Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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.

---

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)

Jerry has today revised the ordering and numbering of his "questions". My "general comment", applicable to all of these "questions", and intended to be prefatory, is now under Question #5. Newcomers might want to check that before commenting in detail in the specific sections. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #1, 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)

• No, as they are not notable. While "they", if referring to VAN, might be notable albeit fringe, neither their "natural time analysis" method nor the alleged prediction of the 2008 EQ are notable. "Natural time" has been discussed previously at great length, but it has not been shown to be notable; it is effectively unknown in mainstream seismology. The 2008 EQ is quite non-notable (outside of Greece), and its inclusion here is solely because VAN claim it as a successful prediction based on "natural time". But the prediction itself is dubious, based on an ambiguous and non-peer-reviewed paper posted at the arXiv pre-print server. Jerry claims support from newspaper reports, but for scientific matters those are not reliable sources. Note the following from WP:PROFRINGE:

if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia 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."

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, they are notable. The minister of the government who had handled the 2008 warning, awarded Varotsos recently for his contribution, as the President of Greek Democracy. Natural time is currently being cited in AGU for signal analysis of earthquakes, in addition to all other publications. AA-2A02:587:4408:6C00:88E0:45C:58C1:3880 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The President of Greek democracy is hardly the arbiter of what is or is not scientifically notble. But more to the point: "AA", the "Anonymous Athenian", and evidently the same anonymous editor from Athens (Greece, and home of VAN) a.k.a "IP202", is a 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. He is a non-neutral, partisan promoter of VAN, whose comments here should be given no weight in this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC) }}

• Sure. Notability doesn't apply to an article's content, as per WP:NNC. Of course, as per WP:DUE, they don't deserve much discussion - mention "natural time" and link to the section of the [VAN method]], and state the established details of the alleged prediction. It's a couple of lines. --tronvillain (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is plenty of other material that is equal or greater weight and notability. Why should VAN be more special than the other material? If this is allowed, then all the other material (some of which was here before) should be restored. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So, what exactly is as noteworthy as the claimed earthquake prediction? Presumably it's already listed somewhere? But yeah, I'd probably be okay with restoring equally noteworthy items.--tronvillain (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The 1973 Blue Mountain Lake quake was considered by many to be the first successful earthquake prediction in the United States (even though the theory it was based on was later determined to be incorrect), and, coupled with the informal and quite happen-chance "Hollister prediction" a year later, were very notable for fostering a belief that EP "appears to be on the verge of practical reality". Whitcomb's "hypothesis test" of 1976, though scientifically a null-result, had some very notable sociological results, and gathered much attention in the popular press (at least in California, which is at least as populous as Greece, no?). A 1976 prediction in South Carolina was deemed successful, and why should we suppress it? Similarly for claims of successful predictions in 1978 (which, unlike the VAN "predictions", were actually announced prior to the event). Brady's 1981 predictions were VERY notable, as, even though the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council announced it was "unconvinced of the[ir] scientific validity", it seemed that there was great scientific weight behind it. They [the predictions] failed, and economic loss due to reduction of tourism was estimated at one hundred million dollars. (If I recall correctly, this prompted the USGS to review how predictions are handled.) In contrast, the 2008 Patras/Pirgos earthquake is significant here only in that VAN claim this as validation of their "natural time analysis". Whether they even made a prediction is doubted, and there is no showing (other than their claim) that "natural time analysis" had anything to do with it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. As argued so far, the notability argument seem to me out of context. JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you support your opinion with some reliable sources? Can you show that "natural time" has any scientific significance, except as ballyhooed by its proponents? Any why it should be given more weight than other material? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Question. Jerry argued that "natural time" and the alleged 2008 prediction be included because (in adition to being "essential to an understanding of the viewpoint of the VAN group") they meet the "notability criteria", while Robert opined (without any support) that they are notable fringe science, and WP:SPA editor "AA" claims notability on the authority of the President of the Greek Democracy. But tronvillain says notability doesn't apply, and Jon says it seems "out of context". So does notability apply here, or not? (Are we possibly confusing it with WP:WEIGHT?) If it does not apply, then Jerry's and Robert's statements of notability are, well, inapplicable, and any requirement to "discuss" these items in the article needs a different basis. So: is notability applicable here, or not? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #2, 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) A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. Currently, I suggest that Freund and Heraud are attracting at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. Including this material would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN in the existing article. JerryRussell (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - They are notable fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Freund and Heraud (and also Pulinets and Heki, below) are definitely fringe, and NOT notable. Freund's and Pulinets' theories, despite extensive publication, are not accepted by mainstream scientists. For those of us not familiar with the seismological literature we have had the benefit of an expert (see previous discussion) who has explained why. He concluded (05:43, 14 Nov):

There is literally no convincing evidence from the Freund/Pulinets and other EM people. If EM precursors are treated with dignity in Wikipedia, that would run contrary to the top earthquake experts' opinions in every country except perhaps Greece.

Jerry has chosen to ignore this, apparently on no other basis than he just doesn't like it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but Briefly, the article should mention that it is a debunked fringe theory and move on. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, they are notable. Not convincing for their theories yet, is another thing. For sure they are part of this article. AA-2A02:587:4408:6C00:88E0:45C:58C1:3880 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, briefly, debunked. There is no other way to combat public ignorance. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, briefly, debunked, as noted by Staszek Lem and MrOllie JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestions? I could see a briefest of mentions (not a "discussion", unless in a footnote), to the sole point that these folks are "debunked". But a little problem: while Hough can be cited that VAN are debunked, I know of no RS published statement that precise for Freund and these others. If any one has any suggestions as to how they should be mentioned, please enlighten us. I would suggest that in any event the Seismo-electromagnetics article is the more appropriate place, as getting into this level of detail in this article would (on the basis of WEIGHT) require similar details at all the other sub-topics. Which would bring us back to the complaint that the article is too long. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #3,on Heki, Pulinets 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) A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. Currently, I suggest that Heki and Pulinets are attracting at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. Including this material would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN in the existing article. JerryRussell (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - They are notable fringe science. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, as (again) not notable, and for the same reasons as just cited in Question #2. Note that coverage in the popular press is not the basis for judging acceptance by mainstream scientists. In particular, that is not the basis for judging the "proportion of prominence" of a viewpoint within the applicable field. That VAN is given too much prominence relative to mainstream thinking is NOT mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence relative to VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO you are confusing " acceptance by mainstream scientists" with our notability guidelines. If something is widely disussed in popular press, chances are many will come to wikipedia for answers. And if mainstream says "it is bullshit", wikipedia must say so, not just stay mum. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right, in that I'm getting a bit fuzzy on this (as we all are), and I agree that we should at least mention subjects that readers may be looking for. The long-running issue (not mentioned in the RfC) is whether such views warrant a "fair" representation as potential means of prediction. Or (more likely) just b.s. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, if this was commented on by mainstream science. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"If", yes. I don't believe Heki has gotten to the point of being even mentioned., Pulinets is largely rejected by mainstream science, though he has an extensive following, and I believe "TEC" is no longer a serious contender. But the real issue (scientifically) with all of these methods is they are all about possible earthquake precursors, but none of them have panned out. Nor have any of them (to my knowledge) actually made or claimed any successful predictions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, if it has been significantly commented on, even in prominent popular literature, mainstream or not. BUT citations required, possibly plus appropriate evaluations of fringe status etc. JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #4, 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) A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. The l'Aquila case, and the related prediction by Giuliani, have attracted at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. Including this material would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN in the existing article. JerryRussell (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - The case has been covered by reliable news media. We shouldn't ignore it just because the case may have been stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Regarding Robert's comment: There are MANY (and that is woefully underemphasized) "important implications" of successful, or unsuccessful, prediction of earthquakes. It is simply unfeasible to even attempt covering them all, and this particular case of the legal entanglements involved in prediction are quite tangential to the main topic. As it is, the L'Aquilla prosecutions are discussed, to what I believe is suitable extent. If anyone believes that this case so notable, and so important, that it requires further discussion I would suggest writing it up in its own article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, there was even a multi-national publication after, and because of, the L'Aquila events. Notable for social implications.-AA-85.74.39.251 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What part of Already IS discussed in the article do you not understand? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What part of this answer calls for this personal attack? "IS discussed" does not automatically mean it should stay there forever (hence Q#4 I guess). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How about: where someone needs to get their attention refocused on the obvious? As to not staying there forever, no one has said anything of the sort, so how is that relevant to the discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, a notable development directly related to the subject with significant implications. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How are the L'Aqulla prosecutions a "notable development" in the science of earthquake prediction? The prosecutions relate to this subject only as a consequence of getting it wrong. They come under the heading "Evaluating earthquake predictions" > legal liability (one of several subheads) > an instance of. Rather incidental to the main topic. And as such it is already covered. As to expanding it (though Jerry has not made any suggestions), the argument for that is "to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN". Is that a valid basis? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes in terms of the points and reservations already iscussed above. JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

QUESTION #5: 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)

• Bad question. I agree with Robert that this question is not useful, but for different reasons. However, it is not fringe, and for the same reason it is not mainstream: neither is applicable, as earthquake prediction (EP) itself is not a theory, view or belief in the sense of WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Fringe theories (a.k.a. WP:FRINGE). Experts – or for that matter, clowns, quacks, and the man-in-the-street – may have views about EP, such as whether it is possible, or not possible, or even useful, but EP itself is a topic, not a theory.

That the article touches an a few theories or beliefs that are deemed "fringe" – that is, contrary to well-establshed mainstream views – is immaterial. As currently treated in this article, earthquake prediction is the scientific study of matters pertaining to EP. Note that is by scientific study that the mainstream views are determined and fringe views rejected, and the study of something should not be confounded with the things studied.

• General comment. All of these questions are poorly formulated, and presented so one-sidedly, without any mention of the background or relevant issues, that no one just passing by here can hope to have any basis for an informed opinion on any of these. Note also that (shades of the Red Queen) Jerry is asking for votes first, and discussion afterward.

I also note that Jerry is not genuinely requesting comments here. He has already made up his mind, and is seeking direct affirmation of a position without any serious or informed discussion.

I will comment on the other "questions" when I have time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad question I tend to agree with J. Johnson above that it seems to me that the individual starting this RfC might be just seeking affirmation of his own personal beliefs, which isn't really what RfC's are supposed to be used for. I also agree that it is at best dubious to describe earthquake prediction as fringe or not fringe. Certain methods of earthquake prediction may be fringe or not fringe, but as the lede of the article currently states, there have been no practical methods yet discovered. But the broad concept of earthquake prediction is no more or less fringey than the broad concept of weather prediction. In both cases, there are methods which qualify as fringey, but in neither case is it really useful to attempt to paint all methods, including some which don't exist yet, with this broad of a brush. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification needed - what edit conflict is to be resolved by this question?. Research of prediction of anything is legit unless it is proven it is impossible. At the same time, some and even all methods of this research may be debunked. So, again, what is the problem? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I suspect Jerry had in mind some of the "balancing" material previously introduced, including the rebuttals allude to in Question #5. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fringe - currently, given that no method or theory of earthquake prediction appears to actually work. If someone manages a degree of reliable prediction, it won't be fringe anymore. Still, as per WP:FRINGE, This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.. --tronvillain (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note: the study of some "thing" is not the same as the "thing" it self. The subject of earthquake prediction is – in part! – about certain theories, methods, and views, some of which are fringe. It is also about actual predictions (failed or successful), and about the evaluation of such predictions, none of which is fringe. Note also that a method or theory is NOT fringe simply because it fails. "Fringe" is where a small group argues that something is successful (alternately, even unsuccessful) contrary to majority opinion. The real issue here is the treatment of fringe topics within the article, but the extremely poor formulation of the question misses that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Question #6: 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)

• No. Again I agree with Robert that the question is "not usefully worded" (i.e,, poorly formulated). But I disagree that the article should cover fringe theories, and certainly not all of them. Note Jimbo's comment (paraphrased) at WP:WEIGHT:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia ....

The criterion for including any theory, whether endorsed by nearly all, or just an extremely small minority, is notability. WP:NPOV requires that coverage given to a fringe view is proportionate, without giving undue weight or promotion. Jerry's assertion that "the beliefs of the proponents must be accurately and completely represented" (emphasis added), is misrepresented, as the sentence at WP:WEIGHT he relies on only says may receive more attention and space, and only in "articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint".

Jerry's assertion that this "includes the presentation of their replies to mainstream criticisms" – a "right of rebuttal" – is totally unsupported. He wants to allow proponents of fringe views – specifically, VAN – a point-by-point rebuttal of all criticism. Such proponents claim that such "balance" is needed, but that is actually WP:FALSEBALANCE, and violates NPOV in giving an impression that VAN has disproven all such criticism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• No - If we are discussing matters which are sufficiently notable and/or have sufficient content for separate articles, then the subjects should be discussed at greatest length in those articles, possibly including independent academic responses and potential responses to those responses. If they are not sufficiently notable or lack sufficient content for separate articles, then there is no reason to believe that WP:WEIGHT would grant them much attention here, the main article on the broad topic. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• No - Fringe proponents have no special right to the last word. When dealing with a fringe belief, the article should (briefly) lay out what that belief is (and if necessary some brief history) and then explain the level of acceptance by the mainstream. Additional 'He said, She said' doesn't serve the reader. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Bad question Our core content policies assign no "rights" to authors whatsoever. However I do understand the intention. And the answer is still Mu. Per our content guidelines, any bickering of this kind may be covered in wikipedia only if and to the extent of how it was covered in reliable sources. Clearly we cannot fill wikipedia with "rebuttals" of kind "They <sceptics> are wrong because they ignored the fact that Mars was in Virgo the day it happened", even if they sound full scientificized. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• No - What? No. See WP:FRINGE. Along other things, "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."--tronvillain (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well sorta-kinda "Right" puts it too strongly by far. There are plenty of topics of fruitloopery that we could never consider any defence of. But the mentioning of views of those that support it might be notable in suitable contexts and then the question is not their rights, but the encyclopaedicity of the items, their validity, context, and value to the reader etc. Consider as an analogy homeopathy. Some argue that it is homologous with vaccination, and because the reader might well wonder why this is invalid, to mention it makes sense, if only to point out why it is exactly opposite to homeopathy, being eg dosage dependent, typically at microgramme levels of active component. And the logical errors that arise as soon as one accepts the idea that succussion and few-or-no molecules in the product are important. They need to be raised if only to rout them JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 1 February 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)

If, as the above comment seems to indicate, the VAN method is the primary topic of discussion of this RfC, then, maybe, it would be in the best interests of all involved to close this RfC and start a separate one regarding how much detail to give to that theory in this article. Personally, I would myself maybe consider having the main body of this article be about the development of the concept of earthquake prediction and the fact that at present no workable model has yet apparently been produced for the same. Specific questionable methods relating to specific earlier predictions may be discussed in the material regarding the history of the concept, and/or discussed at limited length in a section on theories which have not received much acceptance. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @John Carter:, I think that this: ...consider having the main body of this article be about the development of the concept of earthquake prediction and the fact that at present no workable model has yet apparently been produced for the same. is an absolutely wonderful suggestion. It would parallel the structure of the Flat Earth article, which is also a history of ancient flat earth cosmology, and its gradual replacement by spherical earth models. At the end, there is a brief discussion of modern flat earth societies, with a link.

If we adopt a structure like that here, the first advantage is that it would make it clear that this is a mainstream scope article, as JJ says it should be. As such, in general there would be less weight given to discussions of particular failed methods, failed predictions, and rumors of predictions, and more discussion of why the quest has been largely abandoned. In reading Geller and other mainstream seismologists, I see an argument that EQ prediction may be impossible, but also an argument that even if it is possible in some theoretical sense, it is not cost effective, which makes it impossible in any practical sense.

Even if the article is re-written in that way, there will still be a debate about whether to mention VAN's 'natural time', their 2008 prediction, Freund, Pulinets, and l'Aquila. So I hope we can settle this now.

As per JJ's criticism of me below, I agree that I haven't done an adequate job of explaining why it's important to settle the questions about QuakeFinder, TEC and l'Aquila now, together with the question about VAN method. I will discuss this below, where JJ's discussion raised the issue.

I'm hoping to avoid the confusion of closing and re-starting the RfC. But I'm discouraged about the low participation. Many editors who have contributed to earlier discussions, have been silent.

As an alternative to closing the entire RfC, I wonder if you think it would make sense to close questions #5 and #6? For whatever reason, I see a snowball consensus that they are not well-formed or necessary questions. JerryRussell (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

About Questions #1 thru #4: The organization of this RfC, and how to get information

• comment JJ complains: Jerry is asking for votes first, and discussion afterward. The organization of this RfC follows several that I've seen lately, in that the !voting section is separated from the discussion section. This, I believe, is for the convenience of the closing editor and other editors interested in quickly reviewing the results of the RfC. There are sometimes specific word count limits on the !vote section, though I expect that won't be necessary here. Of course any participant is welcome to discuss in the threaded discussion session, either before or after voting. Also, votes can change based on new insights gained during discussion: there is no penalty for voting early, and then changing the vote later.

JJ also complains that there is a lack of "any mention of the background or relevant issues". Actually, each of questions #3 through #6 is provided with a link, right in the question headline, to an article or article section which provides sourced content on each topic. If there are questions after reading the linked information, please ask! JerryRussell (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

By "background or relevant issues" I mean in regards of previous discussions and the issues in this article that bear upon the questions. Simply waving your hand at (say to cite as an example) 2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions says absolutely nothing about the professional hazards of making earthquake predictions. We are not mind-readers, nor should we have to drag out of you what you really mean, and why, as if this were a game of "Twenty Questions". If you cannot present a case for your views the rest of us are not required to build it for you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

JJ, I would suggest that perhaps you are making things too complicated. By reviewing the provided links, any editor should be able to see that the information is notable, well sourced, and highly relevant to the topic. (Or if they think not, I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would change their mind.)

If anyone wants to go deeper into previous discussions, there is obviously a wall of text available for reading in the archives of this talk page. If I make a list of links, I would risk leaving out something that someone might feel is important.

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

I will amend my remarks above, to include this perspective for new visitors to the page. JerryRussell (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said just earlier, that VAN has UNDUE prominence relative to mainstream opinion of VAN is NOT mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence. And the attention these "theories" (VAN doesn't really have a theory) are getting is in the popular press, not in the mainstream journals.

But it would increase the chances of some kind of resolution if this discussion should stay focused on your failure to mention the background or relevant issues of your questions. Perhaps what is complicated for you is identifying previous discussion of these matters. But leaving that out leaves anyone who might want to respond in an uninformed stated; thus it is incumbent on you to provide such background. E.g., simply linking to, say, 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, does NOT show what you claim, only that there is an article on that topic. You have not shown how the existence of an article on the L'Aquilla quake requires that existing mention in this article of the prosecutions be given greater prominence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that any undue prominence of VAN related to mainstream opinion of VAN is not mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence. But I don't see any shortage of text related to mainstream opinion of VAN in the article.

The problem as I see it, is the undue weight given to VAN relative to other, more or less equally notable, fringe theories. This is what would be mitigated by giving more weight to the other fringe theories, in this article which I say is largely related to fringe theories. JerryRussell (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, in my previous comment here I said it would increase the chances of some kind of resolution if this discussion should stay focused on the "background and relevant issues" issue. (That, and the organization issue, being what you opened this section with.) That was meant as a polite but STRONG SUGGESTION.

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

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

How did I "shift the topic"? I take the topic of this particular sub-thread to be properly (and hopefully), as you opened it, regarding my criticism of (a) "organization" and (b) "information". Regarding the latter, you asserted that you provided links; I cited your linkage to the L'Aquila article as an example of how such a link, alone, is unhelpful. But possibly you do not understand the meaning of (or simply overlooked?) "say"? Very well, I will amend that to make it clearer it was cited as an example of inadequately specified information. And perhaps you will keep in mind that talking about a process, such as provision of information, should not confused with actual argumentation of such information. As to this sub-sub-issue of due weight and VAN prominence, that is what you have raised. Or do you dispute that?

As to raising an issue in one thread, and expecting an answer elsewhere: isn't that what you are doing? In a general sense, that comes back to the "organization" issue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As I am not a mind-reader either, I chose to work on the example you provided, which I then generalized to the other topics. I took your complaint as a license to add background information to my original statements, regarding application of due weight. Then I explained what I did, here. Yes, each step in the discussion leads to some drift. It doesn't bother me much, and it's happened routinely in every online forum I've ever seen. If it bothers you, you need to be more scrupulous in setting an example, and avoid topic drift in your own remarks.

Yes, in the organization of this RfC, I ask for discussion to continue separate from voting. This is not unusual for recent RfC's, but it is a departure from ordinary conversational practice. Accordingly, I felt I should explain the organization in the prefatory comments. Does this make sense? JerryRussell (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Again: How did I "shift the topic"? You have not answered that. And I submit that (e.g.) you introduced the issue of VAN prominence into this discussion, without any showing of how it is relevant here. For you to say that I should be "more scrupulous" in avoiding topic drift is just a cheap rhetorical ploy to divert attention from your own driftage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As to your view that fringe theories should given weight that is proportionate to other fringe theories: that is fanciful, and entirely novel. Lacking any showing of plain text in NPOV that requires that, this particular line of argumentation can be outright rejected. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So your theory is that you (as owner of the article?) may arbitrarily include or omit information on fringe theories based purely on their own whim, without any regard to their prominence in the sources, or their relevance to the topic? JerryRussell (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your last comment is nonsensical. You are trying to impute to me this "theory" of arbitrarily including or omiting information based on personal whim (etc.), with an insinuation that I actually do this. Well, well, isn't this exactly the kind of topic shifting you just inveighed against? And likewise for your frankly pathetic attempt to raise an issue of ownership? While I have always tried to answer all of your questions, if these kinds of arguments are the best you can do then it would seem pointless to waste any more time on this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So you agree, then, that the weight given to one fringe theory should be judged by its predominance in the sources, relative to other fringe theories? JerryRussell (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

More drfitage! Perhaps you meant to add your comment somewhere else? At any rate, hardly related to "The organization of this RfC", so perhaps best to not respond lest I be accused of egging you on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it is best not to respond. JerryRussell (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Question #1: VAN method, 'Natural Time' and the 2008 EQ prediction

Reply to JJ's !vote: In reality, there is abundant mainstream discussion about these topics, both in the Greek popular press and in the international scientific press. While I believe the article sections at the provided links should be sufficient to demonstrate this fact, anyone looking for additional information about 'natural time' is invited to peruse the 138 links provided by the anonymous editor 'IP202' in this talk section: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_6#Item_d:_removal_of_.22natural_time.22_material_as_being_fringe. I checked a small random sample, and found them to be as IP202 claimed: scientific peer reviewed articles by a wide variety of research groups other than VAN, who reference and discuss VAN's 'natural time' thesis and put it to work in their own endeavors.

The 2008 quake prediction has also been discussed in the scientific literature, and I am not relying on the popular press for evaluation of the prediction, but only for evidence of its notability. The citations are in the VAN method article.

In other words, with respect to the WP:PROFRINGE criteria cited by JJ: the notability of this fringe theory may indeed be verified by independent mainstream sources, and accordingly I submit that the "Wikipedia is not" policies should not exclude this content.

The only true statement in JJ's !vote is that the 2008 prediction has not been widely reported in the popular press outside of Greece. As far as I know, this is correct. But is international press coverage a requirement for mention of an item at Wikipedia? What percentage of content would disappear, if this requirement was enforced across the board? JerryRussell (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

About IP202, the Anonymous Athenian JJ has tagged AA/IP202's !vote here as SPA, and said that his view should be discounted. WP:SPA is an essay, not policy. It says that The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag. In this case, AA has made two very good points which should be considered by the closer. One is that VAN has recently received a message of congratulation from the president of the Greek republic; the other is that the Natural Time method was favorably reviewed, and deployed, in a recent paper by Rundle, Turcotte et al. Rundle and Turcotte are American seismologists who are mentioned prominently in Susan Hough's book. While JJ is correct that VAN's scientific standing cannot be judged by the Greek governmental endorsement, nevertheless this does lend weight that should be considered in evaluating WP:DUE. JerryRussell (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The "essay-is-not-a-policy" argument is usually invoked where one is cross-wise to the general sentiments expressed in "Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines".

If this is the case, then why is there any difference between essays and policies? Answer: essays are often controversial. In this case, the primary purpose of the SPA essay (to the extent it's based on policy) is to prevent !votes from being overwhelmed by SPA's recruited by off-site campaigns. Also, I would agree that any bias on the part of SPA's should be duly noted by the closer. However, the essay also makes the point (which I've quoted) that good points raised by SPA's, and good sources provided by SPA's, cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that they are provided by SPA's. JerryRussell (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the closer should consider how much weight is lent by the Greek President's message: some what less than zero, as it shows the evident lack of weightier sources. And: claiming (implicitly) that Hough's "mentioned prominently" validates Rundle and Turcotte's "favorable review" of "natural time" is rather round-about. If you are going to invoke Dr. Hough you really shouldn't tippy-toe around her authoritative "most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked." Which is pretty much in line with what Dr. Vidale told us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Political sources vs. scientific sources are weighed on different scales. The Greek president's remarks certainly contribute to the general prominence of the topic, although scientific sources are obviously preferred for determining the scientific credibility. The Greek president's remarks are here: http://www.presidency.gr/?p=12041

As to the alleged lack of "weightier" scientific sources, the Rundle & Turcotte reference is just another one in a rather long list. It does stand out as a strong endorsement by two American seismologists.

Hough also mentioned that VAN are now analyzing EQ patterns as well as SES signals. And as we discussed below, her quote (to be exact) was as a prediction method, most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked. She goes on to discuss whether there is any statistical validity for forecasting, which she seems to leave as an unresolved question.

You also regularly misquote the ICEF report on VAN, which concluded that subsequent testing has failed to validate the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by the authors, again leaving open the possibility that some less optimistic capability might exist. JerryRussell (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, boy down another gopher hole!

Unless you can show that my quotation is not in accord with the original, you are just making a baseless accusation, which looks like a personal attack. I suggest you strike it. Your distinction, that the ICEF assessment applies only to optimistic capabilities, but allows less optimistic claims, is quite fanciful (and frankly, I am impressed your imaginative reach), but derives from your interpretation of the source, not the source itself. Likewise with your fine-parsing of Hough's "as a prediction method": are you suggesting that VAN is debunked only as a prediction method, but not as a forecasting method? That shows a fundamental misread of her paragraph – your misread.

While we are here, I will point out to anyone else that gets this far that your "long list" is probably the one IP202 supplied in the last RfC (here), and that the reason Rundle & Turcotte stood out is because about half of those references were by the proponents themselves, and the rest are not very notable. And at some point I did show that "natural time analysis" has virtually zero mention in the mainstream seismological journals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

JJ, I suggest that your accusation that I was trying to "tippy-toe around" to somehow avoid Hough's statement about VAN, was where the topic drift began. However, since you raised the issue, I feel it was appropriate to respond here, and I will respond again.

If the qualification optimistic in the ICEF report is meaningless, then why did they include it? Similarly, if Hough meant to say that VAN has been resoundingly debunked as a forecasting method, why didn't she say so? Why did she include the qualifying phrase as a prediction method? And if you were not meaning to mislead anyone by omitting these qualifications that appeared in the sources, would you have any objection to including them in our article? JerryRussell (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

The essay gives the criteria for notability vs prominence as follows:

notability: substantial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Prominence: depth of coverage of the idea or fact in reliable sources, principally secondary ones.

Very similar! But, notability requires sources independent of the subject, while prominence can be judged based on secondary sources in general, even if they're not fully independent. Notability is a binary judgment, while prominence is judged on a continuum.

Discussion on Question #2: Freund, Heraud and Quakefinder

Reply to JJ It is true that the QuakeFinder article followed a typical trajectory, similar to many other Wikipedia fringe articles. It was originally written by an SPA who was presumably linked to the company. The article was flagged as such, and was cleaned up by a seasoned Wikipedia editor. At that point, the tags were removed. Over the years, several editors made various contributions. Most recently, I visited the article, checked some of the sources, repaired some errors, and updated with current events.

JJ claims that I somehow misrepresented the article history, but I did not. What I said was: its notability as a stand-alone article has never been questioned. And that is a fact. It has never been flagged for notability issues. And rightly so, as anyone can verify by looking at the reference list for the article.

JJ argues that these scientists are not sufficiently notable to mention in this article, because their work is not accepted by mainstream scientists. He quotes John Vidale, who said: If EM precursors are treated with dignity in Wikipedia, that would run contrary to the top earthquake experts' opinions in every country except perhaps Greece. I am not sure what Vidale means by "dignity", but Wikipedia has extensive policies for dealing with this sort of situation. We make it clear that the claims of fringe scientists are rejected by the mainstream. However, we do not solve the problem by suppression and censorship of the information in articles which are primarily about fringe topics. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, meaning that we do not remove content simply because some people (even professional seismologists) find it offensive.

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

Please note that Vidale's comments apply equally to all EM-based theories and methods, including VAN as well as the others. So, on what basis do we judge that VAN is so notable that they should practically dominate the article, while Freund and Heraud are so non-notable that they should not be mentioned at all?? VAN is, admittedly, the "most touted and most criticized", that is, the most sensationalist and the most likely to be criticized as charlatans. But does that make them more notable (by Wikipedia guidelines) than other scientists who work professionally and diligently, without sensationalism? JerryRussell (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

To be "expressing uncertainty about Vidale's explanation" is to disagree with it. What you believe about the situation is inconsequential has absolutely zero weight compared to mainstream scientific opinion (do you have a PhD in this field?), and has no basis, other than your own, non-expert opinion. Your speculation – because you have no basis for knowing – "there is nothing actually wrong with the work, and thus nothing to specifically criticize" is contradicted by Dr. Vidale's comments. As you seem to have forgotten them, let's do a quick review: Heki's claim of ionospheric precursors "did not stand close scrutiny"; Heraud's claim has (currently) "miniscule chan[c]e of being correct"; Heraud's results "are quite unlikely": Freund's results are "given minimal credence by mainstream scientists", and his "theory has failed". On what basis do you interpret all that as "nothing actually wrong with the work"? (More comments at 18:36, 13 Nov. 16:35, 14 Nov., and 17:08, 15 Nov.). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to be very selective about what you pick-up on, and how you interpret it. Like the 2007 IUGG meeting: did it occur to you that many seismologists skipped it because it was too, ah, peripheral? Or that those present were the worse for not having expert seismological input? Or that that was nearly ten years ago, and interest in Freund has since waned? Or that we don't judge notability by how many people show up at meetings? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hough's book was published in 2010. Academic publishing schedules being what they are, news of a 2007 conference should be treated as current as of the publication date. I see no evidence that the situation has changed since then. The level of interest in Freund's work (as judged by rate of scientific publications) seems to be increasing, if anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Suggestion JJ asks for suggestions, above, regarding what exactly should be said about Freund. As to a critical secondary source, I think Hough's book is pretty good. She devotes much of a chapter to Freund, gives reasons why most seismologists are dismissive, and concludes that Freund is "not entirely out to lunch" (but, presumably, mostly out to lunch.)

I feel that the theory and the reasons for mainstream criticism could be summed up in a short paragraph, less than 500 characters. This would be less than 2% of the existing article size, and less than 1% of the article size that would call for splitting. I expect that the exact text will evolve collaboratively, based on the guidance from the RfC. JerryRussell (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How about 2% of the space given to Precusors? Or no more than 10% of the coverage of the Corralitos event? And within that, what is the proportion between Freund and all the stuff he keeps spewing out (how can we even summarize what ever he stands for in a single sentence?), and Heraud, who appears to have published nothing on his theory, method, or any claims of prediction? As to QuakeFinder, it seems they are only promising to go out and look for precursors; how do they rate any mention here? And if we mention them, do we have to mention their competitors? And mind, the "guidance from the RfC" would the briefest mention. How would you do this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

JJ, in retrospect I think I should have written some proposed text right at the beginning. But since I didn't do that, I've been feeling reluctant to do so now, while the RfC is still open. Let's wait and see if any last-minute comments come in. JerryRussell (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Question #4, L'Aquila EQ prosecutions

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

Your "QUESTION #4, on the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions, was specifically: shall this be discussed in the article? You didn't ask for more discussion, or that the discussion should be in the main text (as opposed to a note or box), nor did you explain why your alleged "important implications for regarding the sociology" of EP requires greater discussion; you just asked shall this be discussed? Nor has there been any substantive discussion of this on the talk page, so your question was premature. And given the tendency of all your questions to balloon (and your tendency to hyper-analyze statements you don't agree with) it would be mercy all around to decide this question on the very simple, straightforward basis that it is "discussed". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I hope that whoever closes this RfC will weigh in on the question of whether tucking material away in a footnote, is equivalent to discussing it in the body text of the article. Otherwise, JJ, I suppose you will be arguing that all the other topics addressed in this RfC would also be covered adequately by footnoting. As to the view that the pre-RfC discussion was inadequate, I agree that we didn't generate an entire wall of text about it. But, your opposition to any expansion of the coverage outside the footnote was clearly expressed. JerryRussell (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

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

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

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

I suggest that instead of searching for questionably relevant text you embrace the primary core policy of WP:Neutral point of view, and the content guideline regarding WP:Fringe theories, with particular attention to WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and especially Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is all I have time for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Just to take this back to the question asked ("is this entire article fringe scope?"), I don't know if it has occurred to you that if (e.g.) VAN is not "fringe" (as you argue), that would show that the entire article is not fringe. Thus, answer to the question is "no". QED. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen other reports of EM proponent meetings, for example meetings warmly welcoming Giuliani as presenter. But, I absolutely agree that VAN SES and Freund are fringe. I agree that there is little mainstream support for these theories. Nearly all professional seismologists dismiss the EM theories, any support from Hough is very tepid indeed. A significant coterie of geophysicists are looking for EM precursors, but I doubt that they make up more than a minority of all geophysicists.

I am talking about the difference between a significant minority vs. a tiny minority, but both types of minorities are fringe. VAN's 'natural time' is starting to get a small amount of mainstream support, but it's just another variant on parent-daughter methods. JerryRussell (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your "meetings warmly welcoming Giuliani as presenter" undoubtedly refers to Giuliani's much bally-hooed presence at the 2009 AGU meeting. (At the Italian Wikipedia's section on Partecipazione alla conferenza della American Geophysical Union this gets twice as much coverage as the rest of his biography.) Somewhere I've seen a statement that he was "invited by the prestigious" AGU, as if the AGU itself was endorsing him with a crown of laurels like some kind of hero. Not so! He was invited by Pulinets or someone (I forget who) to join some panel; there was no implied endorsement, let alone any official accolade. Any suggestion otherwise is misleading, and a violation of NPOV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Our original discussion of this, with links to sources documenting my claim that Giuliani was warmly welcomed, is here: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_7#L.27Aquila_EQ_neutrality. A warm welcome is not the same thing as an official accolade or an endorsement. JerryRussell (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion on Question #6, right of rebuttal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-ordering the questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it would reduce confusion if your actual general comment was placed at the top, in place of the advice to look for the comment under question five. Aside from that, I think the new organization is much less confusing, with the content questions coming first. As to "straw poll before voting discussion", one example RfC that I thought went well was Talk:2014_Oso_mudslide#Request_for_comment. JerryRussell (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

OK. JerryRussell (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Good decision. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Relative noteworthiness of ancient history vs. recent events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific proposals are usually easier to deal with than a grab-bag of poorly formulated questions. But as you are not proceeding in the spirit of neutral inquiry and assessment, but as an advocate of particular views, you will contend any rejection of your proposals. And we will be romping all across the landscape again. But, sure, run up a specific proposal, and let's see how it goes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

JJ, I would say that my spirit of neutral inquiry has led me to my view that current earthquake prediction research is not being treated according to Wikipedia's NPOV policies in this article. The omission of information about highly noteworthy, major research efforts, and the one-sided presentation on VAN, is WP:UNDUE.

The response to my essay questions has surprised me, but in retrospect I suppose I should have expected it. Wikipedia editors like to see propositions expressed in the exact same language as used in the policy documents. I thought that concepts such as "right of rebuttal" or "fringe scope article" would be useful to discuss, but apparently I was mistaken. And, heaven forbid that anyone should suggest that NPOV involves fairness! Maybe there should be an essay about that.

I've been disappointed by the low participation. I'd been thinking of doing some more publicity work to try to remedy that. But it does seem like it would be more productive to try again with another, more specific proposal. I have some work to do in the meanwhile.

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

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

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

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

Now please tell us: are we agreed on Question #6? Can we be done with at least that much? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JJ, I'm not sure if we're in agreement on Question #6 yet. You had asked for specific examples of my interpretation of the phrase, and I gave specifics in my discussion section above, "Relative noteworthiness of ancient history vs. recent events." In general, my formulation of the concept of a "right of rebuttal" is that it is a violation of NPOV to omit the most recent viewpoints of the proponents of a fringe theory (while including earlier viewpoints), just on the basis that the later viewpoints were developed in response to mainstream criticism. I haven't seen you agree to that general principle, or to any of my examples.

What I have conceded, is question #5. I have agreed that this article can be thought of as a history of EQ prediction. Thus, earlier events deserve greater prominence than later developments -- because mainstream seismologists have mostly lost interest in the topic. In other words, I concede that this is not entirely a fringe related article. Accordingly, it is now my view that the discussion of all of these 21st-century research projects should be wrapped together into a single paragraph in this article, with a link to an ancillary article.

For the reasons we've both discussed, I believe we're in agreement that this RfC should be closed as "no consensus"? Should we include the conclusion that the article is not entirely fringe related? JerryRussell (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

As to the rest: yes, no consensus. But I don't know that we should be closing it, as we are participants. You could propose a closing. Or you could withdraw those questions, a sort of quasi-close, though I think that should have some kind explanatory statement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so we don't have consensus after all, not even on question #6. I'm admitting that the topic isn't entirely fringe -- but only because there are many sub-topics in the history of EQ prediction that weren't fringe, at least not at the time. And within the narrow bounds I've defined, I still say that NPOV requires a right of rebuttal. So any closing statement I would write, probably wouldn't satisfy you.

More importantly, I don't see anything wrong with my questions #1 thru #4. If I were doing it over, I would write it all up in one section, and write it up in advance so that everyone could see my proposal. But that approach could have pitfalls of its own, that I'm not foreseeing.

Two weeks left before the RfC closes. Plenty of time for more editors to weigh in. JerryRussell (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Call for more participation

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

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

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

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

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

@Geogene: @JonRichfield: JerryRussell (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

IP202 posted on my talk page to state that pings don't get processed by the system unless there is an exact match between the time the ping is posted, and the timestamp on the pinging user's signature. I believe this is probably correct. Yesterday when I created this thread, I posted the list of pings, looked for errors, then belatedly signed the post a minute or two later. I suspect this means that out of all those pings, the only ones that actually went out were to William M. Connolley, Sv1xv, and Geogene.

So, I am repeating the pings to the rest of the group. If I am mistaken and the pings did go out, please accept my apologies for the extra message.

@Sitush: @Elriana: @Hlektron77: @Isambard Kingdom: @Tronvillain:

@John Richfield: @Mikenorton: @Dawnseeker2000: @Volunteer Marek: @Jytdog: @Staszek Lem: @Richard Keatinge: @Vidale: JerryRussell (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: JerryRussell (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Me too. Sorry Jerry. SV1XV (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

But the problem seen here is not just the RfC, it is a general problem of ineffective discussion. A problem I encounter (and leading to more wall of texti!) is that some editors take a lack of response to a comment to be permission to proceed. While this is quite reasonable in some cases, it does lead to an implicit burden to respond if one objects. But in objecting to something I feel an explanation is required, which then leads to further debate. This may be necessary to find common ground for resolution, but also leads to a tactic of raising issue after issue. This is the point where some kind of capping might be useful, but I'm not clear on how that might be implemented. Perhaps a moderator to determine which paths need not be visited? At any rate, hopefully there is some way of dealing with the process without directly dictating content. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

For better or worse, the RfC process is (IMO) the best means we have for resolving content disputes. Mediation might also be worth a try, but doesn't give as much opportunity for community input. I'd like to thank tronvillain and Staszek Lem for responding to my call for participation by voting in the straw poll, and also thank Sitush and JonRichfield for explaining why they prefer not to participate. I feel that the community input has been very useful. To the extent that an RfC has any definitive outcome, it's determined by the degree of community consensus, and by the weight of policy-driven arguments. While anyone can read through the comments and draw their own conclusions, the closer has the role of creating the summary pronouncement of an outcome. But the quality of the questions does have an impact on the process, and I've been humbled by the extent to which my questions #5 and #6 have been judged to be useless or poorly worded. Nevertheless, the discussion has been interesting (at least to me) and I'm hopeful that the closer will be able to draw useful conclusions. JerryRussell (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Presumably you mean where the discussion of a topic gets excessive. Yes, broader and deeper discussions can be harder to follow. Sometimes it can't be helped that a discussion must go deep, but excessive breadth can be addressed. That is why I strongly suggested to Jerry that the RfC should have just one question; running back and forth across six of them is like trying to eat your Thanksgiving dinner in one swallow. I note that many states require that legislative bills (etc.) address just one issue, and perhaps that ought to be a requirement for RfCs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This might be worth considering as a matter of good sense even if not formally mandated. I appreciate that some people (such as myself) like to get a good perspective of matters which often means that there are items that one cannot cover independently of associated points, but I suspect that it is more frequent that (possibly artificially) isolated points can be dealt with efficiently without distraction. In spite of what I said before I'll go to the top and try to respond to separate points in mutual isolation, but please note that I do so under protest and in a mood of self-exculpation for having skipped most of the discussion. Pity me! JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Jon, thanks for your answers. As to the call for good sense, I do apologize for having put you through all of this. This was my first RfC. In retrospect, questions #5 and #6 didn't contribute much: I should've stuck to the content questions, and explored the policy issues as they came up. And the information I provided on Heki really wasn't enough for anyone to work with. Probably I should've left that for some other RfC, or maybe never, depending on how the research goes. JJ was telling me to limit to one question, and gosh darn it, if JJ tells me to do something, I'm going to do the opposite! (Kidding, sort of...) But I think three questions would've been just right.

JJ and I have contributed about 90% of the wall of text here, and I would be open on some sort of cap on comments by the initiating parties to the dispute. But on the other hand, for me the discussion has been interesting & useful, and I don't begrudge the time to read & participate. Perhaps part of good sense is for RfC participants to recognize when discussions have wandered off into detail, and decide to stop reading? Again, one hesitates to legislate good sense. Does anyone think we should start a discussion at talk:RfC? As for myself, again I apologize for having made the RfC too long, and I promise I won't do it again. JerryRussell (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The discussion above 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.