place I would not say that "the dominant view of seismologists" is that "VAN is completely bogus". That might be the case, but we need go no further than the view that mainstream seismology considers the VAN method and predictions invalid. That VAN have (and even still!) argue otherwise is just that: argument. That VAN disagree with the mainstream consensus is immaterial, and the detailed blow-by-blow account of how all of the various claims and criticisms were resolved is simply not appropriate here.

To illustrate, consider that inclusion of your sentence that "early reviews" found VAN to be statistically significant should (to be fully fair and balanced) include the criticism of those reviews. Or IP202's complaint (immediately above) that VAN's rejoinders are "hidden inside footnotes": so? If the rejoinders are stated side-by-side there is an impression of equally valid viewpoints, which is misleading. To counter that we would have to provide the criticism of the rejoinder. Which takes us back to why everything even touching on VAN has ballooned so large.

You want to "incorporate the information about the RS arguing to the contrary", but this article (and these sections) are NOT about the argument. That VAN is notable (but more for their notoriety than their validity) is granted, but (like all the other instances) it is enough to 1) identify them, 2) give the reader some minimally adequate information on why they are notable (such as their claims), and 3) state the mainstream's assessment of same, including why their claims are rejected. That VAN disagrees is beside the point; that is like someone arguing with the jury after the verdict is delivered. Too late!

Your viewpoint seems to be that the criticism of VAN, and VAN's rejoinders, are equally valid, and therefore ought to be "balanced". Sorry, no, VAN is a disproven theory, based on discredited predictions, and does not warrant "equal time" in our summarization. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want yet more opinions there really needs to be enough background provided so those who come to this cold, without knowing any of the background or what issues have been raised, will have some basis for an informed comment. And if we are going back to the basic, underlying issue here, that should be set out in a new section, not mixed in with the discussion of specific proposals.

By the way, I object to your characterization of my position (re false balance, I presume) as a "completely distorted view of NPOV". That you disagree does not make my view "completely distorted"; do we need to go over that again? Or is your primary dispute whether VAN has equal validity with the mainstream consensus? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence, "Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant."

In my opinion, this sentence serves a somewhat similar purpose (in terms of what it conveys to a new reader) to the three sentences that JJ likes to keep in the first paragraph of the section. Namely, why on earth is VAN significant when it is essentially ignored by most current mainstream seismologists, and has not shown itself to be reliable enough for actionable warnings or widespread implementation? The somewhat positive (or at least 'wait and see if it works because it would be a big deal if it did') reception for early VAN ideas is why it got funding and attention through the early '90's, and why it has made enough of a stir to be discussed here after 30 years.

My preferred solution would be to convey the magnitude of VAN's early claims in one sentence in that first paragraph (JJ, do you think you could write a single sentence that accomplished this, specifically?), and then to somewhat collapse that third paragraph and the two after into two so that we are doing even less of a blow by blow of the scientific back and forth. The basic reasons for criticism are notable (I'd put them all in one dedicated paragraph). That VAN has defended itself against the repeated criticism and continued making predictions is notable. (Although I would think it obvious to the casual observer, we must mention the *fact* that they responded to negative reviews and kept on with their work). And it is also notable that despite the ongoing efforts of VAN supporters, the mainstream scientific consensus is that VAN has not proven any more useful than predictions made from measurements and statistics of seismicity alone. Nearly all of the details of the cycles of defense and refute are not important to this article. And the details both obfuscate the issue for non-scientific readers and invite trouble from both VAN supporters and critics who want to argue over every detail and word choice.

Regarding NPOV:

Neutrality is a worthy goal, but where the neutral point of view lies is something every person will perceive a little bit differently. It is not surprising that statements regarding the validity of a long-term minority scientific theory will elicit disagreements on what exactly is neutral. That is why we discuss what each of us sees as problematic and try to find a middle ground. My view tends to align more with JJ, but that is precisely why Jerry and Staszek are important voices for me to hear in this discussion. JJ, every account of a defense or rejoinder from VAN scientists is not necessarily an endorsement of VAN. Jerry, every omission of such is not an effort to silence them or skew the consensus view. Our only goal is to criticize and improve this article.

Elriana, thanks for continuing with the discussion. I'm not sure why you say your view aligns more with JJ, when you're supporting the inclusion of the one sentence that some reviews made a favorable finding on VAN statistical significance, and when you are in agreement that VAN's ongoing work deserves a mention. I think it's very possible (and certainly never proven otherwise) that any success VAN has ever had, is more from their analysis of seismicity than from the SES signals. It's not my job as a Wiki editor to figure out what the truth really is, and I haven't done the work to be entitled to an opinion. It's our job to present the viewpoints in the sources, including the fact that "a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists" on this topic. And I think we can avoid the false balance problem, and make it clear where the mainstream stands, while also mentioning that the work has received some support, and is still continuing. It's like in JJ's analogy of the tortoise and the hare. Yes, the hare wins every time, according to mainstream sources. Yes, certain scientific journals report rumors of the tortoise victory, and say he might win again. We can say that in two very short paragraphs, and refer the reader to the Tortoise article for more information. JerryRussell (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Details

Most of the details belong in the VAN article or the footnotes. JJ argues that some information be kept in the footnotes so as to avoid the misconception that VAN is more supported/mainstream than it is. I would argue that much of that information belongs in the footnotes because the details of VAN defense and blow-by-blow scientific review and counter argument are, in fact, footnotes to the overall subject of *this* article. These are details which should be left, at most, to the dedicated VAN article, and some of the scientific details and statistics will still be footnote material there. Until/unless VAN gains mainstream support (whether scientific, political, or in the media), the various iterations of the technique are also not particularly notable for this page (though some major changes over time would be appropriate material for the VAN article). Elriana (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-boot (3)

Moving on: I have revised the first paragraph of the VAN predictions. This version follows the form of the other sections on actual predictions in that it:

1) names who made the prediction, and their affiliation,

2) mentions (without detail) the basis or method of the prediction,

3) describes why the prediction is notable.

Subsequent paragraphs should continue in roughly the same form:

4) give the where, when, and how big of the prediction(s) (for VAN this is a bit challenging),

5) describe the outcome of the prediction, and

6) note the mainstream assessment of the prediction.

There are three points absolutely essential for a reader to understand the full sense of VAN's initial impact:

a) their claim of a one-to-one correspondence between SES and earthquakes (thus minimizing both Type I and Type II errors),

b) the immediacy of these predictions (between six and 115 hours beforehand, being just the right period for ordering urgent and large-scale actions), and

c) the apparent validation of their method in their claim of predicting 18 out of 23 earthquakes.

This version of this paragraph is pretty nearly the most succinct statment that can be made of these key points.

What all of you who haven't read a broad swath of the literature may have missed is that in the 1970s and 1980s there was a broad expectation that earthquake prediction was "on the verge of practical reality", and not only did many scientists expect a major breakthrough, many of those thought that VAN had made the breakthrough. Any text that fails to give some sense of that short-changes the readers.

The other paragraphs are still open for revision and shortening. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IP202 reverted JJ's edit, saying in his edit summary that Uyeda is not part of the VAN team. I don't want to create more drama, but I'm willing to agree with JJ that the mainstream assessment is interesting & relevant. JerryRussell (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Collaborators / supporters were introduced as VAN members and VAN members after 1995 were given as if they were also in VAN back then.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There was also a detail I'd missed earlier, that VAN did not claim the 1:1 correspondence until 1984. So I had been a little sloppy with my earlier summary, and I apologize. It's been fixed now. Also, I added a link to a math article, in case any readers need further information about 1:1 correspondence. JerryRussell (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But please keep in mind what I have been saying about paying better attention, etc. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: The other paragraphs are still open for revision and shortening. I moved out a sentence about Uyeda's view of the funding situation, which seems relevant to all precursor methods if indeed it's relevant to the article at all. I suggest that next we could work on reducing redundancy across the two VAN sections. JerryRussell (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

IP202: how quickly you have forgotten that as a non-neutral WP:SPA advocate with a demonstrated history of biased editing you should NOT be directly editing the article. Whether Uyeda was a VAN colleague or not, you should NOT be making any "corrections". But what makes your edit egregious is that you did not simply remove Uyeda from a list of colleagues, you made other substantial changes, not mentioned in your edit summary, nor in your comment here. (Particularly: you removed certain details which VAN later tried to walk away from.) All the more reason you should NOT be editing the article. And if you do not respect that we can move to a range block.

Jerry: I don't believe "one-to-one correspondence" needs any explanation, especially when it was followed with VAN's own explanation that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES", etc. Linking to bijection is no help, as that is a technical set theory definition, which would be unintelligible to anyone who does not understand the simpler "one-to-one correspondence".

Re Uyeda's views re non-prediction: "if indeed it's relevant ....". Indeed. But the topic of this section is the VAN prediction section. Let's stay on topic, and discuss Uyeda's view in its own section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The 'bijection' article could benefit by providing a simple explanation before launching into all the jargon. But, as long as we're struggling to cut back length of the VAN sections, it makes sense to me to rely on that other article to help if anyone has trouble with the concept. JerryRussell (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'bijection' article could be better, but it's not, and it certainly does NOT help here. VAN's own explanation of "one-to-one" should suffice for anyone that does not understand the concept intuitively. It is not this kind of explanation that needs to be trimmed, but all of the "VAN balancing" that has been added. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Or if that is too blunt, then: very unlikely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As to all of the "VAN balancing" that has been added, there are the two paragraphs on "natural time" and the 2008 prediction, that were added as a result of the outcome of the RfC "litigation", and which you never seem to get tired of challenging. Other than that, there is exactly one sentence in the remaining text -- Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant. that can be construed as "VAN balancing". That, and the two fragments "both positive and negative views..." and VAN has disputed the 'pessimistic' conclusions of their critics, but.... Thirty-one words total. JerryRussell (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So taking out those thirty-one words leaves plenty of room for the twenty-one words of "that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ"", and even a bit more. I'll go do it.

Note that the sentence starting "Both positive and negative views" was introduced "for balance", though it is more properly a detail for a footnote. Maybe I can get to that, too. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

JJ, the sixteen words of "VAN balance" that you attempted to remove yesterday, as well as the other fifteen that you are threatening to remove, have been in the article for a long time. They have been the subject of extensive review by many editors, and you are the only one who has objected to them. If you want them gone, I would recommend that you choose your dispute resolution venue and get something started. WP:RfC, WP:NPOV/N, WP:FT/N, WP:DR/N, WP:M and WP:ANI all have their pros and cons. I will have nothing further to say about it here. JerryRussell (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Combining methods, satellite observations, Freund, Pulinets etc.

While each method might have been proven insufficient for prediction by itself at the moment, there is optimism in combining methods. Methods like satellite observation have been removed from the article. Perhaps satellite observation on infrared emission or swelling of the ground does not predict by itself, but it could assist to spot the epicenter or time of the arrival of an anticipated event. The source given will help us include deleted stuff. It also explains the pessimism, as Uyeda, Nagao & Kamogawa do in 2009 (hidden in the last footnote of the lead section).--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please use the source fetched (where VAN method is not mentioned at all). The article balance will be restored.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

IP202, I hope you won't mind that I've put your comments into a separate section, as I don't think they're relevant to my VAN summary proposal above.

Did you know that Wiki Misplaced Pages already has an article on electromagnetic EQ precursors and satellite observation of seismic events? I just discovered it by googling Pulinets and Freund. The article has existed in stub form since 2009, and JJ has never touched it. See Seismo-electromagnetics. We could start by beefing up that article. JerryRussell (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I also felt it was off-topic (it was an indirect answer on comments), so moving it here is fine with me and will better assist the article. Seismo-electromagnetics are phenomena during the rupture, not pre-seismic phenomena. Pre-seismic electromagnetics should be also found in Induced seismicity, but this and this are missing there.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The article on seismo-electromagnetics says that EQ prediction is one of the aims of the research. The article has only one reference, a Chinese study of ionospheric EQ precursors. The "further reading" list names articles by Pulinets and Hayakawa, as well as the Lighthill book on VAN. So I think the authors of that article intended for it to be about our topic.

Thanks for the references on induced seismicity. Very interesting. They seem off-topic for this article, but 'EQ prevention' at least seems to be a related issue. JerryRussell (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The interesting thing is, for physicists, that phenomena affecting one another work both ways. Electromagnetic pulses can cause an earthquake and before an earthquake EM phenomena appear. Seismo-electric phenomena are also both-ways phenomena, missing from Misplaced Pages. There is instead Seismoelectrical method, which I am not sure should be an article, at least by this title.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, electrical storms cause earthquakes. Hilarious. I'm sure glad VAN didn't think of plugging their rods into the power grid.

"Optimism" is the hope that you might find some evidence or data in support sometime in the future, because you have damn all nothing now. Note that Misplaced Pages is about what is known, not (per WP:CRYSTALBALL) what might be known in the future. And if all a topic has going for it is hope of finding something in the future then there is a substantial question of notability.

The last substantive edit on the Seismo-electromagnetics stub is from 2012, adding the information that "a satellite launch is planned for 2014"; it has but a single reference, the article by the people planning to launch the satellite. In short, it is not an article. It is fine with me if anyone wants to build it out, listing all the various SEM ideas; I suggest that any further discussion on that be done on the Talk page there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this embarrassing?

I was clicking links around the site this afternoon, and came across this post from JJ at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Earthquakes:

If some of you folks with knowledge of, or at least some kind of familiarity with, this topic don't join in there is a strong chance of EP becoming a fluff piece for the very dubious "VAN method". Anyone that works in the field should consider how much professional embarrassment will be incurred if we let this key article devolve. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, notice that JJ mentions how "we" need to prevent the article from devolving. This does raise the question whether JJ is someone who "works in the field", and if so, whether that has any impact on his neutrality.

But I'm not wanting to delve into that right now, so much as to ask: why should any professional be embarrassed by the contents of this Misplaced Pages article? There has never been any risk that the mainstream seismologist view would not be represented. And right now, our article says that at best, the VAN method might be statistically significant, but it's still wrong about 90% of the the time. Certainly nobody is going to evacuate Athens or Tokyo based on a VAN prediction.

Nobody is going to disagree with the ICEF assessment that there is no "reliable and skillful" EQ prediction method -- IF by that they mean, reliable enough to be useful for the layman's interpretation of an "EQ prediction".

So, why would this information be embarrassing or even threatening to seismologists, even if it were true beyond any shadow of a doubt? JerryRussell (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should it matter whether I am anyone who "works in the field"? And if you are "not wanting to delve into that right now", then why publicly raise this snide insinuation that my neutrality might be compromised in some unmentioned way? If you have any particular concern, why not just ask me?

If your question, as to why any professional might be embarrassed by this article, was genuine, you could have simply asked. But no, you added these qualifications that "nobody is going to disagree ..." with the ICEF (but didn't you?), and there "has never been any risk that the mainstream seismologist view would not be represented." But as I was just commenting (above), you don't seem to be asking for information, you seem to be asking for an argument. And then you expand my point to suggest that "this information" might even be "threatening to seismologists". Which is a red herring, as "threatening" is NOT the point, not at all. All this raises a question as to your intent and purpose.

But shouldn't that question be directed to a seismologist? (And have I not previously suggested this?) Or anyone in an earth sciences field? But part of the problem there is that many of them do not want to be connected with Misplaced Pages. From the few remarks I have collected it is in part because of the low and generally uncritical standards, of the popular enthusiasms (such as tending towards what ever gets play in the mass media), and fascination with definitely fringe topics (such as Ben Davidson, per your "list of topics ... not adequately covered"). And I need mention all the Talk page drama?

But don't mind me, just find a couple of seismologists and ask them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should it matter whether I am anyone who "works in the field"? Well, for example, it seems to matter a great deal to you, the thought that IP202 might work in the field. As well you should, because we do have COI policies. Do I need to be explaining this?

"If you have any particular concern, why not just ask me?" I was sort of hoping you might volunteer the information, without my having to ask. We have this non-outing policy, and I was merely pointing out that your own statement begs the question. I apologize if it came off as being snide.

I wasn't necessarily asking for an argument, but I was trying to make the point that I don't agree that there's anything in this article that should be embarrassing to seismologists. It's up to you whether you want to make a counter-argument.

What you're saying now is that seismologists wouldn't be impressed with the content. Too popular, too far from the mainstream to be interesting? Not something they would spend their time editing, or doing talk page discussion? I can understand that, but I don't see it as the same thing as being embarrassed. Maybe you do? JerryRussell (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think I have a conflict of interest you should just ask, not make insinuations. (If you want to ask privately, just send me an e-mail.) As it is, my "interest" is in maintaining general scientific credibility. Which puts me in conflict with everyone pushing some special interest, whether it be hyperresonance, Coren's dog studies, or "balancing" VAN. But not in conflict with the encyclopedia.

And again you are misrepresenting what I have said. No, I did NOT say that "seismologists wouldn't be impressed with the content", etc. That you don't understand this is quite beside the point, as you are not a seismologist (or similar). What I did say is: ask a seismologist. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what's wrong with '"balancing" VAN' and how it diminishes "general scientific credibility" (of what?). Even after, as you say, "gutting", VAN-related text in the article is more than all other methods taken together. I would suggest to drop the "embarrassment" topic altogether (since it was obviously an emotional outburst, quite probably justified, because 78% of wikipedia article suck) and stick to particular problematic parts of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the reasons these discussions get so long is lack of discipline in staying on topic. So while I would pleased to explain the "balance" issue to you, please raise it in its own section. Likewise, I will respond re your edit in the Re-boot section (above).

Why Jerry opened this section is something for him to explain. I will say on his behalf that I think it was more a matter of rashness and/or lack of deliberation than of deliberate ill-will. And if he wants to close this topic, fine. But my statement that there is a strong chance of EP becoming a fluff piece for the very dubious "VAN method", and that the article could be professionally embarrassing, having been introduced, I will comment that those are still my views, and explain, in part, my "interest" in maintaining a high standard in this article. If anyone questions what professional earth scientists (whether seismologists, geophysicists, or even mere geologists) think of any of this, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND looking up a local professional and asking him or her. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

COI/N discussion opened here: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#J._Johnson_and_Earthquake_prediction

Jerry, it is snide to make a comment about someone (especially a possibly derogatory comment), and then try to excuse it saying you are "not wanting to delving into that right now". If you didn't want to, then why raise it in the first place? And having raised it, saying otherwise does not unraise it – it's still there. (The classic example of this being, of course, Anthony's Funeral Oration.) Which I would let slide as just imprudent, but in being deliberate I think need to point out that is not a useful way to proceed.

I also point out that another reason we go on for so much is my willingness to follow the rabbit all over the field. So if you want to discuss whether a the former version of this article, or an over-tenderness to "balancing" any criticism of VAN, might embarrass any professional connected with WP, fine. But please consider you want to discuss: whether such material is in fact potentially embarrassing to a professional, or why I think so, or (as suggested by your recourse to COI) whether such a view conflicts with the goal of Misplaced Pages. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a quick unanimous agreement over at COI/N that this is not a COI problem, and that professionals do not have a COI as long as they aren't editing articles directly relating to their own work. So, that's settled. JerryRussell (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Except if they indeed edit their own work.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. IP202, I hope you'll agree that there's no evidence JJ is editing his own work? For that matter, there's no evidence that you're editing your own work either. And, I appreciate that you're taking an interest in some other aspects of EQ prediction, like combined methods and Peinke / Tabar. I feel that it's very important for Misplaced Pages to present leading edge research, perhaps not here in this article but in another article more devoted to "fringe" topics. Your contributions in those areas greatly reduce the impression that you are an SPA advocacy account. It's obvious JJ has no interest in exploring such matters, and I'm not a specialist in the field so I don't have the in-depth knowledge of the literature. I'm optimistic that we can continue to contribute positively to Wiki Misplaced Pages in this area. JerryRussell (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If we continue having ownership issues in the article, checking JJ against Tokyo, Japan might bring peace in case of a match. For now I prefer to follow the wise "said" proposal for neutralizing of wording of the article, where needed.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That is innuendo, where you try convey an impression (usually bad) without actually saying anything bad. So just spit it out: who do you think I "really" am? Would tracing me to Tokyo be a stronger connection than your demonstrated connection to Athens? As your "neutralizing" has been entirely to burnish VAN and mute any criticism, it would seem more useful if you clarified your connection with Panayotis Varotsos. No? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, IP202-178.59.56.37: still waiting, full of suspense, to hear who you think I "really" am. Or about your relationship with Varotsos and how that drives your sense of "neutralizing" this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

UNDUE

People working on this article, please step back and look at the whole thing. Anybody coming to this article who knows nothing about earthquake prediction would think that by far the most important topic in EP is Electromagnetic variations - the one where the most research is being done, that is the most useful, etc. It is given the most WEIGHT by far of all the sections. As I understand it this is a minority view at best and this is completely UNDUE. Please fix it. When the WEIGHT of that section is dramatically reduced relative to the other sections, the tag can come off. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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. The role of electromagnetics is apparent as it directly influences the ionosphere and probably the animal behavior. I have added yet another non-em method below, but we are also missing the ionospherics in the article. I fully agree with the tagging.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

For benefit of the newcomers I point out that this anonymous IP nicknamed "IP202" is a single purpose editor whose efforts to "balance" anything touching on VAN is the primary reason for both the electromagnetic section and the VAN prediction sections getting so long. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, Jytdog and Staszek Lem arrived here because I mentioned this article in a thread at the Fringe Noticeboard. I was using it as an example of a topic where it's difficult to know how to apply the policy. I wasn't necessarily meaning to ask for help with dispute resolution, but the fact is, we could use some help. Am I supposed to post notice here if I've started a discussion elsewhere? If so, I hereby comply with said requirement. The discussion is here:

Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Clarifying_question.2C_and_an_example_about_a_minority_view_about_earthquake_precursors

I am inclined to agree with Jytdog, though I think the tagging would be more appropriate at the specific sections affected. I have previously explained why the "Electromagnetic variations" (SEM) section has gotten out of balance. I don't think that splitting that into subsections (as just done by Staszek Lem) is that helpful; what is need is some paring. As to finding the most notable SEM methods and the proper balance between them, there have been reviews by Park and Johnston which could be used as guide. I will emphasize (again) that we can't include everything that some WP editor finds utterly fascinating: there are size constraints, and within those there are trade-offs between how much can be covered (i.e., how many subtopics) and how deeply. So the various methods listed are not comprehensive (i.e., only the most notable are listed), and necessarily summary in nature (no details). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Splitting in subsections is for the sake of clarity: to make it clear what specifically is discussed. If you do a 90% paring of VAN section, then you are welcome to fold them back. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

About "we can't include everything": we have a good guideline to address this: Misplaced Pages:Summary style. According to it, yes, we can include everything "fascinating" (and reliably referenced) in the article "VAN method, but of course in the general article "Earthquake prediction" we give only a summary overview. In particular I strongly suggest to fold most of VAN related stuff, including the huge "Predictions" text, into VAN method, leaving here only a brief summary. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The same is with other individual predictions; most text must be moved into the corresponding earthquake articles, whi brief summaries here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with the sub-sectioning as a sort of temporary scaffolding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have revised the "Electromagnetic variations" section (and incidentally renamed it "Electromagnetic anomalies", which I think more aptly captures the sense of a precusor), and am about to remove the undue tag.

Jytdog said the previous version gave the impression that "by far the most important topic in EP is Electromagnetic variations - the one where the most research is being done, that is the most useful, etc." On reviewing the literature it seems that is actually correct in regards of "where the most research is being done" (or at least contemplated), although it seems most seismologists deny the "most important" and "most useful". So I am inclined to give EM anomalies more space than other putative precursors. It might be noted this section is currently of comparable size to "Characteristic earthquakes" and "Seismicity patterns" under Trends.

I have also retained the subsectioning, although refocusing it on "VAN SES" and "Corralitios anomaly", these being the most notable instances. I have also added a short summary mentioning the complete absence of precursors in the Parkfield earthquake. I have been told that this is considered very significant by seismologists (whether the physicists and hordes of amateurs follow is a different matter), but I haven't searched for a definite, citable statement on this.

Anyone disagreeing with the removal of the tag can, of course, simply retag, though I strongly suggest that any tagging be done at the section level. I would also suggest starting a new discussion, as the discussion here is stale, and needs closure. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another method

There is an earthquake prediction proposed method, once funded by a British oil&gas company, developed using turbulence physics. Begin here and follow this and this (and be helped by this. Not electromagnetics and gives a condition that, when met, the EQ is unavoidable.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not notable. Perhaps when they have demonstrated some actual predictive skill. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, the minimum requirement for inclusion in the article is that the information must come from a reliable source. Notability is a requirement for articles, not for topics. It's up to editorial consensus, whether a particular piece of information is relevant to the topic and whether it fits within space limitations.

The claims in the abstracts are remarkable. IP202, any idea what they've been doing since 2010? Funding cut? Oil company decided to stop talking about this? My quick attempt to use Google didn't turn up anything newer that seemed relevant. JerryRussell (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But, I think the problem is that these should be considered primary sources, and we need some sort of reliable secondary-source review to put it in perspective. Especially when it comes to extraordinary claims. The same would apply to Davidson: as far as I know he's only published one paper, and there are no reviews. It may be correct that these don't belong in the article. JerryRussell (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To make a prediction he would need a network of stations every 100km or so and a real time system, as his data analysis would give an EQ (as claimed) in less than a day. So yes, I also find this interesting but still not notable for the article as a prediction method applied.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks IP202, it seems we're all in agreement. This could change if we can find a reliable secondary source that discusses the findings and puts them in context of EQ prediction. JerryRussell (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, you are quite right that the minimal requirement for including material is citation in a reliable source. But note just how extremely minimal that is: it permits inclusion of nearly everything published in the scientific/"academic"/mainstream literature, which would be absurd. That criterion is not sufficient to warrant inclusion. In the example provided WP:FRINGE also seems clearly applicable. So why are wasting any time on this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that this is another seismic velocity method, and we do already discuss Vp/Vs. The trouble with implementing this method as any kind of predictive system (density of stations, real-time data processing, etc.) make it unlikely that we will ever be discussing it in this article. I'm sure someone in Japan is looking into it anyway (since they already have the stations). But for now, its just a mildly promising side note. Elriana (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Teeing up an RfC?

The page was edit protected for a week (beginning Oct. 20) and I don't have the sense that we are any closer to resolving the underlying issue that has led to so much talk page drama, now materialized into edit warring.

I would say that fundamentally, the question is: whether any information created by proponents of precursor methods for EQ prediction and/or forecasting may be presented on this page, or whether WP:FALSEBALANCE requires that all such information be suppressed.

JJ, if I understand correctly, your position is that there is a consensus of mainstream seismologists that short-term EQ prediction or forecasting is impossible, and accordingly that all proponents of such methods are fringe and should be treated according to WP:PSCI.

Our discussions have centered around VAN because of IP202's interests, and examples could be drawn from our debates over treatment of VAN. But as revealed by our discussion in the "Outstanding Concerns" topic above, I have the sense that your opposition to discussion of such topics extends to all proponents of any such methods. JerryRussell (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It may seem that I am exaggerating or caricaturing JJ's position, but I don't think so. I queried him about the amount of doubt implied by the formulation "EQ prediction MAY be impossible" and he replied (here): I note that, in science, "may" is not a "weasel word" as that phrase is perjoratively used on Misplaced Pages. It is a frank and express acknowledgement that we don't know all things, and there is always a chance we are wrong. (Although many self-styled "skeptics" really should give due respect to how small that chance often is.) But in practice, JJ always sets the chance to zero, and insists that any evidence to the contrary is the most disreputable sort of pseudoscience. JerryRussell (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree we have not yet resolved the underlying issues, so perhaps best if we agree to leave it be for a while. Though I still expect restoration of the first two paragraphs.

Jerry, you do NOT understand correctly, not my position, nor some other issues here. You have tendency to run just a little wild in your take of things, which leads you into misunderstanding, and even misrepresentation. So, yes, you are exaggerating.

For example, my position is that 1) there is a general consensus of mainstream seismologists regarding short-term EQ prediction (for the moment let us leave off "forecasting"), and 2) that consensus is that short-term EQ predictions is not demonstrated. NOT that it is (as you represent my view) impossible, only that is has not been demonstrated. Now there is a widespread opinion in seismology that such prediction is inherently impossible, but that is different matter. And note: I do not say, nor am I aware of consensus that says, EQ prediction is impossible. What the preponderance of authoritative sources say is that short-term earthquake prediction has not been demonstrated. Not by anyone, and for reasons more tedious to follow than most non-professionals will tolerate.

You also misrepresent my position (and exaggerate) when you state that "in practice, JJ always sets the chance to zero, and insists that any evidence to the contrary is the most disreputable sort of pseudoscience." For starters, it seems you do not understand the idea behind the saying that the race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but that is the way to bet. (That is, we generally bet on the hare, even though the tortoise is reputed to have won on one occasion.) It seems you do not understand the possible but extremely unlikely. It might be illuminating to contemplate the different legal standards of proof, such as preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond all reasonable doubt. The case against VAN is indeed clear and convincing, and I believe some experts would even say beyond all reasonable doubt.

And note that I have not insisted that any evidence to the contrary is "most disreputable sort of pseudoscience". The latter part is entirely your mischaracterization, and a grotesque exaggeration, and shows your own over-tenderness (following IP202) regarding VAN. What I have insisted on is, first, not that there is no evidence in support of VAN, but that, at the least, the preponderance of scientific opinion is against VAN. Second, that mentioning any of VAN's claims for validity, or rejection of the criticism, would, for reasons of weight, require mentioning of why those claims or replies are rejected. Which would take us into the blow-by-blow accounting of the debate, and (as we have seen) leads to VAN getting undue weight re other claims of prediction.

As I said yesterday, if you want more opinions on the matters here there needs to be some background so people will have a basis for informed comment. And, I will add, a clear, and mutually acceptable, statement of the issues.

In order to get some expert opinion I have invited a seismologist to comment; see next section. I hope everyone will be respectful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I suppose I should let you speak for yourself. But as far as I can tell, all your qualifying remarks amount to the difference in purchasing power between a dime and two nickels. I said that you believe there is "a consensus" of seismologists saying EQ prediction is impossible. So your response is that it's merely "a widespread opinion". How widespread, exactly? Who are some representative seismologists who believe short-term EQ prediction is possible? My impression is that there are, in fact, few if any. It's mainly the physicists who are entertaining this possibility today.

I said that you want to treat VAN and other precursor methods as WP:PSCI. Isn't that exactly the policy you're describing? Today you're not willing to call VAN disreputable, but in the past you haven't hesitated to call them charlatans. Or at least, to make that very strong insinuation.

Your avoidance of the topic of short-term forecasting is very telling. "Prediction" may very well be impossible, but forecasting at a level of skill better than random chance may be much more feasible. JerryRussell (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry: you're wrong. On multiple counts.

I have said that vague predictions are a hallmark of charlatanism (6 Aug., 15 Aug.) and I have commented that others have called VAN charlatans (16 Aug.), and I stated that VAN "reject the principal means of distinguishing scientists from charlatans" (20 Aug.). But you should note: I have NOT called VAN charlatans, and I do hesitate to do so. (In part because I think doing so serves no purpose, and in part because slackness on their part, and even hubris, is, in my view, insufficient to warrant that term.)

Also, my "unwillingness" is not about calling VAN, or "any evidence to the contrary", disreputable, it is about your tendency to falsely attribute that view to me. You have a tendency to extend and over-interpret my comments beyond what I actually say; you really should be more careful.

I don't know what is so "very telling" about "avoiding" (as you say) the introduction of a term ("forecasting") about which you have some confusion (as previously shown, here and here). What you call "avoiding" I call "focusing". What I am trying to avoid is having this discussion run off (again) on a tangent.

And it seems that you still do not understand the difference between prediction has not been demonstrated, and prediction is not possible. These are different (albeit linked) issues. My position is that there is a consensus re lack of demonstration, but not (it appears) about impossibility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to throw in an opinion, seismologists think surefire short-term prediction may well be impossible, but foreshocks and deformation transients may allow some level of predictability to impending seismicity. For example, right after an M8, the chance of some M6s is highly elevated for a while. During a slow slip episode in a subduction zone, the chance of an earthquake is likely mildly (or even possibly highly) elevated for a while. But aside from seismicity and deformation, and occasionally flow fluid driven by deformation, no other methods have been shown to have any power. There is the claim radon and EM anomalies come from deformation of earthquakes slowly nucleating, but the evidence is underwhelming to simply wrong. It does a disservice to the public to continually raise hopes for useful earthquake prediction and have them be inevitably debunked time after time. It makes such waffling scientists look really incompetent, and most scientists have been consistent in their views for decades now. It also distracts people from common sense preparations to reduce their exposure to strong shaking and tsunamis.John (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The actual topic I had intended for the discussion, was whether we need an RfC, and if so, how to structure it. Should it be broad, or narrow? Should we propose some example text for discussion? My broaching the topic of aspects of JJ's views, was intended to help identify the controversial issues for the RfC. In retrospect, that entire approach might have been misguided. JerryRussell (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but no fault in trying. I believe broad approaches often founder on the details (as we have seen plenty of here), so progress has to start with settling the details. Which requires a certain amount of discipline in settling each detail before kiting off to others. This means that we don't have to keep re-discussing them. I am all for as much discussion is it takes (well, almost) to settle a point, but settled means not having to re-litigate the point. One of the problems with an RfC and an infusion of new participants is that every thing has to be revisited. Or else the newcomers just run with their gut instincts. Which might be a fine display of editorial instincts, but tends to be uninformed by expert knowledge. Or even sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In our discussion of prediction vs. forecasting below, I mentioned that I'm feeling that we need some sort of dispute resolution. I think an RfC is the way to go. My feeling is that at the very least, it needs to cover (1) the scope of the article -- does it include both prediction and forecasting, or prediction only? If prediction only, then how are we to define prediction in a clear way so that we know what belongs in the article and what doesn't; and (2) how should VAN be treated in this article for NPOV? I still feel the sections are a little too long, though not nearly as much so as they used to be.

But in addition to those topics, I have the feeling there's a possible dispute brewing about how to treat Freund, Heraud, Heki and so forth. If we take some more time, we might be able to include that in the same RfC.

I feel that there's no hurry, and I'm willing to continue discussing. But if my discussing the issues is causing discomfort, or if I'm giving the impression of being disruptive, I would prefer to go to an RfC sooner rather than later. I am willing to abide by consensus, whatever it turns out to be. JerryRussell (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit disruptive in your dogged pursuit of trying to merge prediction and forecasting, and perhaps even a failure to "get the point" regarding the difference, or that there is no absolute difference, etc. But as I have said below (00:55, 14 Nov), to the extent that all this arises from some stumbling block in your understanding (or even mine), what we need is some insight, not a bunch of seismologically naive editors voting up or down without any knowledge of such technical terminology. A result on such a basis might satisfy one of us, but either way it will seriously disappoint at least one us, and possibly both of us. Consensus should be something both of us can accept (even if imperfectly), not arbitrarily imposed without regard to such understandings as we do share.

The only possible dispute re Freund, etc., is your disinclination to accept the view of our guest expert that they are all effectively fringe. If you want to discuss that you should open another section. But as I have said elsewhere, I think we have quite enough discussion topics for the time being, so perhaps you could just give that a rest until we sort out P&F and VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters, I'd argue for merging prediction and forecasting. Both have legitimate attempts and disreputable claims (accurate predictions are rare, although I can think of one or two accurate long-term predictions). Separating the two take some arbitrary distinctions in time scale, location specificity, and magnitude accuracy. Some other mainstream seismologists would disagree with me, but not necessarily agree with each other about the distinctions. John (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

John, I'd like to thank you also for your participation here. I hope you'll stick around long enough to help us get the article back on track, and I'm not just saying this because you're agreeing with me here :)

The topic of this particular thread, in addition to 'forecasting vs. prediction', is "do we need an RfC (or some other dispute resolution process) to help us move forward". JJ's response, I think, is that (1) he has some concerns about the RfC process (described at WP:RFC), and (2) He would like us to work on one thing at a time. I'm more of a wholistic thinker, which is why I tend to work on multiple topics all at the same time, to see where we can make headway. But I can see it isn't working, so: yeah, let's focus.

I'm reasonably happy with the VAN sections. Since user:Jytdog came and tagged the article for undue weight on VAN, we've managed to cut back about four paragraphs. It doesn't look quite so out of proportion now. It might still be a little long, but it just doesn't seem like the most important problem.

With respect to VAN, and also Heraud & Freund, I think it would be a yuge! help to have a clear understanding of the topic of the article. So I suggest, let's focus on that. And I'm willing to keep talking as long as I don't get accused of being disruptive, but if there are ongoing personal attacks, I have no choice but to seek dispute resolution.

Regarding P&F, I can see two sub-questions: (1) What is the topic now, as the article exists?; and (2) What should the topic be, if something other than what it is now?

My position: (1) The article, now, covers both prediction & forecasting. The currently existing page "Earthquake Forecasting" is just a redirect jump to this article. The article now includes a lot of content about forecasting. The lede provides a definition of prediction, forecasting, and the relationship between them. The 'methods' section describes trends methods such as characteristic earthquakes, seismic gaps, and seismicity patterns which are mostly suitable for making long-term, probabilistic earthquake forecasts. Several of the "notable predictions" appear to meet the criteria for forecasts, although classification in some cases is possibly debatable.

To address question (2), I think it's a good thing that we continue to have an article that covers both prediction & forecasting. Many sources use the two terms as synonyms, and among the sources that do discriminate, definitions are not consistent. In order to clarify that this is a general article covering both prediction & forecasting, I would endorse a proposal to change the title to "Earthquake prediction and forecasting". But whether we change the title or not, that's what this article is, and should continue to be. And as such, it wouldn't hurt to beef up the content on forecasting.

Another related question is whether Misplaced Pages should have a separate article on EQ forecasting. Procedurally speaking, I think the way forward for those editors who would like to see such an article, would be to create some sort of prototype article and post it to article space. Then if other editors object, they could nominate the article for deletion, or merger with this article. My opinion is that such an article would be lacking in notability as a distinct subject from prediction, and a WP:POVFORK, but in all honesty I don't know whether a consensus of editors would agree with me. I would probably not personally nominate such an article for deletion, unless debates over the relevance of topics to one page vs. the other created massive talk page drama. JerryRussell (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Afraid I don't have time to sort out such issues. My primary interest is that the public see an accurate view of what earthquake prediction can and cannot accomplish, according to the latest (and consensus) science. John (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. These talk pages don't get indexed at Google, and quickly get archived and forgotten. Whereas, our articles get a lot of traffic. If you ever see anything in the article contents that you find disturbing or inaccurate, please do feel free to stop in and let us know. JerryRussell (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Not ignoring you, just jammed up at the moment. And presuming you would prefer a considered response more than a quick response. Hopefully by Monday afternoon, or Tuesday. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And studying your comments now. To get a better handle on them I have taken the liberty of numbering your paragraphs. If you object just revert this edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Detailed replies for Jerry:

Re your ¶1: I am dubious about "holistic", but if by that you mean looking at the whole article – sure, that's how I initially formulated the article: I looked at a bunch of scientific sources to see how they treated the topic, and then broadly followed their scope and viewpoint. But! when there is a particular point at issue it does not further anything if folks go off on different tangents. It's like eating a big Thanksgiving dinner: you don't try to eat everything at once, you generally do one bite at a time, finishing one before starting the next. And it is disruptive to keep piling on issue after issue without without taking enough effort to resolve any of them, or to scatter the discussion across various sections. As to the usefulness of an RfC, it depends greatly on the question asked. In regard of technical terms, it is like I said before (23:33, 10 Oct, #How to move forward?): we would be asking WP editors for their (largely uninformed) opinions of what opinions seismologists hold.

Re your ¶2: The VAN prediction section is better now with all the "VAN polishing" edits removed, but it could use some tuning. I think the VAN 2008 section should come out, but let's hold-off on that discussion. The "Electromagnetic variations" section needs revision (perhaps that is the next section to consider), but again, let's hold-off. (Not the current topic.)

Re your ¶3: I don't see how "a clear understanding of the topic of the article" (presumably re prediction vs. forecasting) makes any difference in the scientific standing of VAN, Heraud, Freund (etc.). However you slice them, they are still fringe. Trying to rearrange the article for the purpose of getting them in would be pretty blatant promotion of fringe, and pointing that out is hardy a personal attack. (You really should stop bandying that about.)

Re your ¶4: The topic of the article is, as stated, earthquake prediction, as defined in the first note. As to what the topic should be: why should it be anything else? For all your quibbling that "prediction" doesn't cover all of the topic, you haven't clarified whether this supposed problem is one of scope, or merely semantic. You have also asserted that "there are much clearer demarcations .... between seismic and non-seismic precursor methods" (04:32, 15 Nov), but you have yet to demonstrate that demarcation, or how the several predictions are clearly arrayed on either side of it.

Re your ¶5: You state that "he article, now, covers both prediction & forecasting", but that is entirely dependent on just how P&F are distinguished, or if they are distinguished at all. You also say that "several" of the notable prediction "appear to meet the criteria for forecasts". But: 1) You have argued that for only one prediction (Parkfield), so what are the "several" others? 2) That is not "possibly" debatable, it is debatable (as we have debated it), and (as we have debated) I say your characterization of Parkfield is wrong, because 3) again, it depends on your interpretation, and you chosen a rather idiosyncratic interpretation. You are also wrong in saying that "seismicity patterns ... are mostly suitable for making long-term, probabilistic earthquake forecasts", as the patterns of seismicity known as foreshocks are the most significant short-term precursors, being implicated in notable claims of predictions such as Haicheng, VAN, and L'Aquila.

Re your ¶6: I am glad that you are largely agreeing with me on this, but you are quibbling again when you complain that the "definitions are not consistent": you are being over sensitive to the differences of articulation, and under sensitive to the common elements. Your sensitivities are skewed to your view that "prediction" is inadequately defined and therefore is useless. As to "beef up the content on forecasting": feel free to explain what you think should be included. That should be a separate section, but a large set of examples might illustrate your "clear demarcation".

Re your ¶7: As to a separate article on earthquake forecasting: we already have one. That it is not called "earthquake forecasting" is because it is limited to a particular effort of forecasting, and takes a more nuanced view of what constitutes an "earthquake". Your opinion on a lack of a distinct subject reflects your failure to understand the underlying difference. As to massive talk page drama, we already have that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A similarly broad definition of earthquake prediction would be "any statement about a future earthquake or earthquakes." By that definition, we could include notable topics such as the prediction of earthquakes in Isaiah or the New Testament. Also, as you know, I believe viewpoints such as Freund, Heraud, Pulinets, and Heki should probably be mentioned in this article, and a suitably broad definition of the topic would make them clearly relevant.

I wonder if you would consider that the editors of prediction have defined their article in a way that is "blatant promotion of fringe" because they talk about non-scientific as well as scientific predictions? WP:SPOV and WP:MAINSTREAM would presumably exclude that type of content, but those were failed proposals, not policy. Wiki Misplaced Pages covers many "fringe" ideas and topics. General articles often briefly mention all sorts of fringe, while putting it in context.

The definition of 'EQ prediction' in the lede is a specific sub-type of prediction, namely 'scientific EQ prediction'. Which I agree should be the main focus of the article. With respect to 'scientific prediction', I also see a problem that the lede cites four different sources, which give four somewhat divergent definitions. The last of them, Kagan & Knopoff 1987, IMO appears to merge almost completely with forecasting. That's fine, as long as we're not attempting to create some crisp demarcation for purposes of this article.

I've been scanning through the talk archives, and ran across this interesting discussion of prediction vs. forecasting:

Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_4#Prediction_vs_forecasting

In that discussion, you wrote: Prediction is ... 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. Which is, it seems to me, a pretty good way to state a contrast between the two concepts. But it's squishy in terms of the demarcation between "specific" vs. "extended". And as you wrote yourself, earthquake forecasting is closely related , with a lot of overlap.

So, I suggest, the best way to handle this is to give an overview of EQ prediction and forecasting in this article. In the future, it may be necessary or appropriate to spin off sub-articles.

In support of your interpretation of the ICEF report, I found this source that discusses the ICEF definition of prediction vs. forecasting.

Wang, Z. (2015) Predicting or Forecasting Earthquakes and the Resulting Ground‐Motion Hazards: A Dilemma for Earth Scientists.GeoScienceWorld

Wang says "there is no qualitative difference between deterministic predicting and probabilistic forecasting" but that the difference is in how the result is quantified and communicated. So that supports your view, that Parkfield was a prediction according to the ICEF definition. And it supports a view I had expressed earlier, that "prediction and forecasting are two sides of the same coin", in that the difference is primarily in how the result is reported and interpreted. But on the other hand, while ICEF does acknowledge the distinction you made between "specific" (short-term, local) vs. "extended" (long-term, global) statements, they don't make this a determining factor in defining prediction vs. forecasting. I don't think ICEF succeeded in creating a crisp distinction: "no qualitative difference", as Wang says, and a quantitative difference that can easily be manipulated to achieve the desired result.

You make an excellent point that foreshocks are a type of seismicity pattern that is useful for short-term prediction and/or forecasting. I agree completely and without reservation.

In answer to your question: You have argued that for only one prediction (Parkfield), so what are the "several" others? I have also mentioned Loma Prieta, Keilis-Borok M8 and New Madrid. I don't see much point in further debate until we've resolved how the difference between p&f should be defined. With respect to your criticism: You have also asserted that "there are much clearer demarcations .... between seismic and non-seismic precursor methods" ... but you have yet to demonstrate that demarcation", I am sorry that you don't feel this is clear, and I'd request that we defer further discussion at least until we've decided the scope of the article. As to examples of forecasting topics that should be included, I would definitely think that this article should mention UCERF3 as well as similar efforts in other parts of the world.

I'm puzzled about which separate article on EQ forecasting you're referring to in your reply to item 7. Could you clarify what you mean? Thanks. JerryRussell (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You state that "'earthquake prediction' is defined too narrowly", and that after reviewing the Prediction article you have "realized just how limiting our article's definition really it." Then comes your true statement of what you want: to include Freund, Heraud, Pulinets, and Heki in the article. (Earlier you included "material on tidal influence", and Ben Davidson.) To this end you believe that "a suitably broad definition of the topic would make them clearly relevant."

So sorry, you are totally wrong here. The exclusion of those authors has nothing to do with any distinction between between "prediction" and "forecasting". As I just told you (see "Re your ¶3"), I don't see how "a clear understanding of the topic of the article" (your words) makes any difference in their scientific standing: all that is still WP:FRINGE. If you want to quibble about this just review Dr. Vidale's comments (below, at 18:36, 13 Nov.) where he notes that Heki's claim of ionospheric precursors "did not stand close scrutiny", and that Heraud's claim has (currently) "miniscule chane of being correct", or his comments (at 16:35, 14 Nov.) that Heraud's results "are quite unlikely", and Freund's results are "given minimal credence by mainstream scientists", and that his theory has failed" (17:08, 15 Nov.). AGAIN: these authors and their claims are excluded because they are they are not accepted by the mainstream, not because of any scoping limitation. Extending the scope of the article makes no difference in their relevance, or fringe status, and all of your efforts to undermine "prediction" are pointless: define it how you will, what you want to include is still fringe.

And it seems I must also REPEAT something else: Trying to rearrange the article for the purpose of getting them in would be pretty blatant promotion of fringe. Also a blatant violation of NPOV.

If you must add that kind of material to Misplaced Pages then I strongly suggest you do so at Seismo-electromagnetics; there is the scope you want. (Subject to the standard caveats.) And with that opportunity does it really matter how "prediction" is defined for this article? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello JJ, I hope you've had a pleasant holiday. I understand that you don't agree that the scope of the article has any effect on what we should say (if anything) about Freund et al., and you are correct that in a round-about way, that's what I'm most interested in addressing. But even apart from that issue, I think it's important to define the scope of the article correctly. That's the issue we agreed to work on first.

One major point of agreement is that the material on Freund etc. is fully appropriate to Seismo-electromagnetics, which could use some beefing up. While you've been away, I did some work on QuakeFinder, you might take a look and see how I did. It felt very pleasant and productive to work in article space. JerryRussell (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, your striking-out is disappointing, as it seems to me we are (were?) making progress to some resolution. If you want to take a short break that is fine with me (I have plenty to do), but I hope we don't leave all of this just hanging. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your "goodbye" (below). On that basis I would presume this and other discussions are done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ask a seismologist

So that our discussions might be informed by expert opinion, I have invited Dr. John Vidale to comment on some specific questions that seem to go to the heart of the matter. Dr. Vidale is a notable expert, has a PhD degree in seismology, is the Washington state geologist, and is the director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Vidale, please advise us on the following questions:

1) What is the consensus within mainstream seismology regarding VAN, their methods (e.g., SES, "natural time"), and their predictions?

2) Do the reports of the ICEF (Jordan et al., 2009, 2011) fairly represent the views of mainstream seismologists a) generally, and b) particularly in regard of their statement (2011, p. 319) that "testing has failed to validate the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed" by VAN?

That will be interesting and may be useful here. To me, a seismological ignoramus but with a fairly good understanding of general scientific technique, it seems clear that the VAN method is a classic example of pseudoscience guided by wishful thinking. Some usable statements of mainstream opinion would be useful, if they are from a suitably authoritative source (the official view of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network would probably be good) and appropriately published. Please bear in mind that we can't use private communications from anyone however eminent. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I doubt any scientist with adequate Web of Science h-index will ever say a word here, having read all the above.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Dr. John Vidale has a long-standing Misplaced Pages user account User:Vidale and has done some editing to this very page, back in 2008. It appears that he is an expert on the use of seismic waves to probe the structure of the earth's core, mantle and crust. He has published several papers directly relevant to EQ prediction, including this Science 1999 article which included a brief, ambivalent mention of electromagnetic precursors. Do Big and Little Earthquakes Start Differently? I am very much looking forward to his renewed participation here. JerryRussell (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It might be noted that the h-index measures how much an author has been cited, it does not measure approval. Varotsos' h-index goes up every time a critic cites him, or he cites his own papers. It is more a measure of controversy than scientific worth; it is irrelevant to this discussion.

The point of getting some expert opinion here is not for citation in the article, but to resolve some issues that have been raised about the authoritative sources, and to get a better understanding of the views of mainstream seismology. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no critique on VAN's natural time analysis (last decade), and the hundreds of citations from third parties on the article introducing N.T. have already been demonstrated. But the point is not VAN, it is that a well-rated scientist would probably keep a distance from such an atmosphere.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any "well-rated" seismologist that would speak well of VAN, so naturally you try to taint the atmosphere with your disparaging comment: you prefer to discourage any expert comments. Your implicit defamation of anyone that would comment here would seem oddly contrasting to your earlier sensitivity to perceptions of defamation and libel regarding VAN, but is entirely consistent with your demonstrated non-neutral views and editing. I take your comment as a tacit admission that you know VAN is not well-received in the mainstream. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No seismologist I know considers the VAN method even plausible. I haven't polled them formally and individually, but I think the strongest support for VAN one could find in the US among mainstream seismologists is that some haven't heard of it or couldn't cite the evidence against it on the spot. I've served on NEPEC (National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council) for about a decade, and am currently chair of the Advisory Committee for the SCEC, so I've seen a fair bit of discussion of more plausible yet still ineffective earthquake prediction methods. If VAN advocates think their method works, the right forum for discussion is one of the 6 or 8 journals that give a thorough review, Nature, Science, GRL, JGR, EPSL, etc., not lengthy dialogue here. We all want earthquake prediction to work, and the tests for earthquake predictions are simple, and VAN hasn't passed them. John (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a black-and-white dichotomy of views about non-seismic earthquake precursors that I find very puzzling. Is it possible in your view that there might be some correlation between the various precursors and EQ -- even if this correlation is not reliable enough for a "useful" prediction method? You mentioned above that There is the claim radon and EM anomalies come from deformation of earthquakes slowly nucleating, but the evidence is underwhelming to simply wrong. It seems to me that there is a meaningful difference between "underwhelming" vs. "simply wrong". Whatever the "underwhelming" evidence is, it's our job at Misplaced Pages to report it accurately.

To my knowledge, the last time that any of the journals you listed above published information about VAN was in 1996. The GRL review at that time published many critical articles. However, there were also extensive rebuttals by VAN, as well as several articles by apparently independent researchers supporting VAN claims. My reading of the debate is that both sides might very well have been correct. VAN's predictions were not clearly formulated, and they certainly had a very high false alarm rate. There was also a problem with very wide prediction parameters. It was a long way from being useful for civil protection, which was the purpose VAN was claiming. But on the other hand, there seemed to be a demonstrable correlation between SES and EQ, or at least some of the authors in the GRL review continued to believe it. Also at that time, the Lighthill volume concluded with some comments indicating that the editor thought the method was interesting.

Since 1996, VAN have continued to publish their research in journals such as Physical Review, Applied Physics Letters, Tectonophyics, EOS, and PNAS. A positive mention of their 2008 prediction appeared in Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences. Is it your position that none of those journals are reliable, or capable of giving a thorough review? JerryRussell (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The dilemma here is that one can never say never, and many claims are irreproducible, built on underwhelming datasets, and not even compelling enough to try to investigate to verify. So objections to radon, EM, VAN, animal response, Nibiru, CERN, HAARP, etc., are, I would say, based on poor reception by scientists who know far more than the would-be predictors about earthquake physics, and are able to assess dubious claims and their advocates better and much faster than contrarians give them credit for. The last precursor that elicited a quick investigation by scientists was the claim of ionospheric precursors by Heki (a good scientist), which did not stand close scrutiny. There is an outstanding claim by Heraud of Peru of EM signals, but it has no documentation, and given history so far, minscule change of being correct, but we'll see. Does that answer your question? I'm not monitoring this page, maybe email me if you have more questions.

To be more explicit, there is no precursor hypothesis currently extent beyond monitoring seismicity for foreshocks and deformation for anomalous loading. The articles on VAN in the literature convince almost no one I know, and no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them, and that is not because they are hard to check. 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 reviewersJohn (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Our thanks to Dr. Vidale for taking the time to inform us on these matters. On the first question, regarding mainstream seismology's view of VAN, I think we have a definite answer: not even plausible. And so insignificant that some mainstream seismologists have not heard of it. (I suspect those would be the younger generation, that were not around in 1990s.)

This answer seems relevant to another point that has been raised here. Particularly, is a claim reported by VAN for which there was no subsequent question, response, criticism, denial, etc., should be considered a) unquestioned science, with implication of acceptance? or b) science too insignificant to address? In other words, is silence tacit endorsement?

On the second question, it would also be useful to know whether we can rely on the reports of the ICEF as "fairly represent the views of mainstream seismologists".

Jerry, your last question is unfair. Where Dr. Vidale says the proper forum for VAN is "one of the 6 or 8 journals that give a thorough review", I think we should understand that is in regard of seismology, and particularly of earthquake prediction. In the form you have put it, leaving off this key caveat, you're asking Dr. Vidale to affirm that Physical Review, etc., are unreliable or incapable of giving a thorough review. Perhaps you would consider a less repugnant question, such as whether the competence of those journals to assess seismological matters matches the competence of those other journals that specialize in seismological matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Those journals mentioned, such as Physical Review, have compelling and uncompelling papers, like any journal. Their disadvantage is that seismologists would not notice them, and be less interested in commenting on papers there, less likely to be chosen as reviewers, so more random or errant papers are likely to appear there on this subject. John (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also be true, that solid state physicists and electromagnetic specialists might be more qualified to review articles about electromagnetic correlates of earthquakes? Perhaps if seismologists wanted to get the most thorough comments on their views that EQ prediction based on EM is "not even plausible", they should submit their papers to Physical Review? And, considering that the physicists have ventured into this area, perhaps seismologists should consider widening their reading horizons?

At any rate, our job at Misplaced Pages is not to determine which facts are correct, but rather to present all the reputable sources in an unbiased manner, and proportionately to their predominance in the literature of the relevant fields. JerryRussell (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Re solid state physics, fair enough, except that the seismologists and other earthquake experts in the US, Japan, New Zealand, and Europe are the ones who intimately know the data and theory of friction, elasticity, and rheology, and fundamentally agree. They also are the ones recording seismograms and conducting most of the rock mechanics experiments. There is literally no convincing evidence from the Freund/Pullinets 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 don't follow Greek earthquake science. Phys Rev is kind of a quirky journal. It's not on the list of 6 or 7 journals that I systematically follow, definitely one of the easiest ones to slip in papers that will not review well.John (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Then there were the multiple responses from seismologists when Physics Today credited Varotsos with predicting "most major quakes in recent years in Greece". So sometimes folks notice.

Could part of the situation be that physicists generally don't have experience with the kind of "prediction" used with earthquakes, and so are susceptible to various kinds of missteps? (E.g., ambiguous specification, inadequate documentation, etc.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that the problem, to overgeneralize, is that physicists often only know part of the state-of-the-art in earthquake observations and theories of friction. If one does not constrain theories with the known patterns of earthquakes, one can easily build flawed but fascinating and self-consistent models with little relevance.John (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that several have looked at his experiments and experimental set-ups, and are not convinced enough to even try to replicate them. Several people, including me, have approached top-flight people who deal with EM around the Earth, and none found the ideas plausible. It's basically one guy, who was joined for a while by his son, who has since died, writing many articles about an esoteric thesis that is tied to 30-years-out-of-date earthquake nucleation ideas and numerous unconvincing observations. Anecdotally, someone, perhaps Duncan Agnew at Scripps, tried to work through some of the equations, and quit after quickly finding a six-order-of-magnitude error. The theory requires extension nucleation zones for earthquakes to generate enough energy to conceivably observe, which need to penetrate many kilometers of earth to be observed. Current observations suggestion nucleation zones for earthquakes are tiny in most cases, and big quakes start in similar ways to little earthquakes, obviating an ability to know the magnitude of an earthquake before it is underway. Personally, I'd recommend he first try to convince a second physicist who is more mainstream, and there are many physicists at his Ames Center and nearby Stanford, then publish his theory in a way that the physics community can vet it. But I doubt this is possible, as the theory has failed for so many decades to generate corroborating observations.John (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Frustrating, Freund and LiveScience snuck a reference to precursory lights into a description of lights during the recent New Zealand earthquake today, mentioning his unbelievable theories without mentioning the common explanation of shorting electrical transformers - http://www.livescience.com/56869-what-are-earthquake-lights.html. Very similar to the way news outlets like to report animals acting strangely as an earthquake predictor without mention that has never been convincingly seen and that it is disbelieved by (most) scientists. John (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC).

Dr. Vidale, these are very odd criticisms. I asked for peer reviewed publications, not anecdotes and rumors. Freund has had many co-authors over the years, and several other apparently independent physics research groups have joined his bandwagon. It's hard to believe that six order of magnitude errors would make it past the reviewers at the journals where Freund publishes, as well as his many collaborators. And, why would electrical transformers short out primarily before earthquakes, if indeed there is any statistical correlation between these lights and earthquakes? Does this speculation that transformers are responsible, appear in any research journal?

My impression (as someone new to this field) is that the mainstream resorts to polemics, ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs, rather than engage the actual arguments and results of EM prediction proponents. But, it does seem that the results reported so far in the journals are mostly in the form of weak correlations, not as useful as the proponents would like. The exception would be these new claims from Heraud, so far unpublished. JerryRussell (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I am unaware of anyone but Freund who has done the rock experiments, and of anyone but him who has done the calculations. Many have taken various observations and tried to see the patterns predicted, and when occasionally patterns look testable, mainstream scientists have jumped in to verify the pattern are not as claimed, then usually don't publish the results because few gave them credence anyway. Freund's theories are just one way people justify looking at snakes crawling out of the ground, emanations of strange gases like radon, headaches, lost pets, etc.. Zombie science is a good term. There was one attempt to re-create Freund's experiments on his very apparatus - https://earthscience.arc.nasa.gov/content/Comparison_of_the_stress-stimulated_current_of_dry_and_fluid_saturated_gabbro_samples - which failed miserably and led to Freund making a lot of personal attacks. It is a fact that any signal detectable in the nucleation phase of an earthquake SHOULD be greatly amplified during the many, many times more powerful earthquake itself, but that is not observed.

It is very difficult to prove a negative. Many people still believe in time travel and in mental telepathy. There is no physical laws those violate, at least to the very open-minded. The basic situation is that the most cutting-edge specialists think VAN, precursory earthquake lights and such, aside from seismicity and deformation, range from questionable science to pseudoscience. John (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, if Misplaced Pages wants to float highly unlikely ideas with very little support among the international community of experts, there are dozens of titillating earthquake theories ready to attract clicks. It undermines efforts to actually accomplish what is possible, but the internet is a new kind of world in which consensus science becomes hard to find. John (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lack of true consensus among scientists, but I don't see that Misplaced Pages is responsible for creating the situation. Our job is just to report on what exists. In this case, the physicists using EM methods agree they are in the minority, and Misplaced Pages will structure our reporting accordingly. JerryRussell (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess your "lack of true consensus among scientists" is what I would judge "a 99+% consensus among earthquake experts", similar to the way climate change deniers can claim unsettled science despite decades of agreement internationally. You have to call it as you see it, but perhaps you should try calling any seismologist at any university in the US to get a calibrated view of the reality here. John (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

John, I take it you have nothing further specific to say about the debate between Dahlgren et al vs. Scoville and Freund? My guess is that if I was to call any random seismologist in the US, they would know little or nothing about those two papers. But as Wiki Misplaced Pages editors, we don't do our research by phone calls, anyhow. We need to rely on published sources. I will reply to the comment about climate change below, in the topic about "homeopathy, etc."

Jerry, correct. I think you know my attitude by now - giving that work any credence does a disservice to the wikipedia-reading public, but no one I know would spend even as much effort as I have here to bother to look into it further. Just yesterday I emailed a journalist and some NEPEC folks for a heads up that the precursory earthquake lights zombie claims had arisen yet again with respect to the recent New Zealand earthquake. Snakes crawling out the ground, eerie lights, ghosts - some topics are just to entertaining to kill off, no matter how off base. I have to go back to working on the problem of how to address the earthquake-vulnerable URMs in Seattle, less fun but actually useful. I appreciate that you're willing to wade into these issues. John (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I extend my personal thanks and appreciation to Dr. Vidale for giving us so much of his time and insights.

Jerry, published sources are the basis for the content in articles. But what you should realize by now is that not all published sources (assuming WP:RS, of course) are equally regarded in the scientific community, nor even consistent. (Even Omberbaisch claims a published article, but hopefully you have no doubts about his claims.) As a matter of NPOV we have to assess what the mainstream thinking is, and for that we consult all kinds of sources. If you doubt whether Dr. Vidale's views are representative of mainstream seismological thought – of seismological REALITY – please do as he and I have suggested: consult another seismologist. Boosting the fringe indeed does a disservice to Misplaced Pages, and to our readers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Specific changes, part 2

The other point is that we don't use personal opinions from anyone on Misplaced Pages. In other words, this procedure can only waste time. What specific changes to the article would you like to see? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I hope you won't mind that I've created a new section for your question. My first goal is to cut back the length of the VAN sections while maintaining a neutral presentation. I believe that the amount of space devoted to VAN is undue weight. I would like to use the space freed up to bring in more information about some other topics, as I listed in the section "List of specific topics" above.

JJ has objected to my proposals, for reasons which he has explained himself. All my attempts to understand or paraphrase his objections have apparently failed. He has reverted some of my edits, and I have partially self-reverted many others because of his objections.

In general, my position is that there's still a reasonable amount of scientific debate about whether non-seismic precursors (including VAN's SES) have some correlation with EQ, and might have some value for probabilistic forecasts. As such, I believe that evidence to that effect should be presented in this article, along with mainstream critiques to the contrary.

I agree that there has been no demonstrated capability of reliable earthquake "prediction" as this term would commonly be understood by the public. The article should clearly convey that fact, which is the scientific consensus. JerryRussell (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Re "2008: Greece (VAN)" section

Speaking of shortening: can we take out the "2008: Greece (VAN)" section? We discussed at the beginning of August (currently top of the page, at #Proposal), but did not then reach any consensus. The event is not notable (at least outside of Greece) other than VAN claim to have predicted it, but that claim appears to have no acceptance outside of VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on the 2008 prediction is the shortest of any of the prediction sections. So there's no need to take it out because of length. This was noted as a successful forecast by Chouliaras, who is not affiliated with VAN, and was until recently a vehement critic. Meeting WP:GNG is not a requirement for mentioning a source or event within an article, although in this case the forecast might even be notable enough for its own article. Multinational press coverage is not a GNG requirement.

I installed the WP:PROSESIZE tool this weekend, so I can now verify that the prose size of this article is only 40K. This is nowhere near the size where a spinout is recommended based on WP:LENGTH considerations. We have plenty of room for more predictions and more information on methods. The problem with the sections on the "VAN method" and "1983-1995: Greece (VAN)" is that they give disproportionate attention to the method and to the period of time respectively, not that there is any problem with the overall size of the article. JerryRussell (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No man's land between prediction and forecasting?

In our article, prediction is defined as the specification of the time, location, and magnitude within stated limits, as distinguished from forecasting which is the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard... over years or decades. In the "evaluation" section, the article goes on to state that the purpose of short-term prediction is to enable emergency measures to reduce death and destruction, which is consistent with the idea that EQ prediction involves a binary result: either an alarm is issued, or not.

Seeing these definitions applied to specific circumstances, I am seeing a no-man's land opening up between prediction and forecasting. That is, some efforts are criticized as lacking enough reliability or precision to be respectably termed "predictions", but at the same time they are too specific and short-term to be called "forecasts".

A possibly related issue is the scope of our article. The title is "Earthquake Prediction", but in fact the entire "Trends" section is about methods suitable only for long-term forecasting. In the "Predictions" section: Bakun-Lindh said there was ~95% probability of an EQ over a five-year period, which is definitely a forecast. Loma Prieta seems to have been an interpretation of a paper, made after the fact. I don't know if that qualifies as a forecast, but doesn't sound like a prediction. Iben Browning's "predictions" also seem to be re-interpretations after the fact. Keilis-Borok M8 seems to be somewhere in the no-man's land.

So I don't see how there's any possible question that the actual scope of our article encompasses both prediction and forecasting. Also, the more of this literature I read, the more I feel that some authors use the terms specifically according to varying and idiosyncratic definitions, while other authors simply use them as synonyms. If this article does eventually grow to the point where a spinout is called for, I doubt if "prediction" vs. "forecasting" will be a useful demarcation. JerryRussell (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, what is it with you that you keep opening new topics for discussion before we have resolved any of the current discussions? Only, this isn't even a new topic, it is an old topic you raised at Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 7#Forecasting vs. prediction (2 Aug) and Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 7#Prediction and forecasting, two sides of the same coin? (6 Sep).

As to this "no man's land" you think you see: that arises entirely from your confused misreading. While I would be pleased if you would accept that a distinction can be made between prediction and forecasting (however that distinction is made), your basis for saying so in this case is confused. Especially as you go from "seeing a no-man's land" between prediction and forecasting, to "don't see a useful demarcation."

Perhaps I can settle a couple of points for you. Note that Bakun and Lindh's "~95% probability" re their prediction did not turn it into a forecast; on that point please read footnote #1 in the article about Allen's fourth requirement. "Trends" are not necessarily long-term; a sudden spate of seismic activity (as in possible foreshocks) is usually short-term, but even longer term trends (such as AMR) have been considered as bases for predictions. And please re-read the Loma Prieta section more carefully. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Allen's fourth requirement precisely contradicts ICEF's definition of "prediction", and highlights my point that no one really agrees on what these terms mean. No wonder we can never finish "litigating" anything. JerryRussell (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also notice that the definition of 'forecast' is the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard, including the frequency and magnitude of damaging earthquakes in a given area over years or decades. Bakun & Lindh: probabilistic? check. General? check. Over years or decades? check. So is this both a forecast and a prediction? Depending on the application of the definitions, is there an overlap issue as well as a no-man's-land issue? JerryRussell (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, Allen's fourth requirement does not contradict the ICEF's definition. Your perception of a contradiction arises from misunderstanding of what was said. Your statement "no one really agrees on what these terms mean" (as in absolutely no agreement) is unsupported, even false. That universal agreement is lacking is true, and mentioned in the article. That the distinction is not perfect is quite beside the point. The point is that it is useful in some cases, while your repeated quibbling on the point is not useful. That you can see both an overlap and a gap ("no-man's land") indicates a contradiction, and should be a strong clue that your argument has some highly variable aspects. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ICEF, p. 325: In this report, the Commission distinguishes between a prediction and a forecast using a strict dichotomy. A prediction involves casting an alarm — an assertion that one or more target ruptures will occur in a specified subdomain of space (subregion) and future time (subinterval). Predictions are therefore prospective deterministic statements... Forecasts are prospective probabilistic statements: they specify the probabilities that target events will occur in space- time subdomains. I don't see how this could be any clearer, that any statement about a future earthquake that includes an estimated probability is a forecast, not a prediction. In other words, the ICEF is precisely contradicting Allen's fourth requirement that a prediction should specify the estimated probability.

You did not reply to my assertion that Bakun & Lindh meets the definition of a "forecast" as given in our lede.

Why this is important, and is not merely "quibbling" on my part:

* It determines the scope of our article, and the correct title. I believe that the scope now includes both prediction and forecasting, and that our title should be changed to reflect the actual contents.

* Statements in sources making claims such as "EQ prediction has not been demonstrated" or "EQ prediction is impossible" can only be understood in terms of that source's definition of "prediction".

* For our article's purpose, IMO it is clearest to define the term "prediction" (or, if you prefer, "reliable and skillful short-term prediction") in Geller's sense: that is, an alarm that is temporally and spatially specific, and reliable enough to be useful for enabling emergency measures. JerryRussell (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I could almost agree with your last point, but for the looseness of your terminology: I feel that if I agreed, without reserve or qualification, at some later point you are likely to come back with "but you said ...." So let's be clear: Geller's "sense" follows Allen's (as stated in fn 1). But note: your assertion that "any statement about a future earthquake that includes an estimated probability is a forecast, not a prediction" is wrong. Particularly, Allen's 4th requirement is NOT the the probability of the event, it is the "indication of the author's confidence in the reliability of the prediction. (Emphasis added.) Also note Allen's 5th requirement: an indication of the chances – i.e., an estimated probability – of the earthquake happening anyway. So when the ICEF describes forecasts as probabilistic statements, that is an adjectival description of what the prediction is based on. Introducing a probability does not change a prediction into a forecast. If you would pay closer attention the very words you quoted you would see: "A prediction involves casting an alarm ...". (That is, specific enough to warrant issuing an alarm.)

In regards of Bakun & Lindh: it might be noted that the text is not exactly correct in stating a "95% chance" of an earthquake "around 1988". More precisely, they predicted a date – "early 1988". They then estimated that the uncertainty at "the 95 percent confidence interval for the predicted date is 1988.0 ± 5.2." (The text being a merciful simplification for those not familiar with confidence intervals.) They then made a definite, deterministic statement: "That is, the next characteristic Parkfield earthquake should occur before 1993." But before you start splitting hairs about this, please note that Bakun and Lindh themselves describe this as a PREDICTION experiment, as well as others (e.g., Roeloffs and Langbein, 1994), and if you Google for "parkfield earthquake forecast" please note that all (effectively) of the results are for prediction. On the authority of the authors themselves, the expert community, and popular conception, the Parkfield prediction does NOT 'meet the definition of a "forecast".'

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE: expanding the scope of the article to include various aspects of forecasting would make the article unbearably broad. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to weigh in, in an operational sense, I'd consider predictions as a subset of forecasts - as the range of magnitudes collapses to a single value, the location becomes more specific, and the time of occurrence becomes more specific. The Parkfield "prediction" had probabilistic timing resembling a forecast, a specific location like a prediction (although people were arguing just how similar the next earthquake would be to the previous one, and just realizing that the penultimate one was quite different from the last one), and the forecast magnitude had a bit of a range. I wouldn't spend too long precisely differentiating predictions and forecasts.John (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

9/28/2004 - Comparison with the forecast Earthquake prediction lessons from Parkfield experiment Earthquake Science and Seismic Risk Reduction Statistical aspects of Parkfield earthquake sequence

Bakun & Lindh themselves titled their project as "prediction experiment", meaning that a vast array of monitoring equipment was to be deployed in the area of Parkfield in the hopes of detecting precursors to the anticipated earthquake. They seemed to regard their estimate as a starting point.

But, your point is well taken that no one seems to have hesitated to call the estimate a "prediction" as well. So it's OK that their prediction included a long time span (9 year window) and a probabilistic aspect ("should occur" sounds like a non-deterministic weasel phrase to me). If we were to use Geller's definition without qualifications, we would be adapting a very idiosyncratic usage compared to the literature. (I assume you would agree that Bakun & Lindh 1985 did not meet Geller's definition of a prediction.)

As to the difference between "probability of an event" vs. "indication of author's confidence", you are getting deep into the "objective" vs "subjective" Bayesian inference debate, which doesn't seem to have any actual effect on the computations. See Subjective vs objective Bayes. I seriously doubt that ICEF was concerned about the difference between objective & subjective statistics as they framed their definition.

Our discussion is only reinforcing my view that the difference between "forecast" and "prediction" is poorly defined at best, while many authors use them as synonyms.

I know you've expressed a concern that more material about forecasting would make our article too long. But, objectively speaking, this doesn't seem to be a problem. The existing article is 40K of prose, and splitting it doesn't become a pressing concern until 60K, according to WP:LENGTH. The editors at Sexuality in ancient Rome don't seem unduly concerned even though their article is 120K. So if you have some things you'd like to say about forecasting, I don't see any reason to hold back. JerryRussell (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, you're quibbling. It has already been noted that some scientists use the terms synonymously, so it is no surprise at all that you can find a few uses of "forecast" even in regard of what is formally known as the "Parkfield Prediction Experiment". Which does not make it a forecast in the sense of Allen or the ICEF. If you look closer you will see that your references are not saying that it's a "forecast ", the usage is "forecast ". That is, they are simply not making that distinction.

And I do NOT "agree that Bakun & Lindh 1985 did not meet Geller's definition of a prediction." In part because I do not see that Geller made any such definition. He referenced other definitions, primarily that of Allen's. But even with Allen's definition, no, I don't agree, on the grounds I believe I have adequately set out above. (Why are you being so obtuse on this?)

AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED I don't see any point to adding "forecast" content to this article, and then have to split it, instead of just doing an Earthquake forecasting article from the start. I point out that this article was substantially shortened because some editors felt it was too long. If you agree that it is not too long (and no one else objects), I suggest that we restore some of the prediction content. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's Geller's definition, given in his contribution to the Nature debate series:

The public, media, and government regard an 'earthquake prediction' as an alarm of an imminent large earthquake, with enough accuracy and reliability to take measures such as the evacuation of cities. 'Prediction' is used exclusively in the above sense here; in other words, longer-term forecasts of seismic hazards or statistical forecasts of aftershock probabilities are not classified as predictions.

It's true that we've previously discussed this, and that on Sept. 13 I withdrew my objections to a separate "forecasting" article. But, this was a very local agreement (three editors) and consensus can change. Elriana set up a sandbox for an EQ forecasting article, here: User:Elriana/sandbox3 but it hasn't been touched since it was created Sept. 2. So it's not like I'm asking for a lot of work to be discarded or changed.

I'm very curious about what additional prediction info is available. But maybe I should read through some of the old debates about prediction content, before we agree to override that former result. Perhaps at least for some editors, it might have been an issue of due weight or encyclopedic content, as much as sheer length of the article. Do you recall, approximately, when those discussions took place? Thanks. JerryRussell (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You allow that there was consensus between you, me, and Elriana (and who else was interested?) that forecasting should be a separate article. As neither Elriana nor I have expressed any change of view, why have you? Why do we have to re-visit this? Because you thought of some point you could have said, but didn't? Well, that is one of the reasons I think discussions should be thorough (within reasonable bounds), to reduce any subsequent regrets. But the flip side of that is once a point is determined (to a reasonable degree), it should be accepted as settled, and not to be re-opened with out some new and significant reason. Now I allow that some scientists use "prediction" and "forecasting" synonymously, and that those who distinguish them often vary in their formulation (but more in the nature of refining the definition than changing it). And I will even allow that in terms of the period (time window) there is often no sharp, absolute demarcation. So what? Your view seems to be that because this distinction is not absolute, it cannot be useful. (Incidentally, an invalid argument.) But that is nothing new, it was discussed previously, so why must we go over this again?

That you "easily found" several souces describing Bakun & Lindh's statement as a "forecast" deceptively misleads anyone trying to follow this discussion. While I didn't bother to do any kind of comparative lexical analysis, it appears that your sources were using both "forecast" and "prediction" synonymously, so there was no distinction or characterization of being either one or the other. What you also fail to mention is that in finding those four sources you passed about fifty others that characterized this work as a prediction. That is, (case "a") some scientists make no distinction, but (case "b") those that do distingiush them use prediction, following the usage of the authors, the formal name of the experiment, and general usage. To represent instances where both terms are used, especially without mentioning that both are used, and used synonymously, as preference for one term, is misrepresentatoin of those sources.

While we are here: Your complaint that "should occur" is a weasel word is arguing with the sources. As I have said before (5 Sep., at #Is the entire subject of earthquake prediction fringe?), in science such words are frank and express acknowledgement that we don't know all things, and there is always a chance we are wrong. Bakun and Lindh were up front that according to the characteristic earthquake theory there was a greater expectation of an earthquake (i.e., it should happen) around the time predicted. It was NOT a statement (perhaps guaranteed by God?) that a quake absolutely will happen, it was implicitly if this then that. When that didn't happen it severly underemined the validity of the characteristic earthquake theory.

Do we need any further argument to establish (or disestablish) that Parkfield was a prediction? Is there anything more that needs to be said on this point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In our earlier conversations, you might remember that I didn't enthusiastically agree with the decision, so much as regretfully consent to table the discussion. Since then, I've had the experience of participating in two article split discussions (at Christ Myth Theory and Frankfurt School), and learned about several issues I didn't know before. Also, the definition of 'Earthquake Prediction' keeps coming up as a significant stumbling block in understanding the literature in this field. These are the reasons why I reject efforts on procedural grounds, to deem this topic off limits. I'm still hoping that we can reach a true consensus, but if we can't, we may need to construct an RfC to determine the scope of our article, and appropriate use of the terms "prediction" and "forecast".

It's ambiguous whether Bakun & Lindh described their anticipation of the Parkfield earthquake as a "prediction". Instead, they spoke of a "prediction experiment" and advocated use of instrumentation to detect precursors that could be used to make a more refined prediction. But more importantly, they didn't use the word "forecast" at all, and there was no discussion in their paper about what the definition of a "forecast" or "prediction" might be. Whether deliberately or by neglect, they sidestepped the issue. If others referred to their statement under the name of the "Parkfield prediction experiment", it simply means that they were following the convention of using the original authors' name, not necessarily that they were rendering judgment about this distinction between "forecast" and "prediction". ICEF (p. 330) also spoke of the "prediction experiment" as a description of the entire project, and said that "the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the next Parkfield earthquake would occur before January, 1993, at a 95-percent level of confidence." Notice that they called it neither a "prediction" nor a "forecast", but an "estimate".

I agree that Bakun & Lindh's language in describing their estimate was entirely appropriate. I was meaning to use the phrase "weasel wording" in a technical sense, rather than pejorative. But I can see that it unavoidably came across as a personal attack against Bakun & Lindh, and I apologize for that. I stand by the point that their estimate or forecast was probabilistic, not deterministic. For an example of a deterministic claim, I would point to Varotsos' early claim of a one-to-one correspondence between SES and EQ.

Do we need any further argument to establish (or disestablish) that Parkfield was a prediction? In order to establish or disestablish that, we would need to know whose definition we're using. By the ICEF definition (deterministic) it was not a prediction -- unless we go with your interpretation of their definition, which seems rather idiosyncratic to me. By Geller's definition in the Nature debates, it was not a prediction. By Allen's criteria, it was a prediction. If 'prediction' and 'forecast' are synonyms, as frequently used in the literature, then it was a prediction. Many sources referred to it as a prediction, and also as a forecast. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

An earthquake prediction is a statement that one or more earthquakes of a clearly stated magnitude range will occur within a clearly specified time interval and a clearly specified geographic region.

An earthquake forecast is a statement of probabilities that one or more earthquakes of a clearly specified magnitude range may occur within a clearly specified time interval and a clearly specified geographic region. Thus, the statement “a magnitude 7 or greater earthquake will occur in California this year” is a prediction; the statement "there is a 70% chance of a magnitude 7 or greater earthquake in California in the next year" is a forecast.

By this definition, I'd say that the Bakun & Lindh statement was a forecast, and not a prediction. JerryRussell (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the "no man's land" problem that I mentioned as the topic of this section, this NEPEC definition makes it clear that such a no man's land does exist. Specifically: earthquake precursors are a form of data which are allegedly correlated with earthquakes. An observation of a precursor (for example, an elevated radon reading at location X) might lead to a statement such as "there is an elevated probability of an EQ near location X". Such a statement is not specific as to amplitude or timing, and is also rather vague about location. Nevertheless, it's a meaningful and testable statement. After a substantial number of such observations (including EQ sequels) demonstrating the nature of correlation, it begins to become possible to design an algorithm mapping such observations onto forecasts or predictions, as defined by NEPEC.

NEPEC specifically claims: Predictions and forecasts can cover a wide range of time periods from short-term (days to a year), intermediate-term (a year to a few years) or long-term (several years to decades). In this, I believe they're disagreeing with definitions such as Geller's, which say that predictions are short-term, or at least confined temporally to a short interval. JerryRussell (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of us think, or at least I do, that predictions and forecasts grade into each other, and are really just a continuum of possibilities of time, magnitude, and area ranges and certainties. My understanding is that weather forecasting inverts the definitions, anyway, so trying to define the words too closely would have little generality.John (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have explained to Jerry (23:57, 2 Nov, at the top of this section, and following) that Bakun & Lindh's probabilistic indication of their confidence in their prediction (per Allen's fourth requirement) did not make the whole a "probabilistic statement" in respect of the ICEF's definition of "forecast".

Jerry seems pretty set on wanting to see no effective difference in these terms, to support his desire of expanding the article to include both. Elsewhere (and several times) I have gone into why I think the more definitely "forecast" material should be handled elsewhere, but he keeps pushing into this indeterminate "no man's land", apparently taking an indistinct demarcation as equivalent to no demarcation at all.

Jerry: your comment that this issue "keeps coming up as a significant stumbling block in understanding the literature in this field" seems to be mainly a problem in your understanding. What would facilitate obtaining consensus is understanding why you keep stumbling over this. I doubt that the comments of other editors will be of much assistance until you can explain why you don't understand this. It seems to me you are predisposed to rejecting any thing that might be said here, no matter how perspicacious.

BTW, your reference to "efforts on procedural grounds, to deem this topic off limits" is misleading as there has been no effort to "deem this topic off limits". It seems you have misunderstood what I was saying. What I said was that we should discuss this to the point there it is settled. If someone keeps re-opening the topic then it obviously was not settled, which implies that discussion ended prematurely. So we discuss until we are done, but once we are done we should be DONE. Then it becomes a matter of procedure that no further discussion should be allowed. You could argue that Misplaced Pages has no such rules (true), but then I would argue that constantly re-litigating a matter amounts to delay of game. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

JJ -- I have explained to Jerry ... that Bakun & Lindh's probabilistic indication of their confidence ... did not make the whole a "probabilistic statement" in respect of the ICEF's definition of "forecast". And I have explained that, in light of current understandings of objective & subjective interpretation of Bayesian statistics, an indication of the probability of an event is mathematically equivalent to a probabilistic indication of confidence. Accordingly, I continue to believe that according to ICEF (and NEPEC) definitions, Bakun & Lindh should be considered a forecast.

Jerry seems pretty set on wanting to see no effective difference in these terms -- this is not what I'm saying. I do believe that the distinction between forecasting & prediction can be useful. But, as John says above, trying to define the words too closely would have little generality. Or: in order for the concepts to be most useful, it's important to understand how a particular author or source is using the terms. Various sources use the distinction in very different ways.

Also, JJ, as you yourself said, there is no clean demarcation between prediction and forecasting. This makes it a poor basis for spinning off a distinct article. There would be endless debates and controversies about which item belongs in which article, and many topics would wind up covered at similar depth in both articles. Furthermore, there is a theme that "prediction is impossible or at least has not been demonstrated", while forecasting is very legitimate. Thus, prediction vs. forecasting becomes a WP:POVFORK of exactly the type we're encouraged not to create.

If we reach a point where a spinoff article is necessary to contain all the information, there are much cleaner demarcations. For example, a demarcation between seismic and non-seismic precursor methods.

Thanks for clarifying that there is no Wiki Misplaced Pages policy against re-opening this topic. I do apologize for the delay. I'm afraid we've reached a point where we may have to agree to disagree, and perhaps use an RFC or other dispute resolution process to make further progress. JerryRussell (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, your continuing belief that "Bakun & Lindh should be considered a forecast" is starting to piss me off. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE (08:22, 7 Nov): the inclusion of probabilities in Allen's definition of prediction does not turn it into a forecast in the sense of the ICEF's "probabilistic statement". And again: where the authors call it a prediction, and the expert community calls it a prediction, and the rest of the world calls it a prediction, for you (and remind me, just what are your seismological credentials?) to claim a Bayesian proof that everyone else is wrong, is sheer arrogance. (And incidentally: original research.) It is one thing to assess our sources, but you are disregarding the sources and inserting your personal opinion.

As to "pretty set on wanting to see no effective difference in these terms": sure, you haven't said that, at least not in those words, but that is what you have been arguing. Furthermore, your assertion that "seismic and non-seismic precursor methods" provide a "much cleaner ... demarcation" is nonsense. That's an idea you got from Uyeda, and I doubt you can identify any "seismic" precursors other than foreshocks.

Your notion of a povfork is also faulty. "Prediction vs. forecasting" becomes a povfork only if you merge them into a single subject ("predictionandforecasting"), and then have two articles with a differing views. But these differences are inherent in the topics: forecasting is considered legitimate, and prediction (to oversimplify) not. The anticipated problem is not in having different articles, but only where you try to merge these different topics into a single subject.

You should note that while you are free to revisit any topic, doing so quickly becomes tendentious, even disruptive, and is frowned upon. There is also failure to get the point, which is a form of obtuseness. I point these out in hope of making these discussion more useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your sources, and as previously commented (23:38, 7 Nov; were you paying attention?) 1) I estimated you skipped over about 50 contrary examples, and 2) your sources seem to be using these terms synonymously, without preference. Sources that do distinguish these terms describe Bakun & Lindh as a prediction, not a forecast. Do you dispute either of those comments? While we're here, do you have any point in arguing this other than trying to establish there is no difference between prediction and forecasting? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources that specifically discuss whether Bakun & Lindh should be considered a prediction, a forecast, or both. I would be surprised if any of your 50 sources specifically addressed the question. Bakun & Lindh was published long before the ICEF report, so they could not possibly have considered the ICEF definition when they decided on the title of their report. The ICEF did not decide whether B&L was a forecast or a prediction either, they called it an "estimate", as I showed you. So, I dispute all your comments.

I do agree that my opinion that B&L is a forecast according to ICEF's definition is "original research" but there is no prohibition on such remarks on talk pages. Although it is OR, I believe it is correct. I am not asking to include any such statement in the article. As I said before, I am not trying to say that there is no difference between prediction and forecasting. I am saying that the terms are used in widely variant ways in the literature, and also often as synonyms, so it is a poor basis for demarcation of Wiki Misplaced Pages article topics.

I feel that your remarks above about obtuseness, disruption and tendentious editing are personal attacks. Please stop. JerryRussell (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A different perspective

A while back, I started a sandbox on earthquake forecasting (User:Elriana/sandbox3). I ran into a couple of issues, however:

1) The definitions used to distinguish forecasting and prediction in the literature are often not as clear-cut as what we have chosen to follow in this article. From a geophysicist's perspective, most predictions are a subset of forecasts. As the multidimensional probability distribution collapses from a Gausian distribution toward a delta function, the point at which we declare it to be a prediction rather than a probabilistic forecast is entirely arbitrary. That makes distinguishing between the two in individual cases in the literature somewhat tricky. That also makes writing the forecasting article tricky for me, since I perceive earthquake predictions to be a subset of forecasts.

Note: Point (1) is not something you can simply talk me out of, since it is my perception of the mathematical reality. I'd've found a way to work/write around it if (2) and (3) hadn't also popped up. So please don't try to convince me that I've got the definitions wrong or that I'm not reading the literature correctly. The literature is not universally consistent in the terms or where it draws the lines between them, in part because scientists that deal with probability functions know that anyone outside of their specific sub-field will not be precise and/or correct in their use of the terms anyway. (That last sentence is a not-quite-exact quote from my college seismology professor.)

2) More importantly, from a new reader's perspective, this distinction is not something of which they have prior knowledge. If someone wants to know what scientists know about earthquakes that might happen in the future, they are just as likely to search for 'forecast' as 'prediction', and somehow we, the editors and writers, need to make it possible for them to find the specific information they are looking for. That means that either the two articles should be combined or the lead section of both should deal primarily with differentiating the two so that the reader can choose which article fits what they are seeking.

3) Seismic hazard is defined as 'the probability that an earthquake will occur in a given geographic area, within a given window of time, and with ground motion intensity exceeding a given threshold.' To me, that equates the assessment of seismic hazard with our definition of 'earthquake forecasting'. And, in fact, the methods I would include in the forecast article are already mentioned (though not fully described) in the Seismic hazard article. Also, the maps of peak acceleration expected over some period of years or decades (seismic hazard maps) are exactly what I would expect to find in any general article about earthquake prediction OR forecasting. Those maps are the closest thing we have to a scientific consensus on what size earthquake to expect where and when. They are an explicit summary of the global state of the science, and yet they are not only absent from this article, but they would be expressly excluded by our definition of 'prediction' and therefore should not be included. That is a fundamental problem, in my view, of fully separating predictions from forecasts.

All of these led to me shelving the issue of earthquake 'forecasts'. If anyone wants to play in the sandbox or suggest solutions to these issues, please do so. The mere fact that the distinction between forecasts and predictions keeps popping up on this talk page shows how entwined the two topics are in people's minds.Elriana (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am ignorant of delta functions, but other than that I pretty much agree with your point #1, and particularly that there is often no sharp, absolute demarcation between prediction and forecasting. I would also accept prediction as a more particular form of forecasting. But I don't believe that the existence of border-line cases (no matter how or where the border is drawn) need be an insurmountable problem. E.g., the particular case of Bakun and Lindh, which certainly strained the time constraints many people set for proper predictions, I call a prediction simply because that is what it is usually called.

Similarly for the title of this article. I think most people have no problem grasping what the topic is of "earthquake prediction". But earthquake forecasting? That calls up an image of a "forecaster" on the tube announcing that heavy snowpack in Kansas has increased tomorrow's chances of a "moderate" earthquake by one-tenth of a percent. That term lacks a familiar referent, it requires definition.

Which gets into your point #2. Again I agree: where two topics are similar each needs to distinguish (and hopefully consistently) how they differ. (Which is somewhat derivative of the more general scope statement that explains what is being covered, how deeply, from what perspective, etc.) Which this article currently does. That the article on earthquake forecasting doesn't exist (yet) is remedied by writing that article, not (as I think I said last summer) expanding this article, and then splitting them later.

Regarding your #3: I think seismic hazard (and seismic risk) are precisely the point of interest regarding earthquakes. I.e., earthquakes happen all the time; so what? It is the concern re the harm (damage, injury, loss of life) they cause that kindles the interest, which really comes down to "ground motion intensity forecasting and effects". But who googles that?

In an earlier version of this article I started by saying there is a problem in defining "earthquake". It seems that most people think earthquakes are discrete events (either an earthquake happens, or an earthquake does not happen), and I was trying to illustrate the problem that there is no sharp distinction between those two states. We could say we are interested only in damaging earthquakes. But that depends on ground conditions, engineering and construction of structures, and even operational aspects, all of which runs into distinctions even less clear-cut than we have been dealing with. So what I am saying is that the topic of potential interest here is quite broad, and to be able to cover it in a single article would make it quite shallow. To cover all of this and still get down to the interesting details takes multiple articles. E.g., to simply say that "many methods of predicting earthquakes have been proposed but none has been validated" is hardly interesting, and not at all instructive. It asserts, but lacks the explanatory details by which a reader might be intrigued, and even taught something. To drill down to the juicy parts we have to give up some breadth. Or at least farm it out somewhere else.

My vision of how this broad topic – perhaps more accurately, this area of interest – might be covered is to start with its most popular aspect, which is popularly and conventionally known as earthquake prediction, and without going too far beyond the generally recognized outlines of that topic. Earthquake forecasting can then cover the more general topic of anticipating ground motion intensity, etc., perhaps coordinating what is covered with the seismic hazard article. We do this not because any of these topics are sharply distinguished from similar (and even entwined) topics, but for convenience in presenting them. That the scope of this article is defined to expressly exclude seismic hazard maps is fine; they can go into forecasting. I don't see this as a "fundamental problem" in "fully separating predictions from forecasts", I see it as an aid in distinguishing what each article could cover.

An important distinction here is that prediction – though perhaps it would be better to say the methods by which prediction has been attempted – is generally deemed to have failed, to the point of being scientifically suspect, whereas forecasting of ground motions intensity (such as UCERF3 and shake-maps) is deemed valid. Separating each article on this basis allows each to be more consistent in the message presented, whereas mixing valid and invalid approaches would confuse the readers.

My bottom line: it is useful and convenient to have separate articles, and there is sufficient material for forecasting. Unfortunately I don't have time to research and write that article, but I wonder if we could get some kind of outline together to show how such an article might proceed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering all the above, I've taken the liberty of creating a stub of the proposed new article Earthquake forecasting. I've also provided the necessary cross-linking, including at Earthquake. JerryRussell (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And it looks like a good start. With any luck perhaps Elriana will have some suggestions. I'll see if I can dig out anything for you. Further discussion at Talk:Earthquake forecasting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Heraud

Thanks to Dr. Vidale's mention of Dr. Heraud, I had a new search term to enter into Google. And look what turned up! The Oregonian newspaper is considered a reliable mainstream source.

originally published on December 26, 2015 in The Oregonian newspaper:

After a decade of reporting the science of seismo-electromagnetics, I’m tired of waiting for a billion dollar federal agency with a huge conflict of interest to ’fess up. “Seismo-em” works. No thanks to the USGS, earthquakes are being forecast today.

....USGS authorities with absolutely no comprehension of solid-state physics continually parrot that earthquakes cannot be forecast. The media never questions USGS dogma. The Pentagon or Kremlin would kill for such deference.

The reality is the USGS missed the seismo-em boat. Worse, for nearly 40 years, it has tried to sink it. A powerful clique of seismologists dominates the agency’s hierarchy. This clique and its academic allies went far out of their way to destroy critical research in solid-state physics, solid- solution chemistry and radiophysics: research that made Heraud’s forecasts possible.

This clique didn’t stop at gagging dissenting USGS insiders. They poured hundreds of millions of tax dollars into traditional seismology grants while denying any funding to independent seismo-em research. Neither Freund nor QuakeFinder received a dime. Failing with its own ill- considered efforts in seismo-em, the USGS insisted no one else should try. If that weren’t enough, the clique colluded to damage the reputations of accomplished scientists at home and abroad. Even scientists with strong records of published peer-reviewed research were targeted as “wackos.”

Well, well, the plot thickens... JerryRussell (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. John Vidale engages the journalist here:

Oregon Live

Heraud, not Haraud. Yes, he has given a talk that was misunderstood by an amateur journalist, Alberto Enrique, which resulted in a regrettable unsolicited Opinion Piece in OregonLive. Even with the milder conclusions that the talk actually did have (which I've verified with Prof Heraud by email), I (and every mainstream scientist familiar with the work) would say the results are quite unlikely. When Prof Heraud writes down his results, we can all look at them more carefully. The piezo-electric radiation from crackling rocks of Friedmann Freund, foremost in Alberto's view of the earthquake prediction world, is another example of precursory results given minimal credence by mainstream scientists, despite Freund's claim that we are all disqualified because only he understands solid state physics (and he has no one else from the solid state physics field on his side to back him up). Earthquake prediction is a field rife with strident and disbelieved claims. Google Dutchsinse, Giampaolo Giuliani, and "Suspicious Observer" for entertainment.

I'm not sure whether you are aiming for consensus science or science fiction. Certainly the latter would have more current activity and be more entertaining wrt earthquake prediction. John (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the misspelling.

I'm aiming for WP:NPOV - " neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." While we're waiting for Heraud's latest publication, there seems to be plenty to read at Heraud's affiliate website Quakefinder and at our very own Misplaced Pages article, QuakeFinder. JerryRussell (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages norms. I'd consider most earthquake prediction work aside from simple ETAS modeling of seismicity and deformation transients akin to horoscopes and homeopathy - I think that perspective is accurate and held by most top experts. For a good unbiased POV, maybe peruse Susan Hough's latest book "Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction", it is current and accurate.John (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

EM prediction is a WP:FRINGE view, which must also be described accurately and in context of mainstream criticisms. This is typically done primarily in articles devoted to fringe topics. Fringe views are given very little attention in general articles.

However, your comparison to homeopathy and horoscopes is not fair. Astrologers do not publish in Physical Review, and homeopaths don't publish in The Lancet. Wiki Misplaced Pages also acknowledges a range of fringe, and EM precursors are either "Questionable Science" or "Alternative Formulations". JerryRussell (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit you're right that I was unfair, although homeopathic medicines are in most US grocery stores, and were touted in a notorious high-profile Nature article a decade or too ago. And there is a hope that short-term earthquake prediction will become possible some day, although it is most likely that it will not. "Operational earthquake forecasting" is currently pushing the limits of how high are the chances that can be estimated of earthquakes in the near term, but it remains basically predicting aftershocks of big events so far. One technical qualification is that we do predict earthquakes in the sense of "earthquake early warning", which predicts shaking on the basis of seeing where and when and how big an earthquake just happened, and predicting the shaking in places it has not yet reached. I'd vote for questionable science rather than alternative formulation. John (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What?? I thought Ueyda and Varotos claimed they are the only people predicting earthquakes that understand physics!

As an aside, it seems to me that early warning is not any kind of earthquake prediction, as the quake has already happened. That's more in the nature of "predicting" that if you drop a rock on your toe it might hurt.

But regarding our subject here: while Heraud may have a claim of interest, given the lack of any support so far, does it have any acceptance in mainstream seismology? How does his claim rate compared to, say, Freund or Pulinets? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have the impression that both Pulinets and Heraud largely rely on Freund for the theoretical basis of their work, and that all these authors (including Uyeda and Varotsos) regularly cite each others' papers. VAN and Heraud are both looking for ULF signals using underground sensors, but VAN uses dipoles to look for electric fields, while Heraud and QuakeFinder are using magnetometer coils. Pulinets (and also Heki) are using satellites to look for ionospheric precursors. Do I have that right? (Looking for information at this point, and also for areas of common agreement, as well as points where I might have to do more reading in hopes of understanding controversies.) JerryRussell (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear enough that though these authors might meet the minimal WP publication requirements, they are not "broadly supported by scholarship", such support as they claim being very limited and even incestuous. It appears their theories "depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", and therefore are fringe theories. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I said the same thing up above, EM prediction is a WP:FRINGE view. The only question is, how to apply the policy correctly in this case. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, there's plenty of space to describe fringe theories in accordance with the policies. As the last RFC said, the case has not been made that all fringe must be eradicated on sight. JerryRussell (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy, astrology etc.

In the past, we've used Flat Earth as an example of how Misplaced Pages treats fringe topics. Homeopathy may be a better example, because as John points out (and I didn't know), homeopaths have scored a few peer reviewed journal articles. Astrology is another interesting example.

An important difference from EQ prediction topics is that those three topics have all been officially designated as https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Pseudoscience, which is the 'lowest of the low' fringe category. But I'm pointing them out so that we can review how Wiki treats fringe topics. I don't know if one would call the Wiki approach "respectful" or not; but the ideas are fully developed, along with mainstream criticism.

And I'm not sure how you guys might go about getting EM-based EQ prediction put in that category; I would argue that it's certainly questionable, certainly fringe, but not pseudoscience. JerryRussell (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Another, perhaps more directly related, example is Cold fusion. This field is afflicted with generally similar problems to EM based EQ prediction: theoretical controversy, with experimental results near the noise threshold, and sociological issues of rejection by the mainstream. Wiki treats cold fusion as questionable science. The related general article is Fusion power, where cold fusion gets mentioned with two sentences reading Cold fusion: This is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature. Cold fusion is discredited and gained a reputation as pathological science. Another related article is Free energy suppression conspiracy theory. JerryRussell (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sensible discussion. The analogy with cold fusion is good. There were ways it conceivably could have been right. The great commercial potential led extensive investigation by physicists, who have mostly killed it, although I've seen it referred to now as a "zombie science", it is mostly dead pseudoscience. While I'd view EM precursors as pseudoscience, some in the earthquake field would not, so perhaps questionable is appropriate.John (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

John also made the comparison to the climate change debate above. Our Misplaced Pages articles about that issue are Global warming, Global warming controversy, and Climate change denial. The last article, of course, is the WP:FRINGE article about the small percentage of scientists, and the much larger number of politicians, who disagree with the scientific consensus. In my opinion, while Cold fusion is a good example of a fringe article, Climate change denial is a very bad example. It is, basically, one huge ad hominem against the dissenters, with little or no discussion of the actual reasons why some scientists, politicians and industrial lobbyists disagree. But the public can see that very real questions have been raised by the skeptics. And it hasn't worked for scientists to ignore and/or vilify their opponents. Look -- we just elected a President of the US who is a climate change denier!!

In my mind, the question about "climate change" is not whether anthropogenic climate change is real (it almost certainly is), but there are questions about exactly how bad the problem is, why the climate change models have corresponded so poorly with reality so far, and whether it's really necessary to bring the fossil fuel industry to a grinding halt in order to solve the problem. These are serious questions that deserve serious discussion.

Hopefully EQ prediction is not so politically charged as the climate change debate! We should be able to describe the various positions neutrally according to Wiki NPOV policies. JerryRussell (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a range of views about climate change, and many actually do deny that current climate change is due to man, which I think is a decent analogy. The arguments about what to do about it, as you note, have more valid points to be made on each side. Quake prediction is not so politicized, most scientists adopt the sensible and well-documented view that prediction is getting nowhere so far, with the few dissenters almost universally ignored. John (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Goodbye, no longer editing this topic Extended vacation

Consensus is not gone, an editor has only left the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JerryRussell has left the article, but his word remains in the talk page. Late edits in the article towards a new direction are welcome, but they are also accompanied by revising back to no consensus for methods like VAN. It is pointless to try to argue with JJ so it might be best to leave affected sections under non-pov and save time and energy.--2A02:587:440A:7E00:3164:2D2F:E070:2110 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the anonymous Athenian again, presumably "IP202" himself. (Right? For anyone new to this discussion I reiterate: "IP202" is a non-neutral partisan advocate, a single-purpose editor who is not here for the encyclopedia, but 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 any criticism is false.)

You tagged the lately revised Earthquake prediction#VAN SES section with "neutrality disputed". But where is the "relevant discussion" to support that action? What specific material do you claim to be non-neutral? You also allude to "consensus", but what kind of consensus is that? Where was it worked out? Do you have any honest, good-faith concerns, or are you just blowing smoke again? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

JJ's point of view on van is criticized all over this talk page, plus its history, from various editors, as well as non-logged-in users' point of view. There have been third opinions also and a point of balance was reached. Admins have shown the right way to put things in the article, using the "said" word for opinions. There is no point discussing again everything that has already been previously discussed. The section shown above has been reverted back to JJ's view, throwing away months of discussions. Tagging the section will keep the balance and save us all time and effort.--2A02:587:440A:7E00:2D99:6500:AE82:BC4C (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say that your "point of view on van is criticized all over this talk page". (You being the "non-logged-in" user, and a WP:SPA.) You have shown neither how the last six-months of haggling on this Talk page produced a consensus, nor how my last edit is "throwing away". As to "neutrality disputed": again, you specify nothing, you suggest nothing; you are just whining. To judge by your past edits you probably want "equal time" for VAN rejoinders, as if this is a debate. But this is not a debate. And you ignore the basic principle of WP:UNDUE weight, that we do not give minority views – especially those that have been "resoundingly debunked" – the same representation as mainstream view. All of this has been hashed out before; do we need to go over it again? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

JJ's revert to his point of view is unexplained and is bypassing all discussion here. The unsourced introductive sentence speaks for itself. His edit is a major change on the topic, which has been being discussed for a long time indeed, had found a balance, and now is once again problematic.--2A02:587:440A:7E00:4422:5BDB:4641:E4A2 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'm back from vacation, and hoping for better productivity. The intro "most touted and most criticized" is indeed unsourced, but it does seem to be an accurate reading of the literature. Also, I appreciate that JJ has provided some additional source references. My main concern about JJ's recent changes would be the deletion of the paragraph on "natural time". As I recall, we had reached a consensus (minus one) for including that material. JerryRussell (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jerry, welcome back. Huang is also missing, to balance the "most touted" today. There is also a recent award by the hand of the President of Greece to Varotsos. The President of the Greek Democracy officially mentions envy towards Varotsos (he had been the Minister of the Interior during the 2008 EQ). Although not scientific, it shows a warm relationship between the greek state and the scientist.--2A02:587:440A:7E00:5472:5042:4751:D84D (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You want to cite Huang (or the President of Greece??) that VAN is not "most touted"? Strictly speaking, perhaps you are right: we haven't heard much from "VAN" (i.e., Varotsos) today (that is, in recent years), but I challenge you to show that any other claimed method of earthquake prediction has been as aggressively pushed and defended as VAN. Then again, you do not understand that neutrality is not "equal time for all sides", however disproportionate their support or merit. We go by mainstream scientific consensus, which has rejected (and now mostly ignores) VAN.

The long tolerance of your disputed edits is no basis for retention, and your apparent conception of "balance" violates WP:WEIGHT.

Jerry: "natural time" is fringe, and lacks notability. Mention it at VAN method if you want (it being significant to VAN), but it warrants no mention in this article, which would amount to promotion of fringe. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

SES propagation physics and criteria that distinguisth them from noise have also been removed by JJ, leaving pov behind. There has also been a consensus by all minus 1 person that natural time is notable and JJ removes it as well. A missing section cannot be tagged and the answer might be to re-tag the whole article.

The President of Greece made this speece being active on his chair and posted it officially. One can guess he knows better than we do or estimate.--2A02:587:440A:7E00:31B5:8CD2:91D8:96BC (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The details, and particularly the blow-by-blow debate of why VAN is (contrary to mainstream science) the greatest thing since Archimedes, were removed because of a general feeling (possible consensus) that both sections covering VAN were too long, and gave VAN a prominence disproportionate to their actual notability. But never mind that, you would cite the President of Greece as to why leaving out "natural time" leaves this section seriously unbalanced? That ia absurd.

So five days in from the tagging, and despite the Anonymous Athenian's statement that the "unsourced introductive sentence speaks for itself" (except that it doesn't) the best construction we can put on AA's complaint seems to be that the exact words "most touted" and "most criticized" lack a cited direct quotation. But that is hardly a non-neutral pov problem, for (as Jerry has noted) that is an accurate characterization of the situation. And it is such a plain reading that I think WP:BLUE applies. Especially apropos: "Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material...." Which seems to be the case here: AA (aka IP202?) has a hyper-sensitivity to any lessening of what he feels is the proper adulation due VAN. To keep raising such trivial objections, where he can't even formulate a clear statement of the alleged problem, further demonstrates that he is WP:NOT here for the encyclopedia.

Lacking a clear showing of an actual neutrality issue in section tagged, I propose that this tag "is not fully supported" (point #6 under Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove). More particularly (re POV): "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of maintenance tags. But, I agree with AA (IP202?) that JJ's removal of the natural time material & the 2008 prediction, contradict the consensus that was established after painstaking discussion among many editors. It will make sense to seek some sort of resolution after the 1st, because it will be much easier to attract a wide cross section of editor participation.

Meanwhile, I've been busy. In the future, I want to have a higher ratio of successful article space edits to talk page edits. I would welcome your comments on my edits to Earthquake, Earthquake forecasting, VAN method, Seismo-electromagnetics, and QuakeFinder. JerryRussell (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that VAN's "natural time" is not notable, boosted only by a small gaggle of VAN followers. It is fringe, and does not belong here, regardless any supposed consensus. (The only place on WP it warrants mention is in VAN method.) Including it here is not "balance", it is unbalance. We have been over this before. If you all want to re-hash it let's open a section specifically on that. Only if it was, in fact, notable (dubious) would the question of its omission be material here. Its omission does not amount to "unbalance" (a "neutrality issue") unless and until it is shown to be notable.

Likewise for the alleged 2008 prediction: Varotsos has claimed quite a few predictive successes, and the only distinction of the 2008 "prediction" is the claim that it demonstrates the utility of "natural time". But that is a different section, not what was tagged. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the earlier discussion about notability & inclusion of the 'natural time' and the 2008 prediction material is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_6#Rfc:_Item_d:_removal_of_.22natural_time.22_material_as_being_fringe

from last July. The conclusion of that RfC was a little muddy, and I do acknowledge that JJ didn't join the consensus at that time. Nevertheless, the material has been in the article from then until now, and I'm disappointed to find that we're back in "litigation" about it. Not my idea of a productive use of time, but I guess this is life at Misplaced Pages. Talk about Labors of Sisyphus. JerryRussell (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The "conclusion" was very "muddy", but no where was there a conclusion (or consensus) that "natural time" must be included.

Jerry, if you want to rehash the alleged notability of "natural time analysis", or even that there was any kind of consensus about that, please start another thread. The ostensible topic of this discussion is AA's explanation of his tagging. (And if not, then he has failed to support his tagging.) The absence of "natural time" does not amount to a "serious unbalance" unless, and until, it is shown that "natural time" is not merely notable, but sufficiently notable that its absence actually matters.

Meanwhile, we still await a coherent explanation from this anonymous Athenian as to why he claims a neutrality issue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the tagging, I agree with AA that there is a neutrality issue. In my opinion, deletion of natural time and the 2008 prediction is the most serious aspect of the problem. VAN has worked diligently since the 1996 reviews, to improve their technology & reporting protocols. Failure to mention this information violates neutrality, which requires that all significant points of view should be included. I don't want to speak for AA, who may have other concerns as well. JerryRussell (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Jerry: if you think there is a neutralty issue then you should do the tagging, and provide the explanation the supports the tagging. As it is, the tagging was done by this "Anonymous Athenian" character (aka "IP202"), who failed to even point to what passage he questioned (the "introductive sentence") until he was prompted to do so, and has still failed to provide any explanation of how "most touted, and most criticized" is a neutrality issue. He picked up on the absence of "natural time" only after you mentioned it, but he seems unable to support that position on his own.

Now if you want to raise that issue, okay, do so, but do it on your own behalf, not as a lackey to some partisan SPA troll. I propose this: let's dump his tag, as being unsupported and not in good-faith, and then you add a tag, framed however you want, and with some kind of coherent explanation. And in a new section, please, so we can close this bit of muddlement and start with a clean slate. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would never have tagged the section on my own. And this is not because I don't see a neutrality issue, but it's because I don't like maintenance tags. I think they're distracting to readers, and they don't solve anything. So I deleted the tag, and I'm not going to add one of my own. But, see my proposed RfC below. JerryRussell (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A good start! Although, to avoid any future recriminations, we should be a little more deliberate in our process. Simply removing a tag without explaining why tends to devolve in tit-for-tat exchanges with no resolution. So we should state that the tag was removed on the basis of point #6 at Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove: the tagging editor failed to "support the placement of the tag", this view being the consensus developed in the discussion here. I would also add that, based on history of such tagging from this SPA, this tagging was not done in good faith.

If you concur, we can close this discussion (!!). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It is more than obvious that Jerry's argument for removing the tagging is not because there is no issue, so the case is not closed. In good faith, because Jerry has come back to the article, and mostly because an rfc is already starting, I am not retagging.

I wish you all a happy new year :) --2A02:587:440C:F100:DD51:5811:1954:5AA (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the new year wishes, Anonymous Athenian.

For the record, I do not agree that the tagging was done in bad faith. AA said that he did not want to explain the reasons for the tagging in any detail, in the interests of saving time. And I agree completely, that efficiency is a desirable objective here. So, the maintenance tag is gone on a technicality, the tagging editor failed to "support the placement of the tag". And, by the consensus of the three of us, which I appreciate.

I would also support hatting this entire section, as I don't think there's anything here that future RfC participants need to read. JerryRussell (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Where a pov/neutrality issue is claimed an explanation is required. There is no saving of time, no efficiency, in not explaining why something is tagged (or untagged), as evident from this discussion, where after a week and hundreds of words back-and-forth there is still no clear and concise statement of the specific issue. (May that be a lesson for future guidance: don't take short-cuts, and don't assume other people can read your mind.)

Okay, we are agreed this tagging episode was a misstart, and is being closed with no prejudice as to whether there is an issue, or not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Earthquake Prediction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note that the necessary templates haven't been attached, and recommended notifications haven't yet been carried out, so this is not yet an official RfC. I'm planning to formally open the RfC on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the subject of the RfC itself is open for discussion.

Questions:

1. Is the entire topic of this article, a fringe topic?

2. Shall this article's coverage of the VAN method include their 'Natural Time' concept, and its use in their alleged 2008 prediction of an earthquake in Greece?

3. Should the organization of this article's section on "electromagnetic anomalies" follow the general organization of the article on Seismo-electromagnetics, which in turn is based on the outline in Hayakawa's Earthquake Prediction with Radio Techniques? That is, including information on Freund and his disciples, TEC variations and other satellite observations, as well as VAN and Corralitos?

My comments: I think this is a fringe-topic article. This has important implications for application of fringe, NPOV and false balance policies. That is, according to WP:FRINGE: 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. WP:NPOV explains: 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.

Within this context, the VAN 2008 prediction claims and their 'natural time' method are clearly notable enough to merit a mention in this article. Also, the section on 'electromagnetic anomalies' should be an accurate summary of the seismo-electromagnetics article, and topics related to Freund and TEC are notable enough to merit some coverage. JerryRussell (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As to the subject of an RfC, without (yet) addressing any issues: I know you want to discuss all three topics, and perhaps that can be done. But not all at once. Even if you clearly distinguish these in separate sub-sections, asking for comments across multiple issues always muddles the discussion. So my strong advice is: pick one. Pick one, and then work on that.

And please keep in mind what I have said about this before: where something hinges on a scientific viewpoint, you need the views of scientists, not the views of wikipedians as to what they think the views of scientists might be. And given several months of previous comments it seems to me that you are not honestly requesting a comment on (say) whether we have a proper understanding of the scientific mainstream view on any of these matters, but have let your preferred point-of-view bias your phrasing of your questions. (Note: such bias might be avoided by more careful phrasing of the question.)

So I don't think you are ready yet to request a comment. At least not one that would not be dubious in what is asked, and (yet again) muddled in result. I suggest you pick one question, and then let's see if we can hone it into something that might have a useful result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to let a patient die by examining symptoms partially and not as a whole. That goes also in earthquake prediction. As long as methods are not combined we are not going to have earthquake prediction, this is my personal opinion. It is easy to kill a single method on its own for its results. Breaking apart the discussion here serves the same, I guess, but let's hear what Jerry has to say on this. P.S. The combination of methods and observations is missing from the article as a possible prediction method.--2A02:587:440C:F100:ADB9:8B20:36D8:F2DA (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come up with a wholistic approach that subsumes the individual questions under a single umbrella? Such as, for example:       

If the issues are relatively simple and well-defined, and the editors involved familiar with them and well-focused, then yes, Rfcs can address multiple aspects of a problem. But note: those conditions do not obtain here. There is little reason to expect any less of a muddle than we had for the last RfC, back in July.

As to your "wholistic" view, please review your own comment above (at #Teeing up an RfC?, 19:35, 18 Nov.): "But I can see it isn't working, so: yeah, let's focus." As I said then: we need pieces small enough to chew (i.e., focus on) so we don't choke. And one bite at a time. The discussion you would open up will be so stretched out and so tangled (as in "Threaded discussion") as to challenge any focus, and unlikely to be closed with any consensus. Robert McClenon's comment from last time (02:44, 31 July) seems even more apt now: "I can say that this RFC ] cannot possibly be closed with anything resembling any consensus. It isn't clear whether it is asking any questions or just engaging in a verbal exercise."

Which gets to the key problem here: you are not genuinely asking questions, nor requesting comment, you are propounding a position. You have already taken a position on each these issues ("YES", "YES", "YES", and "YES"), and now you want to argue them. At best this is premature, as (aside from "natural time", and some floundering around at Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 7#L.27Aquila EQ neutrality) these have not been fully discussed on the Talk page. It appears you are trying to use the RfC process as a substitute for serious discussion on some of your pet positions. That is a misuse of the process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello JJ: I disagree that I am not asking questions. The proposed RfC below asks five very specific questions. The first, "is this article a fringe-scope article", sets the tone for the other four, which are specific content questions. Also, there is nothing wrong with the author of an RfC taking specific positions, or voting in the RfC. Perhaps my formatting did not clearly distinguish between the questions, and my own answers?

All of the questions have been discussed before. Of course, the matter of the article scope (fringe or mainstream) and the topics of natural time and the 2008 prediction were discussed extensively in the last RfC. The close said:

Rfc: Item d: removal of "natural time" material as being fringe

Result:

• That practically the entire subject of the article is Fringe.
• The case was not made that policy requires all Fringe to be removed on sight.
• Discussion of "natural time" should be included on an "as needed" basis (only) where it is a part of the methodology of claimed predictions discussed in the article.

This seems clear enough to me, but you're relying on two loopholes to continue to press your case against the consensus finding. First, you argue that the issue of whether "the entire subject of the article is Fringe" was not propounded in the RfC, so it's off topic; secondly, if the 2008 prediction can be excluded as non-notable, then natural time is no longer needed.

"Is this a fringe-scope article" was also discussed here:

Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_7#Is_the_entire_subject_of_earthquake_prediction_fringe.3F

The 2008 prediction was discussed again here:

Talk:Earthquake_prediction#Re_.222008:_Greece_.28VAN.29.22_section

Freund, Heraud, Heki, Pulinets, L'Aquila etc. were raised at:

Talk:Earthquake_prediction#List_of_specific_topics

These matters were also discussed extensively with Dr. Vidale.

If you are concerned that the RfC is still not correctly framed and will not clearly resolve these issues, perhaps we could ask @Robert McClenon: for assistance? JerryRussell (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the formatting of the proposed RfC below, to identify the questions. JerryRussell (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, strictly speaking you have asked some questions. But then you go straight into advocating a position, and you are not really interested in contrary comments. And again, yes, there has been some discussion of these topics, but not with resolution, and usually not even any kind of substantive discussion.

To show that there has been discussion of these topics you say that they "were also discussed extensively with Dr. Vidale." But you did not provide links (for anyone that's interested, see above: #Ask a seismologist and #Dr. Heraud), and you seem to have totally ignored his comments. Allow me to quote a sample (18:36, 13 Nov.):

The last precursor that elicited a quick investigation by scientists was the claim of ionospheric precursors by Heki (a good scientist), which did not stand close scrutiny. There is an outstanding claim by Heraud of Peru of EM signals, but it has no documentation, and given history so far, minscule change of being correct, but we'll see. ...

The articles on VAN in the literature convince almost no one I know, and no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them, ...

His comments seem quite clear, and he is a definite, no doubts about it, authority on all this. Why do you reject his comments, and seek out non-authoritative comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

JJ, I am not disagreeing with Dr. Vidale's comments at all. This article is discussing fringe ideas which are not accepted by mainstream seismologists. My question is, how shall we report such matters at Misplaced Pages?

I have tried to pose the questions in a neutral fashion. And in the comment sections, where appropriate, I have stated my views. However, I am very interested in the comments. My experience so far at this article has been, that there has been consistent strong support for my views from many editors, while you have been pretty much alone in your interpretation of the policies. But if this RfC proves me wrong, I will be the first to admit it. JerryRussell (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, with respect to this question: Why do you... seek out non-authoritative comments? I would say that while Dr. Vidale is an authority on opinions of seismologists, our fellow Misplaced Pages editors are the experts on the application of Misplaced Pages policies when it comes to scientific disputes.

I'd also like to add that there seems to be an inter-disciplinary aspect to the dispute, as the renegades tend to be physicists or geophysicists rather than seismologists. Uyeda has gone so far as to dispute whether the field of EQ prediction is even a part of seismology, or whether it should be considered an independent field within geophysics. JerryRussell (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly dispute your statement that there has been "consistent strong support" for your views "from many editors", as that "strong support" you claim is principally from a single anonymous WP:SPA editor whose views you echo. I also reject this view you are pushing that I am opposing a "consensus finding" of the previous RfC: your "consensus" is just a wishful interpretation of the closing summary.

Your statement that you are "not disagreeing with Dr. Vidale's comments at all" is specious, as that is not what I asked. I asked: "Why do you reject his comments?" E.g., his authoritative statement on the state of mainstream seismological thought that "no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them", certainly explains why there is little (or even no) criticism of "natural time", and therefore ought to be considered in our assessment of the relative weight of sources. But probably your rejection arises from an anticipation that expert opinion does not support the view you like. Likewise regarding Freund, Pullinets, Heraud, and Heki: you do not like the opinions of mainstream seismology, so you reject them. That violates NPOV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I would also add that your comment that "there seems to be an inter-disciplinary aspect to the dispute" (which is wrong) is an example of how these discussions go off-track and into the tules. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

While IP202 and I have often had similar views about application of NPOV for VAN, I do believe that a fair reading of the archives here would show other support as well. But I can't deny that the conversation has been muddled. I hope that by means of this RfC process, we can get a clearer view of the cross section of editorial opinion.

Regarding the lack of published criticism of "natural time" or other EQ prediction theories, I don't know if Dr. Vidale's explanation is correct or not. It might very well be. But I can offer a solution. According to WP:PARITY, you or Dr. Vidale could write up a quick blog post somewhere, saying whatever you like in opposition to "Natural Time". It doesn't have to pass peer review. Then we can cite it here to give the mainstream view. JerryRussell (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You "don't know if Dr. Vidale's explanation is correct or not"?? That is ridiculous. Why should you not accept his explanation? On what basis do you doubt his Ph.D., his years of experience, and his undoubtable expertise? I think the answer is quite obvious: you just don't like it. (See also WP:JDLI.) If you really didn't know you could do as I have urged you, and Dr. Vidale suggested, that you ask another seismologist (any seismologist). But you won't do this. I think your efforts to avoid this explanation shows that you do know that it is correct. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Earthquake prediction (take two...not yet a live RfC...)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

<(Extended discussion copied & updated below)>

QUESTION: Is the scope of this article mainstream or fringe?

• Fringe: I believe this article is about a fringe topic fringe ideas and theories. The associated mainstream article is Earthquake, 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 controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is NOT appropriate that fringe views "receive more attention and space". But it is premature to debate the point here, as you are still formulating the question. Until that is settled I suggest that all of these questions be prefaced with "Draft", so other editors don't waste time on transient formulations of an imperfectly stated issue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

JJ, the statement that in articles about fringe ideas, it is appropriate that such views "receive more attention and space", is taken directly from the NPOV policy. And this entire section is clearly marked "not yet a live RfC".

But we've spent enough time discussing how to make the RfC more useful, and I suggest it's time to close this section and the previous one, and move on to the actual RfC, following appropriate notification procedures. Or, you need to make some concrete and specific suggestions about how the wording of the questions in the RfC could be made more clear.

Considering your remarks, perhaps there needs to be one more question. "QUESTION: in articles about fringe beliefs, does NPOV require that those fringe beliefs be accurately and fully presented, to the extent consistent with limitations of the article length? Or, in other words, does NPOV give fringe proponents a "right of rebuttal" in such articles?" JerryRussell (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to raise an issue of misrepresentation. Yes, the "receive more attention and space" bit is from WP:NPOV, particularly, from WP:WEIGHT. But you have omitted the preceding part of the sentence that states where that applies: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint ...." (Emphasis added.) (Which is to say: perhaps in VAN method, but not here.) It goes on to say that "such views may receive" more attention, but no where says, as you have claimed (below), that "it's necessary for NPOV to also represent the fringe "rebuttal"."

As to moving forward: you still have not formulated any question in a way that would result in useful comments. As for my own concrete and specific suggestion, I have already made it: pick one question, and let's work on that. I could come up with my own question for an RfC, but this RfC is yours, so you need to figure out what you really want. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

JJ, there is no misrepresentation, I also cited the complete quote. And my question is designed to address the issue, is this an article relating to a minority viewpoint? (That is: is it fringe scope?) If I'm wrong, other editors should agree with you, that this is a mainstream scope article. Robert McClenon doesn't agree, I don't agree, but maybe when we get more votes we'll be in a minority.

I have already rejected your advice to "pick one question", because we would spend two months on the RfC for that one question, and then we'd be looking at two months more for the next question, and so forth. There are no deadlines at Misplaced Pages, but on the other hand there's no reason to take that much time, when we can answer a number of relevant questions at once.

Robert McClenon had some specific advice regarding my initial formulation, which I've taken. He expressed no concerns that my RfC would produce useful results. Time to move forward? JerryRussell (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION on VAN Method: Shall 'Natural Time' and the 2008 EQ prediction be discussed in the article?

• 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. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION on Freund, Heraud and QuakeFinder: Shall these items be discussed in the article?

• Yes These authors have published extensively, and their work has been covered in the popular press. The QuakeFinder 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. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION on Heki, Pullinets and TEC Variations: Shall these be discussed in the article?

• Yes These authors have also published extensively, and their work has been covered in the popular press. Up until now, as far as I know, these materials have never been covered at Wiki at all, aside from my recent addition of a minimal summary at 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 Seismo-electromagnetics#TEC variations. I believe the information is notable enough in this context, that it should be mentioned here. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION on L'Aquila EQ prediction prosecution: shall this be discussed in the article?

• 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.JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Background Information In this RfC, we are requesting comments on the proper application of policies such as NPOV, False Balance and Fringe within the scope of this particular article. Specifically, according to WP:FRINGE: 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, J. Johnson (JJ)) 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 VAN method.

Other editors (specifically, user:JerryRussell 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 WP:DUE, which explains: 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.

This controversy has led to acrimonious debate about the article 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 VAN method.JerryRussell (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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 Seismo-electromagnetics and QuakeFinder should be summarized in this article, or whether the information on the2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions has been adequately summarized.

• Comment: With regards to JJ's comment on my bias in phrasing the question, I've tried to approach the problem by presenting both sides of the debate. But, I would invite suggestions for modifications that would make the framing more neutral. I am still hoping to officially open this RfC tomorrow.JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC) revised JerryRussell (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Still not an open RfC as of now. Not much point having an RfC if JJ is going to dispute and dismiss the outcome, bringing us back to where we started. Hoping for a 3rd opinion, perhaps from Robert McClenon. JerryRussell (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you want a third opinion on? What do we want an RFC about? The key to a successful RFC is to pose the question in a concise and neutral way. I don't really see the point to the first question of the RFC, which is whether earthquake prediction is fringe science, unless someone is stubbornly insisting that it is mainstream science. I think that we know that it is fringe science. As to the other prediction efforts, is there controversy as to whether they should be included within the scope of the admittedly fringe subject? I think that they should. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert, thanks very much for taking a look. I am hoping for a third opinion as to whether the RfC is framed in a clear, concise and neutral fashion, so that the result will be useful. Since you didn't get the point of the first question, obviously I need to do better.

We all agree here that EQ prediction is fringe, although there are disagreements about whether it's emerging science, or just a manifestation of confirmation bias driven perhaps by personal aggrandizement. The problem is that J. Johnson (JJ) is insisting that this article should be a general article which addresses this fringe topic from the general point of view. His position is developed extensively at this link: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_7#Is_the_entire_subject_of_earthquake_prediction_fringe.3F. Based on this general perspective, JJ has been opposed to including any of the other items mentioned, in any form, in this article. Following the RfC from last July, several editors collaborated to include the information about VAN's natural time method, and their 2008 prediction, in this article. JJ has just recently and unilaterally deleted the material, which has precipitated my return from retirement from this article, and this proposed RfC.

I would also be curious as to whether you think the RfC should include proposals for the specific text to be inserted in the article; and if so, where should this be placed within the RfC. Should it be in the introductory paragraphs, the individual questions, or should I include my proposed texts in my comments? JerryRussell (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I hope that User:J. Johnson doesn't try to exercise article ownership, but that has been a problem in the past. It seems to me that excluding specific theories for earthquake prediction makes little sense. Earthquake prediction is fringe science, and specific theories are specific fringe science. Relegating the specific fringe theories to separate articles or out of coverage doesn't follow. At this point, it sounds as though the real question is whether to include the specific theories. I don't see a general question, but maybe I have missed the whole point. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Second, the lengthy preamble beginning "In this RFC, we are ...." isn't needed at the beginning of the RFC, although it may be included at the beginning of the discussion section of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm having trouble describing why the first question is an issue. To quote directly from JJ's post of last Sept. 3:

Whether earthquakes might have any precursory or recurring characteristics is a proper and acceptable topic of scientific study. It is also notable, due to great societal interest (even by lay-persons), and having accumulated a large literature. To summarize plain and simple: earthquake prediction, as a subject or field of scientific study, is not fringe. And it is notable.

The view that prediction of earthquakes 1) has not been successfully demonstrated, and 2) may even be inherently impossible (repugnant as this seems to many WP editors, and even to a few scientists who claim they have predicted earthquakes), is not fringe either, because it is "broadly supported by scholarship in its field".

At risk of misinterpreting JJ's statement: I believe he's arguing that the true purpose of this article is to persuade the reader that EQ prediction has not been demonstrated, and is probably impossible. The various EQ prediction technologies and experiments and personalities discussed in the article, are used to illustrate that general theme. Their critics are given a prominent position (which is rightly so) and the EQ researchers' foibles and failings are highlighted. But, JJ argues consistently that because this is an article with general mainstream scope, therefore it is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE to cite any evidence or arguments which are seriously presented by EQ prediction researchers or practitioners today.

That's a fair summary of my view, although I would replace "persuade" with "show", and "foibles" is incorrect. But the characterization of WP:FALSEBALANCE" is wrong: fringe claims are not allowed rebuttals simply because they are "seriously presented". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

His argument seems like a tautology to me. It's like arguing that the article on cold fusion is a general mainstream article, because fusion is a proper subject of scientific study, and almost all physicists agree that cold fusion has not been demonstrated. Or that the article on flat earth is a general mainstream article, because the shape of the earth is a valid scientific question.

Perhaps it's because JJ's position is counterintuitive, that I have such a hard time explaining it. Or maybe JJ will enter the discussion here, and explain why he thinks I am misrepresenting him, or misunderstanding his position. If other editors think JJ is correct about this, I'm especially interested to find out about that.

I do agree that the real question is whether to include the specific theories. But if we can reach a mutual understanding about the basic principles involved in deciding about specific theories, and specific information, it would be very helpful to me. Not only here, but at other situations. JerryRussell (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Robert: my "ownership" is in maintaining a high-level of encyclopedic standards, so that this article does not revert to being an unorganized potpourri of various editors' "interesting" fringe views, nor a soapbox for propagandizing or burnishing of fringe views, or for challenging or rebutting mainstream views or orthodoxy. Pretty much all of the friction that has occurred here is about the inclusion or promotion of fringe views. See also Dr. Vidale's comment that "giving work any credence does a disservice to the wikipedia-reading public" (16:21, 17 Nov.).

There is an important point that is being missed here. While various claims of earthquake prediction methods, and even claims of actual prediction, are deemed "fringe" (or in the case of VAN, "pseudoscience"), the scientic study of such methods and claims is NOT fringe. Nor are all methods or bases of prediction deemed fringe. E.g., the Parkfield prediction of Bakun and Lindh was based on the thoroughly mainstream theory of "characteristic earthquakes", and made in a scientific manner. That the prediction failed does not make it, nor the theory, fringe.

Can animals sense impending earthquakes? That such views and claims are deemed fringe (because the overwhelming scientific view is they can not) is based on scientific study. "Fringe" applies to a particular view or claim held by a small minority, not to the description of such a view, nor to the study or determination of why such a view is fringe.

The perspective of this article is the scientific view of earthquake prediction. That current science pretty much views all proposed methods of earthquake prediction as invalid does not make the methods "fringe", only the contrarian claims of validity, etc. The scientific study of various methods, some of which are associated with fringe claims, or even of the claims themselves, is not itself fringe.

The "real question" here (generally) is not so much whether "to include the specific theories" (that depends on their notability), but more about the inclusion of specific "information" promoting the VAN claim of successful prediction, and the removal or muting of the criticism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello JJ, I believe I've hit pay dirt here, in terms of framing the question. If you are correct that this article is not a fringe scope topic, then all your other conclusions about false balance would follow from that. Correct application of Misplaced Pages NPOV principles is often counter-intuitive in practice. Perhaps other editors will agree with you? I've been wrong before, and it's possible that what I've seen as "strong support" is based on my own misinterpretations. Anyhow, let's try to get on with the RfC. I'm going to edit it above to reflect Robert's comments, and I would invite you also to propose changes or edits. Then let's close this section, and cleanly start a new section for the official RfC.

I agree that Bakun & Lindh and "characteristic EQ" are not fringe. This is why I've argued rather strenuously that their work is forecasting, not prediction. And I've argued for a clear demarcation between (fringe) predictions and (mainstream) long-term probabilistic forecasting -- so that we would have a clear demarcation between the fringe scope article and the non-fringe scope article. You've opposed that on the grounds that it would be "pro-fringe". But, in advocating the creation of the forecasting article, you wrote:

An important distinction here is that prediction – though perhaps it would be better to say the methods by which prediction has been attempted – is generally deemed to have failed, to the point of being scientifically suspect, whereas forecasting of ground motions intensity (such as UCERF3 and shake-maps) is deemed valid. Separating each article on this basis allows each to be more consistent in the message presented, whereas mixing valid and invalid approaches would confuse the readers.

So now we have that other article where we can put the "valid appproaches", and we have this article where fringe rules apply. This doesn't mean that criticisms of the methods are to be muted in any way, but it means that sufficient space is available to present a neutral presentation of the fringe viewpoint.

I disagree with your statement that this is about VAN. The discussion has often centered on VAN because of IP202's persistence. We haven't been approached by any Heki or Freund disciples, otherwise I suspect they would be pressing for more balanced representation as well. JerryRussell (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, while it seems you are making some progress, you are not quite on-board with a key point here: what is "fringe" is not topics, but ideas (such as claimsor beliefs) about those topics. Thus your recent revision to your first question, describing the topic here as "fringe topic", is nonsensical. It's like saying "coathangers" are fringe. What does that mean? That coathangers exist, or that coathangers are magical, are ideas or beliefs about coathangers, and might, or might not, be held by a majority of people, or only a small minority (the latter case being characterizable as "fringe").

Coathangers exist, and are not magical. To suggest that, because people have gone into other worlds after removing their coats from hangers or putting their coats on hangers, implies some magic associated with the hangers is magical thinking. Coat closets may be gateways to other worlds. The hangers are just in the closets. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I knew there was something odd about that front closet! :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(It has occurred to me that the problem here is due partly to always referring to "fringe", forgetting that WP:FRINGE is actually about fringe theories, and more broadly refers to a certain class of ideas. While "earthquake prediction" is an idea, it is not a theory, though it encompasses many theories, methods, and claims as to how it might be done.

You're also tangled up (again) on this idea that "fringe" and "non-fringe" can demarcate prediction and forecasting. You try to base that on my statement that prediction methods generally are deemed to have failed, whereas forecasting is deemed valid. (Or if you will, "not-failed".) But not only are the general concepts of prediction and foreasting not theories to which "fringe" can be applied, in the claims or beliefs to which "fringe" can potentially be applied such an application does not depend on being "failed" or "not-failed". E.g., the "Parkfield prediction" (whether you call it a prediction or a forecast) definitely failed, but it is not considered fringe. (As you just allowed.)

To judge by the current section headings of this page, and of the last two archives, I estimate that 60 to 75% are about VAN, or related to VAN. Considering that the non-VAN sections are generally much shorter, the total verbiage resulting (directly or indirectly) from VAN disputes is probably around 95% of the total. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JJ, I do appreciate your distinction between ideas, claims, beliefs, theories, and topics. I will revise my statement above accordingly. But, I don't understand how it helps us resolve the content questions.

Thinking about this distinction between articles about mainstream ideas vs. articles devoted to fringe ideas, perhaps the real difference is in the appropriate level of detail. But no matter what the level of detail, isn't it true that neutrality always requires all points of view to be represented in an unbiased fashion? That is, in the article Earthquake, it's sufficient to mention that many ideas and theories have been proposed for EQ prediction, but it's generally believed that none of them have panned out. It would be undue weight to go into any more detail than that. But here, in this article, most if not all the ideas and theories are only being recommended by a minority of scientists. (While I'm agreeing that Bakun & Lindh were not fringe -- if someone were to propose using characteristic EQ's to make deterministic predictions useful for civil defense purposes, that would be a fringe idea.) So here, we go into greater detail. But if we go into detail about why the mainstream rejects some particular theory, it's necessary for NPOV to also represent the fringe "rebuttal". JerryRussell (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Your distinction is entirely fallacious: this is NOT about "mainstream ideas vs. ... fringe ideas". The article is about earthquake prediction, and the inclusion of certain kinds of supposed precursors and certain predictions is based entirely on their NOTABILITY. "Fringe" applies to how much prominence is given to certain views held by a small minority of people. And no, it is not true that "neutrality always requires all points of view to be represented in an unbiased fashion", because you have left out two key caveats. More accurately, "neutrality" – that is, WP:NPOV – requires that all significant views be represented proportionately. (As you damn well know, as we have been over this several times before.) More particularly, WP:FRINGE states: "a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."

WP:PROFRINGE further states:

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.

Where the mainstream has mixed views of theory or view, we present "both sides". But where the mainstream rejects a theory or view by a large majority there effectively is no "other" side (any protestations of a very tiny minority notwithstanding). Explaining to the readers the basis of the mainstream view does not necessitate a fringe rebuttal. It's not a debate.

For anyone just arrived and not aware of the past history: these rebuttals Jerry wants relate to a tactic used last summer of first adding rebuttals and "balancing" material everywhere that VAN is criticized, and then, raising an issue about excessive length, proceeding to remove various criticism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But it's not true, in the cases we're discussing, that the only statements come from the inventors or promoters of the theory. That is a red herring. When this RfC goes live, we'll probably be going over all the sourcing again.

There is no one just arriving, because the RfC template hasn't been placed, and notice boards haven't been notified, and no one has been pinged. There's just you and me, JJ, and Robert McClenon because I asked him for a third opinion. So all this grandstanding of yours is not productive, JJ. You know I've heard it before and I don't think you're correctly reading applying the policies. The topic of this discussion is, "how can we appropriately state this RfC to get the most useful feedback from our fellow editors?" JerryRussell (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to slide this under your "close" because you seem intent on ignoring the advice Robert and I have given you on "how ... to get the most useful feedback". To wit, to "pose the pose the question in a concise and neutral way", and to focus on a single question. You have chosen to ignore that, so there is little reason to expect this RfC to be any more successful than any before, and for all the usual reasons. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Earthquake prediction

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #1: Is the scope of this article mainstream or fringe?

• Fringe: I believe this article is about fringe ideas and theories. The associated mainstream article is Earthquake, 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 controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. JerryRussell (talk) 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Question #2: In articles about fringe ideas, is there a "right of rebuttal" for the beliefs of proponents?

• 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. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - This question is not usefully worded. However, the article should cover both fringe theories and the mainstream criticism of those theories. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #3, on VAN method: Shall 'Natural Time' and the 2008 EQ prediction be discussed in the article?

• 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. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - They are notable fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #4, on Freund, Heraud and QuakeFinder: Shall these items be discussed in the article?

• Yes These authors have published extensively, and their work has been covered in the popular press. The QuakeFinder 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. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - They are notable fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #5,on Heki, Pullinets and TEC variations: Shall these be discussed in the article?

• 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 Seismo-electromagnetics#TEC variations. I believe the information is notable enough in this context, that it should be mentioned here. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - They are notable fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #6, on 2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions: shall this be discussed in the article?

• 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. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Background Information In this RfC, we are requesting comments on the proper application of policies such as NPOV, False Balance and Fringe within the scope of this particular article. Specifically, according to WP:FRINGE: 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, J. Johnson (JJ)) 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 VAN method.

Other editors (specifically, user:JerryRussell 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 WP:DUE, which explains: 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.

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 VAN method.

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 Seismo-electromagnetics and QuakeFinder should be summarized in this article, or whether the information on the2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions 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. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)