Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Specific changes, part 2

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

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

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

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

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

Re "2008: Greece (VAN)" section

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

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

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

No man's land between prediction and forecasting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JJ, when I did the Google search you described, "Bakun & Lindh Parkfield earthquake forecast", I easily found several references that described the Bakun & Lindh statement as a "forecast".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following Dr. Vidale's mention above that he's a member of NEPEC, I was curious about that organization, and visited their website. I found that they've also addressed the distinction between prediction and forecasting, here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JJ, I gave you sources that refer to Bakun & Lindh as a forecast. There are probably more, I stopped looking after finding some examples. As I said, we have reached a point where we are obviously unable to reach a consensus, and should probably seek some form of dispute resolution. JerryRussell (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A different perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Heraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. John Vidale engages the journalist here:

Oregon Live

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

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

Sorry about the misspelling.

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

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

John, I'm pretty new here myself. My understanding is that Wikipedia would treat seismology and seismologists as the core discipline, and their views would define the mainstream. All articles make it clear what the mainstream view is. And there doesn't seem to be any debate about what mainstream seismologists believe about this, either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeopathy, astrology etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodbye, no longer editing this topic Extended vacation

Jerry's vacation

JJ, I'm sorry -- I've made a decision that my editing in this topic has not been a productive use of my time, or yours, and I apologize. I mainly came to Wikipedia to edit topics related to history of religion. I got involved in EQ prediction out of curiosity, and a desire to be a good Wiki citizen and not an SPA. I didn't mean for it to be as big of a time commitment as it's become. And to do a good job on the seismo-electric article, I'd need to invest a lot of time. Also, I've just realized that this topic area is probably covered by the ARBCOM ruling on pseudoscience. And, the sub-articles certainly are. I knew about the pseudoscience ruling, but missed the detail that the ruling also covers "fringe science, broadly construed." So here's a tip for you: if you have trouble with an editor, you have the option of going to AE rather than AN/I. At AE, the odds are pretty strongly stacked against your opponent. I'm fortunate that I'm mainly interested in editing topics that aren't covered by the discretionary sanctions regime, and I've decided as a general rule it's going to be safer for me to stay away from any possibility of discretionary sanctions. Over the last month, I've proven to myself that I can live without Wiki editing! If Wiki bans me, it's Wiki's loss, not mine. FWIW, I still feel that this would be a better article if it covered Freund etc.; as well as biblical prophecy, for that matter. And I think that my points about prediction vs. forecasting have been generally well-taken. But I don't think I'm ever going to convince you. And on reflection, I'm not feeling that this is important enough disagreement to be worth running an RfC for. Any RfC would be a major time sink for both of us, and many other editors as well. It's been very interesting to learn about this. I really appreciate the time you've taken. I've found that I often agree with your views on many aspects of the literature, and the article as it stands is pretty good. Please feel free to ping me if you need my help with some situation that develops. Otherwise, best wishes to you, and have a great holiday season. JerryRussell (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC) revised JerryRussell (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) I am truly sorry to see you leave. While we have our differences, I have not felt that any of it was inherently unresolvable. Even on several points where you have exasperated me (like when it seems you don't pay attention!) I still feel these are "fixable". And while it has been a huge sink of time, I have cherished a hope that in the end we might forge a strong partnership here. Yes, doing a good job on a scientific topic does require a large investment of time, particularly in studying the literature. That you had done some of that (certainly more than any non-professional editors I have seen here) was the main basis of my hope. While some of your hopes for this article are quite unlikely, I will reiterate what I said above, that Freund (et al.) could conceivably be treated in Seismo-electromagnetics, and perhaps you would consider making some contribution there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you for these very kind words, JJ. I am probably having an emotional reaction to seeing a Wiki friend of mine hauled in to AE. it's almost certain he's going to get a 1-year block; but what a humiliating time-sink, regardless of the outcome. He's a good editor IMO. Let me take a break, and then I'll see if I can find some time to contribute to Seismo-electromagnetics -- if you don't hold me to my self-imposed topic ban. JerryRussell (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC) There are some interesting aspects to your friend's case, which have some relevancy even here. We can talk about that on your page. Enjoy the holidays, come back any time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC) You may have noticed a theme about "Lunatic Charlatans" who publish in top journals, and editors with possible COI as professional experts? Feel free to stop by my talk page anytime. JerryRussell (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the time you have spent on this topic. I have appreciated your efforts, and hope that you find ways to remain engaged with both wikipedia and topics related to this page (separately or together) that are right for you. Best wishes Elriana (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC) So it's been a month, and I'm back. But there are going to be some changes in my behavior! I hope to be much more efficient, and more respectful of everyone's time. We'll see how it goes. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Ah, the anonymous Athenian again, presumably "IP202" himself. (Right? For anyone new to this discussion I reiterate: "IP202" is a non-neutral partisan advocate, a single-purpose editor who is not here for the encyclopedia, but to remove all material that is (in his view) "negative" towards VAN, and to give visibility to all of VAN's rejoinders as to why any criticism is false.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the new year wishes, Anonymous Athenian.

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

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

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

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

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.

RfC on Earthquake Prediction (preliminary discussion #1)

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

---

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

Questions:

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

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

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

My comments: I think this is a fringe-topic article. This has important implications for application of fringe, NPOV and false balance policies. That is, according to WP:FRINGE: An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. WP:NPOV explains: In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks very much, JJ and Anonymous Athenian, for the comments. I appreciate the desire for focus, but at the same time I would like to make progress towards resolving all the controversies. An RfC is an expensive process involving significant time investment by many editors. Calendar time can be upwards of two months, with the wait for an uninvolved closer. We don't want to go through this every time we have a little disagreement about anything. I've looked at some examples of past RfC's and I believe it is very common for them to address multiple aspects of a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_7#Is_the_entire_subject_of_earthquake_prediction_fringe.3F

The 2008 prediction was discussed again here:

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

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

Talk:Earthquake_prediction#List_of_specific_topics

These matters were also discussed extensively with Dr. Vidale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

---

Participating editors in this RfC are invited to !vote and/or briefly comment on the general question of whether the scope of this article is a mainstream scope or fringe scope. Also, in separate sections, editors are invited to !vote and/or briefly comment on whether certain specific items should be included. Please reserve extended discussions to the threaded discussion section at the end.

<(Extended discussion copied & updated below)>

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

• Fringe: I believe this article is about a fringe topic fringe ideas and theories. The associated mainstream article is Earthquake, which clearly and succinctly states the majority opinion of seismologists, that EQ prediction has not been demonstrated. In this article, it is appropriate for views relating to the minority, to "receive more attention and space", and that relevant and notable controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes: These items should be included. They are essential to an understanding of the viewpoint of the VAN group, which is the topic of their section in this fringe article. It meets notability criteria because it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources independent of VAN, including popular newspaper reports as well as scientific journals. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• Yes These authors have published extensively, and their work has been covered in the popular press. The QuakeFinder article has existed since 2009, and its notability as a stand-alone article has never been questioned. Accordingly, I believe the information should be included. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Yes Inasmuch as this is a recent incident with important implications for regarding the sociology (as opposed to the technology) of EQ prediction, I believe it should be discussed here. In the existing article, this topic is restricted to a footnote.JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Background Information In this RfC, we are requesting comments on the proper application of policies such as NPOV, False Balance and Fringe within the scope of this particular article. Specifically, according to WP:FRINGE: An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Some editors (specifically, J. Johnson (JJ)) feel that this article is about a mainstream idea, namely that earthquake prediction has not been demonstrated, and may be impossible. Accordingly, these editors say: it is undue weight, or false balance, to present the evidence to the contrary which has been developed by advocates of earthquake prediction. Such evidence, they argue, should be reserved to specific articles about specific EQ prediction methods, such as the article about VAN method.

Other editors (specifically, user:JerryRussell and an anonymous IP editor) argue that this article is largely or entirely an article about fringe scientists who continue to believe that EQ prediction is possible. Accordingly, these editors say, it is appropriate to give more extensive coverage of the views of those fringe scientists. This would include information which tends to cast doubt on the mainstream narrative. The most important guiding principle should be this passage from WP:DUE, which explains: In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

This controversy has led to acrimonious debate about the article section on VAN, and whether information such as their use of a method they call "natural time" since 2001, or their claims of a successful "prediction" of an EQ in Greece in 2008, should be included in the article. For possible text, see the lede of the article on VAN method.JerryRussell (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It has also been noted, however, that other aspects of the article are also effected by the same controversy. For example, whether information in articles such as Seismo-electromagnetics and QuakeFinder should be summarized in this article, or whether the information on the2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions has been adequately summarized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether earthquakes might have any precursory or recurring characteristics is a proper and acceptable topic of scientific study. It is also notable, due to great societal interest (even by lay-persons), and having accumulated a large literature. To summarize plain and simple: earthquake prediction, as a subject or field of scientific study, is not fringe. And it is notable. The view that prediction of earthquakes 1) has not been successfully demonstrated, and 2) may even be inherently impossible (repugnant as this seems to many WP editors, and even to a few scientists who claim they have predicted earthquakes), is not fringe either, because it is "broadly supported by scholarship in its field".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:PROFRINGE further states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.