Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

NOTICE: Two ANI discussions re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson's commitment to not revert

There was a discussion on AN/I[, Disruptive editing by User:J. Johnson of this article.

A topic ban was proposed, and there were 4 !votes in support and 1 in opposition of a topic ban. The oppose vote was prompted by a commitment by User:J. Johnson to be "resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly ... no reversions."--{{U|Elvey}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Abundant discussion related to this development can also be found in /Archive 3. 64.134.48.248 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And at JJ's own ANI plea. I see JJ has not been honoring the commitment to 'no reversions' recently; I see many reverts. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for what you see, but the reality is that I have made one reversion, of an anonymous editor's unexplained reversion of an edit I made. Your making that one reversion into "many" is an abuse of language, and a mark of your hostility towards me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When do you claim your last two reverts were? I see you have not been honoring your commitment to 'no reversions'; I see you admit to one recent violation. By your account, how many others have occurred since this discussion started? since the commitment was made? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding the difference between "one" and "many" pretty much precludes any chance of a productive discussion. Alternately, a knowing misstatement would be in line with your general and persistent combative attitude. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Users are expected to respond to reasonable questions during discussions. (op. cit.) You responded to zero of the questions in my last post above. Because I deny that you have made more than one reversion, I asked you those questions. Answer or I will consider your claim abandoned. At least you admit to one recent violation. Do you intend to avoid further violations? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You can "consider" all you want, but "one" is inherently not "many". And I deny any "violation". BTW, have you stopped harassing other editors? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of contested removal of section with non-neutral heading beginning "NOTICE"

Johnson, please stop "archiving" this section. 64.134.151.82 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Referring to your edit summary: appropriate for what? Trying to smear me with an ANI complaint that FAILED? Or just general harassment?

Joe seems to think that Help:Archiving a talk page has some kind of rule against archiving the previous section. Which it does not. At best it suggests when discussions should be archived. It does´not set any minimum requirements for archiving.

On the other hand, please take note of the WP:Talk page guidelines, which are summarized in the nutshell as: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Also the recommended TPG Good practice: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (emphasis in the original), and TPG Behavior that is unacceptable: "No personal attacks" (ditto). More explicitly we have the injunction to Keep headings neutral. Particularly:

* Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.

* Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks * and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, ....

The previous section (titled "NOTICE...") violates WP:TPNO because its header addresses me specifically, is non-neutral, and (being a continuation of a previous attack on my by the same editors) constitutes WP:harassment. It serves no other purpose, contributes nothing towards improving the article, and in two months attracted no discussion. It properly ought to be expunged from both the current Talk page and its archive, and even the page history. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Prediction vs forecasting

The introduction makes a distinction between earthquake prediction and earthquske forecasting, and yet there is no separate wiki page for earthquake forecasting. Indeed, earthquake forecasting redirects to this prediction page. So it seems this is a loose end that might be reasonably tidied up. 166.147.88.26 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC) :Good point. I suggest that the article be expanded to cover both topics, since they are closely related. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I wonder whether or not the first sentence of the introduction, where "prediction" is defined, might be rewritten so that it is not a patch of two direct quotes. Perhaps it can be paraphrased and shortened. Quotes are fine, but I don't think they are quite appropriate for a first sentence. 75.151.82.138 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The direct quotation of the first sentence is the standard ("textbook") and authoritative definition of earthquake prediction; to paraphrase it would be to alter it. The second quotation notes two important (but often unstated) qualifications — "next" (emphasis in the original) and "strong" — which are generally presumed. These two definitions complement each other, and both are needed to encompass the continuum of how this term is used. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The two quotes that are put together in the first defining sentence are mostly redundant: (time, location, magnitude) = (parameters); (future) almost equals (next). The focus of the second phrase on "strong" is possibly misguided, even if it is strong earthquakes that cause the most damage. A set of earthquake predictions, be they for small ones or big ones, can, as the article notes, be assessed for statistical significance. 64.134.160.251 (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are not redundant. The first — the "classical" definition — is general, lacking any qualification or limitation other than "future". It is a point of fact that there is practically no interest whatsoever in "predicting" (in any sense) the great bulk of earthquakes that actually occur. The interest, especially of the public and of the public authorities, is overwhelmingly in 1) strong (i.e., damaging) earthquakes in a given region, and 2) the next such quake (not the second, third, or hundredth such quake), exactly as stated in the second quote. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's good as is-a patch of two direct quotes, appropriate for a first sentence, accurate, and not redundant.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Prediction of earthquakes is important for averting loss of human life and mitigating damage to infrastructure, etc. How large such hazardous earthquakes might be depends on a number of variables, including earthquake depth and the vulnerability and exposure of populations and infrastructure. In this sense, predicting smallish earthquakes, especially near the Earth's surface, can be considered important; they might cause enough shaking to damage buildings. For example, induced earthquakes of small magnitude in, say, Oklahoma, where buildings are not designed to withstand much shaking, are a concern. Earthquakes that are simply large enough to be felt can make people worry about what might happen in the future. Predicting such earthquakes, smallish, in some sense, would be useful.

Prediction is also important as a means of testing scientific theories. If someone could predict small earthquakes as well as large ones, in some statistically significant way, then this would represent an advance. In this sense, predicting small earthquakes is certainly interesting for scientists. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, "predicting small earthquakes is certainly interesting for scientists." And I have seen discussion as to whether success in predicting M 4 quakes might warrant confidence in a theory's ability to predict M ≥ 6 quakes. But as a matter of public policy, and in the popular conception, the interest in prediction is entirely in damaging earthquakes, and particularly of the next such quake. That is an extremely important qualification, and leaving it off would misinform the entire topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

First Sentences

Candidate first sentences: Earthquake prediction is a branch of the science of seismology concerned with the specification of the time, location, and magnitude of future earthquakes within stated confidence limits. Of particular importance is the prediction of hazardous earthquakes that are likely to cause damage to infrastructure or loss of life. [1,2] DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  If you rely on the original source — that is, unless you bring in some other source — then EP is not "a branch of the science of seismology [isn't that redundant?] concerned with the specification", etc., it is; "the specification of ...." I think it is useful to mention that it is a branch of seismology, but that is not part of its definition, and does not contribute to understanding what it is.

  Your second sentence makes a rather obvious observation (of course it is "of particular importance" to predict hazardous earthquakes) and is also redundant (likely to cause damage, etc., is the nature of "hazardous"), but fails to note that for public officials and the general public alike the notion of earthquake prediction is more narrowly seen as the prediction of "the next strong earthquake" (emphasis in the original).

  I suggest that there is no need to revise this portion of the lead. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Seismology is partly concerned with earthquakes and partly concerned with the propagation of waves through the Earth's interior. Earthquake prediction is a subset or "branch" of earthquake science and, therefore, earthquake prediction is a branch of seismology. This statement, that earthquake prediction is a branch of seismology, is something I actually removed from the interior of the EP page just this morning. By proposing that it be moved up to the front of the page, I was simply trying to retain the sentiment of a notion that was written by somebody else, not me. I though that it might have been you. But, either way, and more importantly, no, it is not redundant to say that earthquake prediction is a branch of seismology. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the "public officials and general public" are concerned with the earthquakes that are "hazardous" and, by virtue of exposure and vulnerability, can cause damage and kill people -- that is, they are most concerned with earthquake "risk". Risk = Probability of Hazard X Vulnerability X Exposure. Okay, officials and the public have other interests in earthquakes, even popular interests, but risk is certainly an important concern. This is not simply the same as "strong" earthquakes that you mention. An earthquake can have a large magnitude, but be deep, and, therefore, not cause much surface shaking. Also, surface shaking can depend on the characteristics of the surface geology and our manipulation of the surface (landfills are, for example, prone to resonance with earthquakes). Exposure comes with the earthquake hypocenter being near a populated center, not in a deep far offshore subduction zone far from urban centers. Vulnerability comes if a population of people is living in buildings that tend to fall down for a given level of shaking. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Please, I quite understand the differences between magnitude, intensity, vulnerability, and hazard, and how "strong" can be applied to all of those. And I would explain that. But note that a footnote explaining some of this was removed by Sitush with the comment: "really, this is far too complex for the general reader". So we have an issue of how much explanation to provide. Note also that we should not attempt to explain every thing in the lead sentence. That is supposed to be the briefest of summary, which is then explained and expanded upon in the rest of the article.

  As to "a branch of seismology", I am fine with having it, and even in the lead paragraph. But not in the lead sentence, because it says nothing about what EP is. And the redundancy I referred to is in your "science of" — "-ology" implies that.

  In the meanwhile you have proceeded to make these changes (with the edit summary of "Early relief from over reliance on quotations.") That was inadvisable, and shows unfamiliarity with MOS:LEAD (nutshell: "The lead should define the topic...."), and even WP:CONSENSUS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Faulty "word smithing" introduces bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment above is not constructive, User:J. Johnson. Joe is correct: "This is a familiar pattern: we explain, you ignore the explanation, and then you demand that we explain." Explanation provided, yet you say "I see a bunch of hand-waving, I have yet to see any actual explanations." That is disrespectful and fallacious, and I've heard you make the same disrespectful and fallacious claim and called you on it long ago and yet still you do the same. It's disappointing that you keep at it. And I actually agree with your version. But your WP:OWN attitude is evident and hostile. And you have been going back on your commitment not to perform reverts to the article. And you've just posted defensively to ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=618622946#Egregious_section_heading_at_Talk:Earthquake_prediction --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC) (belated sig)

Archiving

I made an error in my edit summary. The correct link is Help:Archiving a talk page. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Struck edits by sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it standard procedure to strike comments by editors still under sock puppet investigation? Are all of his comments on all talk pages being consistently struck? What about the continuity of the conversation in which the comments are imbedded? Might be best to leave it all alone? 109.174.139.132 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Doug's edit to this page seems constructive and good enough. [revised] --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it's routine. The case was closed 5 days ago. Striking preserves the continuity. Any talk page posts not replied to are normally deleted. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 85.133.27.61 (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Essay tag

While there are many citations in the article, it does read like an essay. That is partly due to the unencyclopaedic language that is used and also because of musings such as

If scientists and the civil authorities knew that (for instance) in some area there was an 80% chance of a large (M > 6) earthquake in a matter of a day or two, they would see a clear benefit in issuing an alarm. But is it worth the cost of civil and economic disruption and possible panic, and the corrosive effect a false alarm has on future alarms, if the chance is only 5%?

We don't do this. My knowledge of the subject matter is not great but I'll be taking a hatchet to this article if it does not improve soon. For now, I've just tagged it in the hope of attracting people who are in fact familiar with the subject. It looks to me like the recent ANI complaint may have been justified and that more eyes are needed here. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush:Is it possible for you to work with and revise existing text rather than remove so much? 109.174.139.132 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, on closer inspection I think I agree with what you've done here. 109.174.139.132 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear you say that, it's definitely an improvement. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Some comments on recent edits

Some comments on some of Sitush's edits.

• Edit (various softening of VAN criticism: "remove editorialising and trivial quote - I can't help but think this article has been written with the intent of attacking prediction")

VAN were, in fact, severely criticized. (E.g., M&G's "a probablity too large to be ascribed to chance." Although the severity of this may be too subtle for those outside the scientific community.) And de-italicisation goes too far where it alters direct quotations. Additional comment below.

• Edit (removing note on intensity, and part of the text describing deviations: "not necessary; in particular, deviations are precisely how averages work")

The note on intensity was added at the suggestion of an expert reviewer as the general public generally does not understand the relation between magnitude and intensity.

• Edit (removing Noson et al. 1988 from the table's citation: "this is overciting: the USGS is a perfectly authoritative source in its own right")

The USGS webpage might suffice generally as an "authoritative government source", but is not itself peer-reviewed (etc.), and so is not "perfectly acceptable" as an authoritative scientific source. Noson et al. is the authoritative source, and its removal creates another problem; see next comment.

• Edit (removing the USGS link that explained the magnitude classifications: "... and I have no idea why this link is here, since it points to a glossary that mentions none of the stated terms")

The removed link originally linked into the topic ("Seismicity") where the terms and categories used in the table were defined. Now it redirects to the Glossary's TOC because of a site problem. Which is a good reason for having included the authoritative link (Noson et al. 1988), which was just removed by the preceeding edit. Now there is no verifiable source for the terms used in the table.

• Edit (removing "or roughly 150 per hour": "d'uh - let's assume that our readership can do basic math(s)")

Can, but don't. By that reasoning we don't need to do all those metric conversions either.

• Edit (removing "There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions": "I'm not quite sure why but this sentence grates with me: the reader can draw their own conclusion, for starters")

It grates on me, too, but then that is not what I wrote. I think it grates in part because it doesn't flow well into the following text. Some what less than stellar "word smithing".

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Sitush, thanks for the edits. Please respond to one of the above. E.g. please consider reverting the second one; {tq|deviations are precisely how averages work}} - Earthquakes don't occur at random, so expecting the outliers that you deleted to occur because of {tq|how averages work]] is nonsensical. We know earthquake locations aren't random. You seem to be assuming earthquake clumping is random in time; that is farfetched. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
2. JJ, re #1 - I suspect/recall that severely is justified. But your argument doesn't convince me (and others too, I bet) that it's not OR/editorializing. Perhaps there's an editorial about M&G's work that you can refer to that justifies putting back the severely ? Or are you saying that any competent reader of M&G's work would see it as severely criticizing. When I think of severely criticizing in a way that may be too subtle for those outside the scientific community, I think of the formal papers calling out Wakefield's vaccine fraud. I recall they were severely criticizing in a way that was too subtle for many outside the scientific community to see at first glance, but was there for anyone to see who took the time read it very carefully.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Other than that, I'm OK with the above edits. And the list of comments smacks of OWNership. The USGS is acceptable as a wikipedia source, per RS; whether it would be acceptable in a paper is not our concern. Still, I wonder if there isn't more benefit than harm in leaving it in.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• 2: Right. But note I wasn't trying to make an argument, just pointing out some things. As to whether VAN were severely criticized, there is a body of articles doing so. The strongest seems to be Jackson and Kagan's paper, "No more VAN, please!", with section headings of "No physics", "No science", "No prediction", and "No way". Various strong language (e.g.: "Published work by Varotsos and colleagues lacks these requirements of good science"), ending with: "The VAN hypothesis badly violates physical intuition, is too vague to test, and its proponents' claims of successful earthquake prediction are flagrantly exaggerated." Severe enough? If there are further questions about this I suggest the discussion be moved into its own section.
• 3: Explaining how the removal of a perfectly acceptable citation directly contributes to a subsequent confusion "smacks of OWNership"? Your obsession with that term seems to exceed your understanding of it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You accuse me of being obsessed with OWN. However, as noted at ANI by others, your characterization of my comments as attacks and obsession are unwarranted. Please redact your personal attacks ASAP. Consider this an official warning, J. Johnson (JJ). WP:NPA. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one that raised "smacks of OWNership", and certainly not for the first time. You certainly have not explained how that arises from my entirely neutral explanation of how removal of a perfectly good citation led to some confusion. Nor how any of this constitutes a personal attack. Please note that (per WP:NPA "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You accused me of being obsessed. That's a personal attack in my book. Feel free to bring me up on charges if you feel that is "making personal attacks without providing a justification". Otherwise, please redact your personal attack. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

minor fixes

Some minor fixes were made as per the "Bugs" section at http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Earthquake_prediction&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 75.151.82.138 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

General comment regarding perceived POV

On a more general note: this article was not written "with the intent of attacking prediction". It reflects (and I think fairly accurately) the prevailing sense of the seismological community regarding claims of prediction. The supposed bias (non-NPOV) some editors feel undoubtedly reflects the disparity between expert scientific opinion and the popular conception, the public seeing much more upbeat and optimistic views of prediction than of the actual history of failure. (E.g., "Haicheng".) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the response will be "tough" but I'll leave that to others. I'm not in a great place at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why "tough"? If the mainstream point of view prevailing amongst seismologists since the 1990s is other than as reflected in the article it should be easy to find countervailing sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My "tough" comment was in relation to the entirety of your original post, not just this subsection. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My "original post" being, what, my comments on your edits? I don't see why any response should be "tough". E.g., that your de-italicization altered a direct quotation is a fact that can be verified against the source (Mulargia and Gasperini, 1991), and I would have expected you to be grateful for having it brought to your attention. (It would be simple enough for me to fix it myself, but that would over-excite Elvey.) And on the last edit I listed I agreed with you, so if anyone is "tough" about it we will likely be on the same side. However, all these comments would be more suitable at the top. I pulled this subsection out so we could discuss this particular issue of perceived non-NPOV without the confusion of other issues. Do you have any comment on that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a meta comment. You said that you were not going to frequent this talk page. That may have been a significant aspect of your last "escape" from some sort of admin action at WP:ANI. So why are you here now? When I have time, I'll be happy to go through the various comments on my edits but I'm not doing it with someone who has a history of being tendentious on the matter and who voluntarily agreed to withdraw: time is short enough without getting involved in that, sorry. If, in the interval, someone other than you wants to revert me then they are free to do so. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What I previously said was that I was disengaging from a developing edit war. I am here now because I am more familiar with this topic than you and (it appears) the other editors actively engaged here, and because there are (in brief) some POV problems that threaten to undermine the article's objectivity. If I am wrong in what I take to be the mainstream scientific POV it should be easy to demonstrate that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Sitush. Request withdrawn. I put back 'severe'; it's warranted, per, e.g. Jackson and Kagan's paper. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. Glad to see there's at least something we can agree on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted before seeing the above comments. But I'm not going to undo those reverts. The pair of you probably need to edit more widely and then you'd realise that we just don't do this sort of thing: we avoid emotives that really add nothing to what we say, we avoid trivia and we try as far as possible to speak with the voice of a general reader. This is a common problem with articles that are edited by aficionados and almost invariably it ends up getting cut. (You should see the crap that got removed from Bicycle helmets in Australia, for example, or the detail that got removed from Fanny Crosby and Jiddu Krishnamurti). If you want to write an academic paper, go write it somewhere else; if you want to push a pov, ditto. "Keep it simple, stupid" is the general rule here. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sitush. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The only POV I am pushing is that of mainstream seismology. As to whether the criticism of VAN was "severe": there are at least a dozen papers with criticism as severe as I have ever seen in the geosciences. To say simply that VAN were "criticized" makes it sound like ordinary, run-of-the-mill criticism, which it most certainly is not, and is "misleading as to the shape of the dispute." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, I think we all note your resistance to changing this word "severe" or, I suppose, related words like "severely" and other detailed word choices in this Wikipedia article. Perhaps you might consider whether or not the point you are wanting made might be just as effectively communicated with fewer qualifying adverbs. So, instead of "severely criticized" you might simply accept the, seemingly more modest, "criticized" and, then, allow specific evidence to back up the case that the VAN method hasn't worked. DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not so much that I object to changing this or that word, it is matter of editors changing the POV to be more congenial to their personal sensibilities. In the case of VAN, the criticism is totally different in scope and kind than the usual run of criticism. This includes published statements that the VAN method is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound, that the "predictions" tend to follow rather than precede earthquakes, misrepresents the data, contains false claims, and is a waste of money. One noted authority says "most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked." To say only "severely criticised" is thus actually mild. To say anything less gives VAN more credibility than warranted by WP:WEIGHT, violating WP:NPOV, and misinforms the readers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it was rejected and that is all we need to say. - 13:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your post properly, 13:38. Please respect consensus and consider WP:BRD, Sitush. That means don't edit war; leave 'severely' in, as it's the established language, until there's a new consensus. Proposal: instead of 'severely', how 'bout we add some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate. Please quote from policy that shows "we don't use emotives"; JJ has quoted from UNDUE to support his position. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) (belated sig)

Elvey, slow down! You forgot to sign this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please sign your posts properly, whoever posted the one criticising 13:28. And who eve ryou are, you do not understand policy, not even WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a vote and we do not use subjective emotives unless citing a reliable source (ie: a quotation). I think you'll find I know far, far more about WP policy than you. But try WP:NPOV, (WP:PEA, WP:WEA for starters). - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Please quote from policy" do you not understand? " WP:NPOV, (WP:PEA, WP:WEA" are not quotes from policy. You refer me to WP:WEA. Quote something relevant to "severe" from WP:WEA and I'll back off completely from opposing "severe". Quotes begin and end with quote marks, !#%#!@%. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Which of these policies mentions your "emotives"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing from PEA and WEA but if you can't see that the word "severely" is a subjective opinion then there is no hope for you here. If you can find a sentence in one of the several sources for that paragraph which explicitly says, for example, "we severely criticise VAN" then that's fine and, yes, that would be a justifiable use of a micro-quote because it is obviously contentious. If you can't, don't put words in the mouths of those who wrote the various sources. This is basic stuff and, while on paper some might think I've got a lot more experience than you, I'd expect you to know it by now given your own contributions here. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

VAN method uses same phrasing. DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I wonder who added that. And I've just notice in this article we say "most touted, and most criticized" wrt that method. Really? Do the sources say that? - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm opening an RFC. I warned Sitush about his edit warring; his response was not helpful. My "Proposal" of a compromise solution has seen no response.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you expect if you template someone with > 120,000 contributions? I'm one who find it bloody officious and irritating - see WP:DTTR. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TTR. You were edit warring. I don't give a shit; irrespective of the essay WP:DTTR , > 120,000 contributions is not license to edit war. And you STILL haven't quoted from policy, despite my multiple requests. Again: Please quote from policy that shows "we don't use emotives". --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:WORDS and WP:IMPARTIAL together describe the appropriate tone and language used in an encyclopaedic article. "Severely" is an unnecessary descriptor that was not in the original quote and so does not belong in the article. --Ca2james (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction Reference

Should the section below be updated or modified to reflect or reference the external link: http://www.quakehunt.com? The website appears to track user submitted earthquake predictions.

" As many predictions are held confidentially, or published in obscure locations, and become notable only when they are claimed, there may be some selection bias in that hits get more attention than misses."

Thanks Simple77 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to the article's References section? Strictly speaking, no, as that section is for references (sources) used in the article, and the QuakeHunt web page is neither used, nor should it be used (because it is not a reliable source). But possibly you mean to suggest adding that link to the "External links" section? I would again say no, as the article is not about popular efforts to predict quakes, but earthquake prediction as a scientific topic. It might be suitable for an article on, say, Popular attempts at predicting earthquakes, but that would be a different article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the Wikipolicy is, but I would assume that it is frowned upon to simply add links to Wikipages without good reason. This policy, if it exists, would seek to avoid long lists of links just because they are related to the subject of the page. You can imagine where that might go after a while! DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:EL. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce the list of "Notable Predictions"

I think it would help if this list was pared down a bit, concentrating, on real claims rather than simply confusion about possible claims.

For example:

1976: Southern California, USA (Whitcomb)[edit]

On 15 April 1976, Dr. James Whitcomb presented a scientific paper[146] that found, based on changes in Vp/Vs (seismic wave velocities), an area northeast of Los Angeles along the San Andreas fault was "a candidate for intensified geophysical monitoring". He presented this not as a prediction that an earthquake would happen, but as a test of whether an earthquake would happen, as might be predicted on the basis of Vp/Vs. This distinction was generally lost; he was and has been held to have predicted an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 within 12 months.

The area identified by Whitcomb was quite large, and overlapped the area of the Palmdale Bulge,[147] an apparent uplift (later discounted[148]), which was causing some concern as a possible precursor of large earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Both the uplift and the changes in seismic velocities were predicted by the then current dilatancy theory, although Whitcomb emphasized his "hypothesis test" was based solely on the seismic velocities, and that he regarded that theory unproven.[149]

Whitcomb subsequently withdrew the prediction, as continuing measurements no longer supported it. No earthquake of the specified magnitude occurred within the specified area or time.[150]

Notes: (1) The first paragraph of this section on Southern California emphasizes that this is not an actual prediction, although some people might have perceived it to be. This latter point is not backed up with a citation, and, in any case, we might ask if we should be documenting perceptions of what a scientist said, rather than what he said. Furthermore, the scientific paper was really just an abstract, not always a reliable source for much of anything. (2) The second paragraph says that Whitcomb said he was just putting forward an hypothesis test. This would, probably, be testable via statistics, but Johnson has designed this Wikiarticle to exclude "forecasts" (see lead paragraph), even though there is a section in the article on statistical testing. (3) The third paragraph now says that Whitcomb made a "prediction", which contradicts the first paragraph.

I suggest deleting this entire section o Whitcomb's prediction or whatever it was.

1978: Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, Japan[edit]

On 14 January 1978 a swarm of intense microearthquakes prompted the Japan Meteorological Agence (JMA) to issue a statement suggesting that precautions for the prevention of damage might be considered. This was not a prediction, but coincidentally it was made just 90 minutes before the M 7.0 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai earthquake.[154] This was subsequently, but incorrectly,[155] claimed as successful prediction by Hamada (1991), and again by Roeloffs & Langbein (1994).

Notes: (1) The test says this was not a prediction per se, but rather a "precaution". That some scientists subsequently interpreted it to be a prediction doesn't seem especially important. Scientists sometimes make mistakes, yes. They are human.

This is not very noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. I suggest this section on the Izu-Oshima-Kinkai "precaution" be deleted.

Really, we might just have a list of a few examples of predictions, rather than try to include outright misinterpretations.

DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whitcombe can definitely be binned. We're even contradicting ourselves, as you point out, and there doesn't seem to be much support for it being intended as a prediction. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This "confusion about possible claims" goes straight to the problem of defining "prediction" (mention of which Sitush removed from the text as "clever-clogs editorialising"). In Whitcomb's case he denied making a prediction, but both the mass-media and scientists deemed it a prediction, and it was connected with the "Palmdale bulge" that got much attention as a likely portent of an earthquake. This is fully explained in the cited sources neither of you appear to have read. (Nor would I have to be explaining this if either of you were old enough to have been reading the newspapers back then.) The 1978 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai case — as explained in the text — is notable because it was claimed as a successful prediction by three scientists. If this is removed someone who has read Hamada or Roeloffs & Langbein but not Geller will think the article is excluding successful predictions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Late breaking news: Sitush has just removed the section under "Definition and validity" that explains various metrics for measuring earthquake prediction performance, and including how either the success rate or the hit rate can be arbitrarily improved. This is a core issue in earthquake prediction, and removing it leaves a large gap in the readers' understanding of what might constitute a successful prediction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Put what I removed in the Prediction article where it belongs, if you feel that article does not deal with the subject adequately enough. The points made are valid for prediction generally/are not specific to earthquake prediction. As for Nor would I have to be explaining this if either of you were old enough to have been reading the newspapers back then - I was and I did. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether Whitcomb's announcement was intended as a prediction is rather irrelevant: over a large region it was quite notable in being taken as a prediction. (Did you simply forget? Or are you just being difficult?) Which gets back to the nature of predictions, which you don't believe is relevant in this article. Of course you're confused, as you keep removing the explanations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that it might be useful to draw up a list of notable earthquake predictions that is consistent with an authoritative source, in this case a recently published source (thus including predictions up to close to present), I had a look at Susan Hough's book (already referenced in this Wikipedia article). She mentioned many of the earthquake predictions given here. She did not mention the following 4 predictions: 1976-1978 South Carolina, 1978 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, 1978 Oaxaca, 1998 Iceland. I suppose this is not necessarily the end of the story, but we might take it as guidance for what might be dropped. I would, personally, suggest that even several of the remaining predictions in the (long) list might be scrutinized for necessary inclusion. I say this because a book, like Hough's, can have lots of material, but I don't think an encyclopedia article needs to have so much material. Anyway, I propose, for now, we simply remove the following predictions: 1976-1978 South Carolina, 1978 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, 1978 Oaxaca, 1998 Iceland. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is: all of the predictions you list have been claimed as successful, and to leave any of them out suggests the very kind of bias of which I have been accused. The article lists the criteria by which the the predictions were selected. If you think that is too inclusive than suggest how the criteria might be tightened. For an alternate, and much fuller, list, see Geller's GJI article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, we don't really need a full list of earthquake predictions (claimed, mistaken, true, false, whatever they may be). We do need examples that illustrate important issues for science and society. I will look at Geller's GJI article, but I don't think we need 15 examples. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue with a list is always: what are the inclusion criteria? If you leave out cases of purported successes some editors (such as those whose awareness of the topic is from the typically upbeat articles in the popular media) will complain you are pushing a non-neutral POV. If you want only "examples that illustrate important issues for science and society" you need to define suitable objective criteria for selection. Even so there will likely be objections (as seen below) of "subjective judgment" in applying the criteria. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As for Geller's 1997 GJI article, among the Notable Predictions in the present Wikipedia article, one is not mentioned at all anywhere: 1976-1978 South Carolina, the same prediction is not mentioned by Hough eithere. Since Geller's paper was published in 1997, it does not include, obviously, those after 1997 but which are presently given in the Wikipedia article. Geller's paper has a separate section on Claims of "Successful Prediction", and this section has a very short list. Many of the Notable Predictions given in the Wikipedia article are not in this section of his paper, but, instead, appear, with much more succinct description, in a section called “Publicly announced predictions”. The predictions in the Wikipedia article in this section of Geller’s paper are: 1978 Oxaca, 1981 Lima. Other prediction in the Wikipedia article but which are only given a passing reference are: 1973 Blue Mountain, 1974 Hollister, 1976 Whitcomb, 1998 Iceland. There are also predictions in this section which are not in the Wikipedia article. So, we have some inconsistency. Some of the predictions given in Geller, but which are not in the Wikipedia article, might be considered fringe by some (Jupiter effect, for example) or maybe less noteworthy for some reason (1995 Central California).

Furthermore, a prediction is given by Hough but not by Geller: 1974 Hollister. And some predictions are given by Geller but not by Hough: 1978 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, 1978 Oaxaca, 1998 Crampin. And, like I said, 1976-1978 South Carolina is not given by either. So, the point here is that different scientists have different criteria for discussing this or that prediction.

Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How to proceed? We don’t want to do original research, so we should rely on published sources. I suggest listing those predictions that are found in both Hough and, also, which are prominently presented in Geller’s paper. This would narrow things down quite a bit: 1975 Haicheng, 1985-1993 Parkfield, 1987-1995 Greece (VAN), 1989 Loma Prieta, 1990 New Madrid. And, then also include, for recent relevance, the predictions mentioned in Hough but which came after Geller published his paper: 2004-2005 Southern California, 2009 L’Aquila. This gives 7 examples of, well, very "Notable Predictions". Personally, I actually think that is still too many for an encyclopedia, but it is certainly more manageable than the present list of 15 Notable Predictions. This does not preclude, of course, future additions or subtractions from the list. That can be discussed.

Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your unilateral (so much for consensus, eh?) edit of "Notable predictions" was not a "haircut", but an evisceration. You have personally decided that there should be some lesser limit, and have removed all but what you arbitrarily selected as notable predictions from two sources you happen to have at hand. What you leave out demonstrates a very poor grasp of what has been notable. You have also deleted the specific criteria which controlled inclusion in the original version, so you have no basis (except your personal, unstated, and subjective opinion) for objection if someone adds or subtracts other predictions. I had hoped to bring this article to a level that would not be professionally embarrassing, but you seem intent on reducing it to a kiddy ride. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Over reliance on direct quotation

Much of the article relies on direct quotations. This might not be appropriate. Consider the following paragraph, for example, in the section on "Seismic gaps":

It has been asked: "How could such an obvious, intuitive model not be true?"[114] Possibly because some underlying assumptions are not correct. A close examination suggests that "there may be no information in seismic gaps about the time of occurrence or the magnitude of the next large event in the region";[115] statistical tests of the circum-Pacific forecasts shows that the seismic gap model "did not forecast large earthquakes well".[116] Another study concluded: "The hypothesis of increased of earthquake potential after a long quiet period can be rejected with a large confidence."[117]

This is mostly just the stringing together of four separate quotes. These quotes are not poetry, just literal words from papers. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. Not appropriate to argue the same point in multiple sections. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 18:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, perhaps you are mistaken? If so, please pardon my removal of the archive box you put in place. The content of this discussion section is NOT the same as the preceding section, it is not redundant as you seem to perceive it to be. The previous discussion section is specifically about the long list of Notable Predictions. I'm suggesting it be pared down, and I'm providing some points of discussion about content. This discussion section is about the over-all style of the entire article, which I think is overly reliant on direct quotations. A very different issue. So, I consider this worthy of discussion, and I'm proposing discussion prior to wading into the article to change things. Please consider this before closing the discussion. Thank you, and, sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)— DoctorTerrella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree that there seem to be many quotes that really don't need to be there. I'm fairly sure that I've removed some but there are many more. There is probably about 25-30% of this article that can go without affecting the coverage at all. That was what I meant a few days ago when I said that it seemed to be an attempt to press home a point of view. - Sitush (talk)

"direct quotations" has just been argued over. This section, which starts off with "Much of the article relies on direct quotations." is a rehash with some new bits for color. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed for this article? Where? Was a solution proposed? DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit. I wrote "direct quotations" has just been argued over. Obviously, you would want to search this page for "direct quotations" to see where it had just been argued over. JFC!--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, now, there was discussion 2 years ago about the same issue, over quotation. This discussion is in Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. I hadn't spotted that archive thread, which also contains exactly the same thoughts that I hold regarding the quote boxes and the mad explanation of prediction theory. I notice that JJ browbeat then. It won't be happening now. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No. I wrote "direct quotations" has just been argued over. Obviously, you would want to search this page for "direct quotations" to see where it had just been argued over. JFC! See #tangent--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see it even with a search of this page. Try a diff, like most people would in such circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, the discussion under "tangent", which was under "prediction vs forecasting", is specifically about the first sentence and its construction from two quotes from papers. The first sentence is an important part of any encyclopedia article, and so worthy of scrutiny. My putting in a different section for discussing the over-all style of the article, lots of quotes and sometimes even entire paragraphs are dominated by quotes, was meant to promote discussion on this as a general issue. I understand that you might feel this was discussed when the first sentence was discussed, but I guess I felt differently. I think that it is okay to discuss this, as I feel the article has some problems in this area. I hope this makes it clear, now, why I did this. Thank you, and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

MOS:WORDSASWORDS

Sitush: I don't find that policy supports https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_prediction&diff=620486048&oldid=620485939, in particular, MOS:WORDSASWORDS saysUse italics when writing about words as words ... A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted.. Please explain or revert.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you are getting at here. If you can't see good English when it is written, I cannot help you. What are the technical terms that you refer to? Prove that they are technical terms. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read MOS:WORDSASWORDS recently? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That is why I am asking you to prove that they are technical terms. As far as I can see, they are perfectly normal English usage and while they may be used in technical reports etc they do not appear to be being used in those in a manner that differs from the everyday usage. They are playing their "normal grammatical role" and you need to show that they are "technical terms" if you wish to italicise. I'd probably still oppose it - it looks bloody stupid and MOS is not a policy - but the ball is in your court. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What Elvey is getting "at" is your campaign to remove all italicization (e.g.: here, here ["we do not do italics like this - the article needs cleaning of practically all of them"], here, here, here, here, and here), including in direct quotations (as you did here).

For all that you keep citing WP:MOSITALICS as authority for removing italics, you do not seem very familiar with it. What Elvey points to is the bit that says words or terms should be italicized when talking about them rather than using them. (The use–mention distinction.) This includes the first use of terms (technical or otherwise). Note also where MOS:EMPHASIS says: "Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence ...." (bolding added). All of this in accord with standard style manuals. (E.g., see CMS-13, sections 6.53, 6.60, 6.61, and 6.66.)

Your concept of "good English" is idiosyncratic, and at variance with standard usage. You have already admitted that your "knowledge of the subject matter is not great" (above, 17:24 28 July); it appears that your understanding of style and the Wikpedia policies pertaining thereto are also "not great". On that ground it would seem advisable that you cease in your unilateral "taking a hatchet to this article." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

JJ, I've had years of experience of people here trying to browbeat by using TLDR rants. I don't bother reading them. I refer you to my earlier query re: technical terms. Care to try again? - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a k.i.s.s. just for you: you are hung up on "technical term", which is cited in MOS:WORDSASWORDS (and quoted by Elvey) as an instance of words being referred to in themselves ("as words"). More appropriate to your de-italicization edits is the preceeding section in the MOS (MOS:EMPHASIS, which I have quoted), which states that italics may be used for emphasis. Is this simple enough for you? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Both User:Sitush and User:J. Johnson: Your disagreement is becoming tendentious. The use of italics does serve a purpose. Sitush: Your edit summaries do not explain what is wrong with the italics, only that you don't like them.

Do you really want another WP:ANI thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything that JJ is involved in becomes tendentious so, yes, take me to ANI and see who comes worse off. I've explained what the problem is with the italics: MOS is not policy and the bit of MOS they are citing is dependent on these words being technical terms - I've asked for evidence that they are such and none has been forthcoming. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that I would take another thread to ANI. I am again warning J. Johnson that another ANI thread will result in a topic-ban. However, Sitush, the place to discuss the italics is on this talk page so that we can discuss whether they are technical terms, not just by reverting them in edit summaries that say that you don't like them. I don't care whether the MOS is policy or a guideline; you, Sitush, seem to be arguing both ways. If there is an ANI thread, I will request that J. Johnson be topic-banned, and that Sitush be topic-banned from style edits, at least here and possibly in the English Wikipedia. So, both of you, stop arguing about italics. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but go request what you like. I've asked questions and those opposed to the change are not responding to them. That isn't my problem but every time they come back with the same tendentious stuff, I can't ignore it otherwise they'll say "no response, we 'win'". That's what they've done before and it is in the archives of this talk page: call it filibustering or whatever you like but I'm of the "nil carborundum" variety and will not just wilt in the face of tendentiousness. Go back to the earlier version of the article and read it out loud, bearing in mind that emphasis need a change in voice. Unless these really are technical terms, it is ridiculous. If you take me to ANI on a style ban issue as things currently stand, you'll get nowhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush: you say that "they" — I presume that includes me — "are not responding". But when I do respond you throw up "TLDR" and "tendentious". Your self-descriptive "nil carborundum" (presumably referring to illegitimi non carborundum) sounds to me more like WP:IDHT. On those grounds I don't see how to have a proper discussion with you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to provide evidence that these are truly technical terms or not? You have not done so yet. And have you actually tried my suggestion of reading the old version out loud, with the voice-change that the emphasis denotes? - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should I respond if you won't trouble to read it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the rule, which is that we Use italics when writing about words as words. Do not continue to edit war on the basis that "MOS is not a policy", but if you can prove that they're neither words as words, nor technical terms, I promise to revert to your preferred version.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And I will be reverting you because the article is not discussing them as words and you've not shown that they are technical terms. Why are so many science-based articles so poorly written? Because most scientists do not understand how to write good English. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  Which certainly sounds like an edit-war. Per WP:BRD you get to make a Bold edit (here, removing the italics), someone else can Revert that, and then it is supposed to stop: you go to Discussion. And so far Sitush is alone in favoring removal.

  In respect of substantive discussion I suggest that Sitush give us the exact wording where MOS says that italics must be removed. BTW, let's not forget MOS:EMPHASIS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted, per BRD. Sitush: you are hereby WARNED for at least the second time: policy states, "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, ".--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of reasons have been given. Honestly, this place is a fucking nightmare of pedantry. I haven't reverted the italicisation of earthquake forecasting because I guess that one is ok until an article for the subject is created, but the rest of the italics (except the quotation - mea culpa) were pointless. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason you have given is to wave broadly at MOS:ITALICS, and the only argument that these uses are not technical terms (which MOS:ITALICS allows). I'll explain this one more time: "technical term" came up here only because the material Elvey quoted uses that term as an example of using "words as words". Your argument is essentially that italics are permissible only if they are technical terms. Elvey and I argue that other uses are also permitted. And I will further argue that nothing in MOS:ITALICS requires such removals as you have done. (No? Then quote it.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been responding to Elvey's comments, which is why the wodsaswords things has come in. Like I said, I can live with earthquake forecasting until someone creates an article for it and, yes, if I inadvertently altered the formatting inside a quotation then those italics should be reinstated. Beyond that, you've not provided anything to suggest that MOS:ITALICS doesn't apply and even Elvey seems (by omission) to be at least unsure. You are fond of italics, JJ, even in your messages: that's fine but it ain't usually necessary. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the spirit of the italics rule is that only certain words in certain situations should be italicized; by deduction, if something does not fall into one of those specified use cases, then it should not be italicized, and if it is italicized those italics should be removed. --Ca2james (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I expect that you are all capable of delving through the history but, for clarity, this is how the article looked before I removed the italics. Even in the lead section, it is excessive. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james and Sitush (and everybody), finding a way forward would be welcome. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ITALICS says nothing about "excessive"; Sitush's criterion is solely WP:DONTLIKE. If his true objection is the emphasis he should have said so, and not wasted our time by citing MOS:ITALICS for something it doesn't say. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection since MOS:ITALICS contains MOS:EMPHASIS, which outlines the use of italics for emphasis. Just because the guideline doesn't explicitly specify when not to use italics doesn't mean that those rules aren't implied or deducible. There were too many italics used in the article before and their overuse isn't good print or encyclopaedic style. It's clear that you know quite a lot about the subject at hand but unfortunately you do have a tendency towards writing what some might call purple prose. I know it's hard to watch people edit your work but I hope you see that everyone here is trying to make this article the best it can be. --Ca2james (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "too many italics" (you use as many as needed, and even a few more are unlikely to be a big deal), and in any event Sitush's criterion was not "too many", but "any". That is, he was removing all italics (even in quoted material) for being italics, regardless of any acceptable usage. He also miscited MOS:ITALICS. Now if he had objected to excessive emphasis, well, I am open to compromise. But that is NOT what he objected to. If he had just stated his objections (re emphasis?) on the Talk page (instead of jumping directly to edits) we could have skipped the tedious tour of MOS:ITALICS and some of the edit warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Appropriate handling of fringe topics, how to respect WP:NPOV

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.

---

Is the language in the article, "severe criticism", as applied to VAN, editorializing or, appropriate, given the criticism in, e.g. Jackson and Kagan's paper includes, "No more VAN, please!", with section headings of "No physics", "No science", "No prediction", "No way", "Published work by Varotsos and colleagues lacks these requirements of good science"), and finally, ending with: "The VAN hypothesis badly violates physical intuition, is too vague to test, and its proponents' claims of successful earthquake prediction are flagrantly exaggerated."? Parties differ as to how to interpret and apply policies such as WP:NPOV.

Reasons an RFC seems necessary: Discussions about this article are getting out of hand again, regarding "severe" and other topics. There have been a couple ANI notices, which are noted and linked to from this page. I warned Sitush about his edit warring; his response was not helpful. My "Proposal" of a compromise solution has seen no response. Tempers have flared, I'm at a loss as to what to do about that. I am stepping back and asking for help/comments. Bad attitudes seem to be contagious. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 04:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What compromise proposal? I must have missed that. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I wrote, Proposal: instead of 'severely', how 'bout we add some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate.. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong comment. Elvey, this is not well considered. While an RfC might be useful, your formulation of an issue to comment on is very poor: it rambles, it doesn't support the statements included, it doesn't state the issue very clearly, confuses assertions with the statements supporting the assertions, and includes tangential issues. This will only invite a lot of broad-ranging and unfocused comments. If you will kindly do us all (including yourself) a favor by canceling this (remove the rfc tag) I will be happy to help you better formulate an RfC on this. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Even stronger comment (ta-daaa!) If Elvey points us to the compromise proposal that I seem to have missed then maybe there will be no need for this or any other RfC on the topic. Now that is logic. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2014

• I wrote, Proposal: instead of 'severely', how 'bout we add some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate.. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you need to revisit WP:DIFF, though, especially since you are now refactoring earlier stuff here. My answer would include the words/phrases "because we've got too many quotations already", "WP:SYNTHESIS", "WP:WEA". - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that a response to my proposal? Are you saying you're opposed to adding some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate? I do not think WP:WEA links to what you think it links to. ALso, by definition, adding quotes is not WP:SYNTHESIS.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments on RFC

This is a poorly formed RFC. It isn't exactly clear what question the proposer is asking. Is it about the VAN method itself, or criticism of the VAN method, or "severe" criticism of the VAN method? How will the closer know how to close it in 30 days? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that J. Johnson likes strong language, like "severe" and "constant drumbeat", but that isn't the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The originator of this RFC didn't even format it correctly, with a two-level heading, but used the first-level heading properly used only for the article title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the originator would withdraw the RFC, but someone who hasn't been claiming ownership of the article (and who only avoided a topic-ban due to archival of a thread and to gaming of the thread) should help formulate a proper RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that I can formulate a proper RfC. Which I would leave to someone else to add the RfC template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Add any draft questions for the RFC below the line for the purpose. Anyone may add a question, even if they have claimed ownership of the article. I will let the original author of the previous RFC strike it, and rewrite it below the line, or it can go to closure and have the closer have no idea how to close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: can you point me to your compromise before we get involved in all this bureaucracy? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote, My "Proposal" of a compromise solution has seen no response. Did you not think to try searching for that word, "Proposal"?

Specifically, I wrote, Proposal: instead of 'severely', how 'bout we add some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate.. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes it poorly formed? What part of the question asked do you not understand? It ends in a "?". Do you expect an RFC to be packaged so people can line up to 'support' or 'oppose'? It's an RFC, not an RFV. Appreciate the difference? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, between "Is the language ... editorializing" and the terminal question mark you have multiple lines of what are essentially argument. (I suspect you do not understand the difference between making an agument, and merely stating what it is.) You did not clearly and concisely state what the issue is, stating it solely in terms of one position ("editorializing") to the disparagement of the other ("fair summarization"), and the mention of NPOV only confuses matters. Better "packaging" is needed not for ease of voting, but to focus the comments and keep them from sliding off into tangential topics (as seen below). Again, how about closing your RfC? This is not togive up on the issue, it is to let us try a better approach. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We disagree. It seems the question is too long for some people's taste or comprehension abilities. I don't see the quotes as argument, though you do. The core question is simply, 'Is the language in the article, "severe criticism", as applied to VAN, editorializing or, appropriate'? I seek comment as to whether the reliably sourced quotes and policy, considered together, do or do not render the language appropriate.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The issues with this RFC have nothing to do with being too long for some people's taste or comprehension abilities but are, per Robert McClenon, that the question is unclear, the summary of the issue is not neutrally phrased, and that it will be exceedingly difficult for an uninvolved editor to close because finding the consensus among the unstructured tl;dr walls of text requires too much time and effort. I know that this last issue shouldn't matter but with a limited number of volunteer editors, we'll have an easier time getting someone to close and summarize the RFC if it's easy for them to do that. Moreover, an RFC that's structured so that it's clear where editors can !vote and where they can add comments helps to encourage participation. It would be very helpful if you would please close this RFC so that we can work together to create a clear, neutral, easy-to-summarize RFC (assuming one is needed). Thanks! --Ca2james (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I'm using a bit of the draft RFC below to form this question but could an involved editor point me to anywhere an argument has been made that Broadly or Widely significantly detracts from the meaning vs Severely. SPACKlick (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only RfC here (currently) is the poorly formulated one above, which most everyone but the author would like to have closed; it ought to be ignored. The proposed draft in the following section is not (yet?) an RfC, and until it is probably ought to be ignored also. So while you have a potentially interesting point, the issue may be moot. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft for proposed RfC

The following is proposed as text for an RfC to replace the one above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An issue has arisen as to whether "severely" (or "severe") can be used to describe the criticism of a certain group's work.

Background: Since 1981 a group known as "VAN" has published numerous papers claiming successful prediction of earthquakes in Greece. This has been "very controversial." While a few scientists support them, VAN has been broadly criticised by mainstream seismologists. This includes statements (by reliable sources in peer-reviewed journals) that the basis of the VAN method does not have a testable hypothesis, is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound, depends on retroactive adjustment of prediction criteria, and tends to follow strong earthquakes rather than preceed them. It is also stated that the work of VAN misrepresents the earthquake record, is greatly exaggerated, and is a waste of money. A 2010 book states "most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked."

The positions are:

1) Given the extent and nature of this criticism, it is within the scope of permitted editorial summarization to characterize it as "severe".

2) Despite all of the foregoing the word "severely" is emotive and barred by WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL, and in the absence of a direct quote the use of this word is forbidden as editorializing.

The question: given the extent and nature of the criticism, is characterizing it as "severe" 1) permitted summarization, or 2) forbidden editorializing?

• Comment. I am only here for the... RFC? If the RFC is intended to be J. Johnson's proposal, I have no difficulty with his formulation, but if not, I don't know what it is that I am supposed to be commenting on. Meanwhile on the assumption that J. Johnson's proposal is in fact the RFC in force, it all sounds like SIT stuff (storm in teacup). In this article the "severe" qualifier would do nothing to change the substance of the text, and that is a good reason to omit it altogether; ANY functionless term should be omitted on principle. However, there is more: rhetorical inclusion of "severely" gives a prissy note that belongs on a cigarette package, or in a moralistic harangue, not in an encyclopaedia calculated to inspire respect. In this article, if the author feels that to leave the text at "controversial" without any intensifying qualifier is misleading (like referring to WWII or the Bhopal incident as "unfortunate") then it would be more appropriate to rephrase the text radically. My recommendation would to remove dispensable adjectives and support allegations with citations rather than assertions and aspersions. As it stands the article contains presumably valid accusations that editors justifiably could remove because they lack citations. And once valid citations were supplied, extra adjectives would be unnecessary. It is all SIT stuff, as I said. JonRichfield (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an RFC. There had been discussion of developing an RFC. It does appear that one of the issues was whether to use the word "severely" along with "criticized", which I agree is a waste of pixels. In the past, J. Johnson has liked to include strong dramatic language taken from direct quotes from sources. Other editors have thought that such language was unencyclopedic. Other editors have also thought that J. Johnson has ownership issues with this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's try again. Does anyone think that an RFC is in order? If so, what should it say? If two or more questions should be publicized, can we publicize them concurrently? If no one thinks that an RFC is in order, we can drop this. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The RFC from a few months ago addressed an almost identical issue. With that previous RFC on record, it should be (and should have been) accepted that pointed descriptors (like "severe" or "severely") can be minimized throughout the wikiarticle on Earthquake Prediction. We don't need to debate this again. We don't need to go around in circles. That is what I think. Thank you, and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The mystification regarding the RfC arises because Elvey's one is still open. I don't see the need for one at all but, clearly, JJ does and Elvey might. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the only RfC currently open here is the one Elvey started, which we all agree is poorly formulated, and should be closed. You don't see a need for the RfC I am proposing because you took "severely" out. If (say) Elvey put it back in, would you then see a need for discussion? Or would you just continue to edit-war with him? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, we do not all agree. Elvey, for example, doesn't seem to do so. They've responded above but have not closed their RfC. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I welcome comments on the RFC I opened, or JJ's proposal, equally. WP:NOTBURO...--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yours has been trashed by just about everyone who has commented about it and JJ's proposal, while yours is in place, has demonstrably created confusion for people new to this page. Will one of the pair of you please strike for now. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, something from Sitush I actually agree with. Elvey, your RfC is poorly formulated (as I have commented above) and causing confusion. As you are the originator I ask you close it. (I believe removing the Rfc template is sufficient.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

JonRichfield, thank you for your comment on the RFC. I reiterate: I welcome comments on the RFC I opened, or JJ's proposal, equally; they request essentially the same thing. WP:NOTBURO It seems like the consensus is forming against the inclusion of 'severely'. I don't know how to interpret JonRichfield' comment that we "support allegations with citations" with respect to my compromise proposal (which I have now posted 4 times, at Sitush's myopic insistence). --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Similar RFC from a few months ago

It might be worth recognizing that there was a similar RFC from a couple months ago. The subject then, as now, was about possibly overly pointed descriptions in the Earthquake Prediction page. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_3#Request_for_comment

DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hardly worth. That Rfc was started by User:Joe Bodacious, now discredited as a sockpuppet. What I am proposing here is to examine one specific case and resolve it on objective considerations, without making a circus of it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Being a sock does not necessarily negate the points made. In any event, I for one am grateful for the past RfC being mentioned. Far better than that a recurrent theme appears as a one-off. Now - no offence intended - I suppose it could be possible that Joe has returned but we have to AGF unless there is some evidence. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I too am grateful for the past RfC being mentioned. In particular, some comments by non-regular non-anon users, such as User:Ca2james and User:JonRichfield were particularly useful. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Which comments, specifically? It might help to diff them.- Sitush (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget that some people don't know how to have their browser search a web page. Learn how, Sitush and everyone else. (WP:CIR !) No I'm not going to hunt down a diff because you are incapable and/or unwilling to search the page linked to. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the rest of you folks saw or got; I received an RFC. On looking in here I couldn't see which chunk of text had hauled me in, so I responded to the draft of JJ's, which seemed to me the most coherent. The whole thing rang faint bells of a previous RFC, which I see that some of you recall. For my part, though I am complimented by Elvey's remarks, I cannot remember what I said last time,and my only remaining interest is in keeping WP's image healthy, which in turn requires a reasonable standard of stewardship among the editors. Adjectival fluff in text is not conducive to such standards. Schluss. If anyone has anything that for some reason they would like my reaction to, let me know. Just for now, I have other pressures, so I am outtahere. Cheers all. JonRichfield (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

JonRichfield, there might be some straightening out of the RFC. In the meantime, I agree with your sentiment regarding the need to minimize adjectival fluff and, I suppose, adverbial fluff as well! Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2014 (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.

Haicheng narrative requires qualification

In the section on the 1975 Haicheng earthquake this edit removed a qualifier ("putative story") so that the text now makes a declarative statement that "[s]tudy of seismic activity in the region lead the Chinese authorities to issue" various warnings. This suggests deliberate action taken on the basis of sound knowledge, being the story put forward by the Chinese authorities, promoting both Chinese science and the political leadership, and uncritically accepted by many. However, Wang et al. (2006) found that this narrative is incorrect: that there was no short-term prediction, and that "it was the foreshocks alone that triggered the final decisions of warning and evacuation". On this basis the quasi-official story is not true, and suitable qualification is required to maintain objectivity. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest anything because we mention Wang et al contesting it. That is, we show both sides reasonably neutrally. It is not for us to pass judgement. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That two paragraphs later Wang et al. are quoted as saying there was no official short-term prediction does not excuse making the false statement that there was a short-term prediction, followed by "effective preventative measures". Describing this quasi-official view as "putative" — meaning commonly accepted or supposed — is not taking a side or passing judgment, it states precisely the nature of that view: commonly accepted or supposed. That this view has been discredited is not raised until the following paragraph. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No. You seem not to be understanding some basic stuff. Some authority says something, another refutes it. We do not give more emphasis to one than to the other. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush, but I will also add that Johnson should appreciate that the last word in the case of the Haicheng earthquake is given by those who find the prediction "unsatisfactory". That, then, is the story as it unfolded. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What I appreciate is that 1) the majority of sources describing Haicheng as a successful prediction were merely echoing two (+?) "dog and pony shows" given by the Chinese government (which attracted some skeptical comments at the time), and that 2) the latest report (Wang et al. 2006) is based on examination of actual documents, and on interviews no longer constrained by the politics of the Cultural Revolution. This one report by Wang et al. is more authoritative than all of the preceding reports because they actually researched the matter, and we can accept that because in the subsequent eight years no one has challenged them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That, I think, is just your opinion. All reports, on all subjects, are constrained by various factors and there is no "truth". Assuming that you are a scientist, I'm surprised that you do not recognise this and suggest reading some of Thomas Kuhn's writings. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately all knowledge is "only" opinion. But what makes my opinion better than yours is in being based on better authority, and in understanding why (as I just explained) this one source is more authoritative than the scores of older sources that merely repeated the Party line. If in your vast reading and deep understanding of the seismological literature you find anything contradicting the conclusions of Wang et al. 2006 by all means bring it to the discussion. That you have gone as far as Kuhn without finding anything could be a demonstation that no such contradiction (or even criticism) exists. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kuhn wasn't a scientist but a historian of science and philosopher of science. Most scientists working as scientists are more familiar with Popper than with Kuhn. In any case, this isn't an issue about the philosophy of science. The real issue is how the prediction of the quake should be described. The records are incomplete and biased, but any saving of lives occurred because of the evacuation due to the foreshock, not to any other technique. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, dear Karl. I don't think even he rejected the development cycle of hypotheses but, regardless, if in fact the saving of lives occurred because of the evacuation due to the foreshock then we can say that. We don;t need to say "putative story". - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(Outdenting because it seems to me we are back to where I started.)

That Haicheng has been claimed as a successful prediction, and that there exists a subtext ("story") that claims that timely action based on this prediction saved lives, etc., and even that these two claims are commonly accepted or supposed to be true (at least until 2006), are incontrovertibly true. In that regard it is quite accurate and fair to describe these claims as putative — which means nothing more than "commonly accepted or supposed". The need for this qualification arises from the strong showing that these claims are nonetheless incorrect. The putative story is incorrect, and stating it directly without qualification is to state that which is untrue. We need say something; "putative" is the most accurate and most succinct. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, let the story unfold as it is sourced. There is no need for us to impose our own subjective judgement and to do so in this situation is weaseling. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP:WEASELing here is stating as unqualified fact, and thereby "creating an impression", that the Chinese political authorities took "effective preventative measures" based on scientific study, when we have a reliable source that says othwerwise. If you want to "let the story unfold" as it happened you could say something like: "The Chinese government said, and many scientists accepted, that ...." But the latest and most reliable source (Wang) says it didn't happen that way. It is not a matter of "our own subjective judgment", as the source states explicitly: "there was no official short-term prediction" (Wang et al. 2006, p. 785). Belated signature ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Poor formatting and citing

What the heck was the point of reverting here except in fact to be point-y? You reinstated HTML line breaks etc that simply are not necessary if you use the "modern" {{quote}} template; you reinstated specious citations for a tiny quote in a quotebox that simply are not necessary. Citing BRD and EW is fair enough and I won't keep reverting you but, honestly, the issue here seems not to be whether an edit improves an article but whether I made that edit or not. Together with your recent sarcasm-loaded statements in sections above, it seems that you are making this personal, Elvey. Don't. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, restoration of of "Although none of the following precursors are convincingly successful, they do illustrate the various kinds of phenomena which have been examined, as well as the optimism that generally attaches to any report of a possible precursor." was not pointy. It's pretty damn encyclopedic. Great, glad that you're FINALLY agreeing to stop edit warring, after several warnings. Except then you've gone and reverted again. Yes, BRD and EW do actually apply to you, as I hope an admin will forcefully drive home...one can only hope. When dealing with a persistent edit warriors like yourself. Edit warring again and again and again and ... over ""(the four M ≥ 8 quakes in 2007 being exceptional) ... (but 23 in 2010)." Stop if you don't want the many diffs of it listed and your ass blocked. And someone please undo. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 17:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was on the point of undoing your reinstatement, but I'm glad to see you self-reverted. It was difficult to explain all the problems with your reinstatement in one edit comment. I'd let it lie but it seems you're still convinced that your version was better and may only have self-reverted for fear of 3RR, so I'll still try to explain.

The sentence Although none of the following precursors are convincingly successful, they do illustrate the various kinds of phenomena which have been examined, as well as the optimism that generally attaches to any report of a possible precursor is not the language of an NPOV article; it's the language of an essay arguing a POV, packing several judgements (e.g. that no predictions succeed, whatever their methods, and that expectations are too high) into a single sentence - except of course that a persuasive essay would not muddle "precursor" and "prediction" so woefully. For markup, I recommend the guidance at the start of WP:HTML, that wiki markup and templates are simpler and less intrusive and that In normal practice, wiki markup or templates are preferred within articles. Lastly, the use of emphatic phrasing such as "seriously undermine" rather than simply "undermine" and the repeated use of passionate and scathing quotations serve only to reinforce the sense that the article is one-sided and therefore to be disregarded. That's not how we want Wikipedia articles to be seen and it probably isn't how you want the material presented in this article to be seen. NebY (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

NebY, I support the sentiment (and content) of your message. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, please note Citing BRD and EW is fair enough and I won't keep reverting you right above your response in this section. As it happens, and as evidenced in other sections of this page as well as in NebY's comment above, it seems that the stranglehold that the (somewhat unlikely, sometimes tempestuous) partnership of you and JJ have had on this article may be on its way out. I don't think anyone is disputing that the pair of you know a lot about the technicalities of this subject but there are aspects of style, presentation etc where both of you could learn from others. That's what collaboration is about, even if I suspect that you may think it seems antagonistic in this instance. FWIW, I've got someone poring over William Beach Thomas at the moment and, although I am by far the major contributor there, am more than happy to be guided by their advice on style etc: I take it, as well as dish it out. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The line breaks are indeed poor formatting, and should have been left out. But Sitush's complaint that Elvey "reinstated specious citations for a tiny quote in a quotebox that simply are not necessary" is itself specious. This is about the Richter quote. It is likely the most famous of his quotes, but poorly documented. So I augmented my primary source (where I read it, but not available on-line) with an alternate source, and also a variant from another source. Sitush's excision of two of these sources (here, and again here) is unnecessary, having no basis except his personal WP:DONTLIKE, and leads to a subtle misattribution.

NebY's multi-faceted complaint about the precursors paragraph seems to be completely off-base. That sentence makes no judgments about predictions, methods, or expectations. Nor does he explain how "precursor" and "prediction" are muddled. His scatter-shot complaint that the article is arguing a POV goes beyond the scope of this thread, and should be a separate discussion.

Sitush implies that the controversy here is about style and presentation. At one level, perhaps, but that does not justify his modification of quotes and citations, his edit-warring, nor his insistence on his own preferences. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is likely the most famous of Richter's quotes (I've no idea whether or not it is) then why the hell is it stuffed into a quotebox, bearing in mind that the guy has a scale named after him? That is clueless writing, really, it is. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea about this — you are clueless — because you have not studied the literature. It is presumptuous of you to comment on what you have taken so little time to understand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Richter an expert on earthquake prediction? Unless he is, there's no need for his words on earthquake prediction to be highlighted even if he's notable for something else. Much of the problem with this article is its style and presentation and it isn't at all presumptuous for others to comment on those issues whether they have as deep an understanding of the subject material as you do or not. --Ca2james (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Experts on earthquake come in two flavors: seismologists/geophysicists, and statisticians. Richter was a seismologist. For his time he was probably as expert on EP as anyone else. His lack of peer-reviewed papers on EP specifically reflects his general lack of peer-reviewed papers. Check the article for additional interviews and sources. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Charles Richter was a very famous Caltech seismologist (now deceased). I did a quick google scholar search on his publications. It seems he did very little research in the field of "earthquake prediction" (please forgive my use of quote marks!). So, one might ask, reasonably, if he should have been quoted at all; flip-side: he was a respected expert on earthquakes. Having said this, there is an interesting interview that Caltech conducted with Richter before he died. It includes some anecdotes about earthquake prediction. I like these sorts of "old-man" (quotes again, I know) interviews. They provide some real perspective on the human endeavor we call "science" (I can't seem to stop!). The interview can be found at http://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/17/1/OH_Richter_C.pdf Enjoy, DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The muddling of "precursor" and "prediction" comes in the opening clause with the words "precursors are convincingly successful". Predictions may be successful or unsuccessful, theories can be convincing or not, but precursors don't attempt anything and do not succeed or fail. I already showed some of the judgements that sentence made: that no predictions succeed, whatever their methods, and that expectations are too high. The edit under discussion included Scholz 1997 quotes a variant: "Bah, no one but fools and charlatans try to predict earthquakes!" Wyss goes on to say: "Today the situation is more complex. We have fools, charlatans and serious scientists predicting earthquakes. Thus in that one "scattershot" revert, Elvey assembled examples of several of the POV flaws of this article, which then came under discussion in this one thread. J. Johnson, I'm surprised that you would venture, when you yourself joined it, to dictate this thread's scope and instruct me on what I can say within it. NebY (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  There was no muddling. Precursors can indeed be successful (or not) — as a basis for warning of earthquakes (as explained at the top of "Precursors"). If you felt that needed to be explictly repeated at the end of "none of the following precursors are convincingly successful" then that could have been done. Though it is moot now, that paragraph having evaporated.

  Perhaps you could use some review of the various part of WP:TPG such as Stay on topic (emphasis in the original) and Keep discussions focused (ditto), discussion being difficult enough without editors shooting off in all directions. "Poor formatting and citing" has difficulties enough as it is; if you want to go off about POV please do so in a different section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoteboxes

Quoteboxes already extensively discussed, and mostly not supported. See the following archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_3#Quote_boxes.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2#Over-quotation DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it it has been the objections which are not supported. See the Comprehensive list of complaints I made last spring ("lest these fumes of complaint re-ignite at some future time as unfinished business").

I also laid out specific reasons for having the quote boxes:

1) to attract and engage the interest of readers (similar to pull-quotes).

2) to provide visual decoration in lieu of images.

3) to provide a sense of the evolving context of scientific opinion regarding prediction.

4) to set off this general background material from the specific predictions.

In regards of current events I point out that Charles Richter, whom the Richter scale is named after, is arguably the most notable seismologist ever. He was the leading figure in seismology's infancy, and famous for his pithy sayings. His most quoted saying — because for many seismologists it is an apt statement of the perils of glib predictions — is: "Only fools and charlatans predict earthquakes."

The objection seems to be primarily emotional, as seen just recently in NebY's comment (18:41 17 Aug.) of "repeated use of passionate and scathing quotations"", which he thinks makes the article one-sided. Passionate? Scathing? WTF?? (Where do you folks get this stuff?)

As to one-sidedness: how does that apply to "All predictions of the future can be to some extent successful by chance"? Would it be fairer to not mention this? Or how about the paired quotes under "Precursors":

• "there is growing empirical evidence that precursors exist."
• "The search for diagnostic precursors has thus far been unsuccessful."

Two opposing authorities, one saying there is evidence precursors exist, another says not. Not only two sides (count 'em), but balanced.

Let's look at the seven quotes (slightly trimmed) that were interspersed in "Notable predictions":

1) "Earthquake prediction ... appears to be on the verge of practical reality...."

2) "reliable predictions may be possible within 10 years...."

3) "at least 10 years ... before widespread, reliable prediction....."

4) "no general and definite way to successful earthquake prediction is clear."

5) "... make the routine prediction of earthquakes seem practicable."

6) "reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable."

7) "predictability remains immature."

Ah, yes, I guess there is some one-sidedness here: while #4 and #6 state that prediction is not "clear" or not yet achievable, the other five quotes all imply that earthquake prediction should be practicable once it matures, perhaps in only ten years. All that optimism was so upbeat I must have gotten carried away. Well, feel free to add quotes supporting "the other side" (what ever that may be). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the quotes aren't balanced; it's that they're there at all. Your four reasons for including the quotes - to attract and engage the interest of readers (similar to pull-quotes); to provide visual decoration in lieu of images; to provide a sense of the evolving context of scientific opinion regarding prediction; to set off this general background material from the specific predictions. - have everything to do with writing an essay and nothing to do with writing an encyclopaedic article. The quotes themselves are vague and general and show only that opinion is divided (which is easy to determine from the text); they add nothing substantial to the article; they certainly don't describe the way the scientific consensus has evolved; and they add no background information.

Even if the quotes added something substantial to the article, they're much too short to put into quote boxes (per MOS:QUOTE, which specifies that long quotes of at least 40 words should be in boxes). --Ca2james (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoteboxes that require multiple footnoted modifiers, as the Richter one did, are clearly inappropriate. The very fact that there is debate about the wording and the meaning makes them undue weight when promoted to a quotebox. JJ, you need to get a grip: you know the subject matter, I'm sure, but you are a pretty crap judge of how to write articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps because you spend so little time actually writing and far too much of it arguing and commenting on meta issues. I could ping some extremely proficient and respected writers to this article, for example @Drmies: and @Eric Corbett:. Not all of them would be interested but sufficient of them would be to cause this article to be gutted in no time at all. Be grateful for small mercies, perhaps? I am sure that you mean well but you and Elvey, despite your differences regarding some of the minutiae, are so far away from how Wikipedia should operated that it is staggering to me. I suspect that this is the fairly common situation: a clash between the presumptive experts and the general encyclopaedists. That's a "rock and a hard place" situation but, at the end of the day, if you want to be recognised as an expert on Wikipedia then you need to write a peer-reviewed paper or book and you need to hope that someone else here cites it. No-one said Wikipedia is an ideal resource; in fact, I for one have long argued that it is not. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What, all of it? There seem to be quite a lot of people agreeing with my nonsense. Are we all flat-earthers, too? - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, not all, as you did acknowlege that I know the subject matter. (Which is not a function of how much writing I've done, but of how much studying.) But your statement re "Quoteboxes that require multiple footnoted modifiers ..." is nonsense. By the same criteria you might as well delete the lead sentence and footnote 1. Your comments on "how Wikipedia should be operated" ramble, and lack authority, given your misintepretation of policy, edit-warring, disinclination to "hear", and dubious editing. Nor do I see "quite a lot of people" agreeing with our nonsense. And all of this having precious little to do with "Quoteboxes". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Diffs, please. I am concerned that you may be misquoting me. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Phew. That is one long article. If this is going to be attractive to the reader there should be images of beer and chips (or crisps, of course); the prose is not going to do it. I can see the point of a quote box for that Richter quote (though the "famous" there is kind of...kindergarteny), but more than a dozen of them, that's overkill. (BTW, I saw, somewhere in the article, "Harris (1998) reviewed 18 papers (with 26 forecasts) dating from 1910 "that variously offer or relate to scientific forecasts of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake."" Surely 1910 is not correct.) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you questioning the accuracy of the quote? Or the relevance of Reid's 1910 paper? Predictions, by definition, must precede the event pre-dicted, and there is no time limit. The 1910 paper addressed the likelihood of future earthquakes, and in a broad way is a better "prediction" than most of the subsequent papers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Pics of bacon, I would have thought ;) Regarding the Richter quote, here's a random earlier diff that shows that particular quotebox in all of its specious glory. I have no problem with quoting Richter, although it would seem that DoctorTerrella might have one, but to do so in a quotebox and with that degree of qualification regarding veracity/semnatics etc seems to me to be excessive. I double-taked (double-took?) on the 1910 thing also but let it pass at the time: there is a kind of logic to it but, again, when we cannot make things pretty obvious to intelligent people on a first read, we're doing something wrong. - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I've been watching the article and the talk page for some time, I've no comment on the quoteboxes or the overall development of the article. I do my own earthquake articles, and they're usually off in some dark corner of WP, but am working on the (well lit) 1989 Loma Prieta event right now. It'll take some time to finish, but I've used the Harris article, and it does review some forecasts that are related to that event that date back to 1910. Keep up the good work here, Dawnseeker2000 01:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james: regarding your earlier comment ("much too short") of 19 Aug., please read MOS:Blockquote more carefully. It says that long quotes of more than about 40 words should be block quoted. It does not require a minimum length for block quotes, and it says nothing about quote boxes. Nonetheless, their encyclopedic suitability seems well demonstrated by use in many GA and FA articles (e.g., see To Kill a Mockingbird or Demosthenes). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles you mention both include long quotes that highlight something important. The text you're seeking to add in quote boxes add nothing important; they're opinions, and not very interesting ones at that. They would have a place if you were writing, say, a magazine article (online or otherwise), but this is an encyclopaedia and the writing, formatting, and tone must be held to a higher standard than that of a magazine article. The length of the quote is also a concern; if short quotes were supposed to be put in quoteboxes the way you want to, the guideline would include a description of that usage.

Please note that quoteboxes actually are blockquotes. From MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quote}} or {{quote box}}. (emphasis added). In other words, a quotebox is the Wikipedia template form of a blockquote. --Ca2james (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  I thought the examples provided were rather too long, but either way: MOS:Blockquote does not set any minimum (or maximum) length. For shorter examples (FA articles) see Samuel Adams#Return to Massachusetts (only 15 words!) and Stonewall riots (31 words, 21 words, and 23 words). I mention this because I think length of quote is a false issue, and ought to be dropped as an objection.

  A more substantive objection would be not the "boxes" themselves, but the quotations. You say "they're opinions", which is indeed true, but then so is all knowledge. And these opinions are (were) from informed experts. That you think they are not very interesting is something we could discuss. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

---

This is the point where the discussion veers off into imputations of "lawyering" and other meta-issues. Comment below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the things I really hate about Wikipedia is the amount of lawyering that goes on. Most of it, as with real-life lawyering, is about interpreting things to suit your own point of view. That is what is going on here. JJ, you are not going to win this one and either/both "sides" delving more and more into the minutiae will not likely change that because people are mixing up guidelines with policies etc. Trust me, I've been here a while and I know a done deal when I see one. Gut feeling etc is, honestly, sometimes the best guide: lawyers, like statisticians, can twist things any way they choose if they are so minded but, really, we have debated this for long enough now. It is unfortunate that so few of the people who are involved in the various discussions on this talk page have a great record when it comes to editing articles versus editing talk pages but, hey, if we drop this particular issue then perhaps more time will be available to all of us to concentrate on what really matters. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

When I refer to quoteboxes I'm talking not just about the actual box but also its content. JJ, it seems that instead of providing policy or guideline based arguments, you're trying to twist things to suit your own views. Some might call wikilawyering, and it's quite frustrating to deal with because it feels like an endless, pointless game of whack-a-mole.

I came here because I was pinged weeks after I was asked by legobot to participate in an rfc. I know I'm a comparatively new and inexperienced editor and that I should edit instead of discussing. However, if my edits are going to be reverted for WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OWN reasons, what's the point? I suspect I'm not cut out for editing on Wikipedia because it ends up being such a struggle to get good, well- written information into an article. It end up being a pointless battle and the fighting and arguing is tiring. On top of that is the misogyny protected by WP:NOTCENSORED and the casual incivility and the result is a place where editing and article is more trouble than it's worth, at least for me. --Ca2james (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ca2james, I understand how you feel. Still, I, personally, would be happy to have you weigh in and change text in the Earthquake Prediction article. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  Wow, is "wikilawyering" the best response you all have? That I am twisting things? Let's trace this back. Ca2james said (20:31 23 Aug) that the quotes were "much too short to put into quote boxes (per MOS:QUOTE, which specifies that long quotes of at least 40 words should be in boxes)." Ca2james seems to have interpreted this as only "quotes of at least 40 words" should be in quote boxes. The problem with that interpretation: it's wrong. MOS:Blockquote (the pertinent part of MOS:QUOTE) actually says: "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words ...) as a block quotation." Not quite the same. The plain, literal meaning of the MOS is: it's about long quotes, which it defines ("more than about 40 words"), and there is no exclusion of shorter quotes. The only twisting is if one tries make it say "only long quotes ...." The "much too short" objection is therefore a misinterpretation and invalid. It is not WP:wikilawyering to point this out.

  Sitush says that "gut feeling" is "sometimes the best guide". Perhaps, but here it appears to be part of the problem: editors who think their uninformed "gut feeling" is superior to the experts, or superior to the explicit text of the written policies and guidelines. "Gut feeling" is when you have no rational basis (or simply can't find it?) for some view; it is a form of emotionalism. And it seems to be the basis of much of this "brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians" (see WP:WL, second paragraph) without regard for what they actually say (or don't say), when an editor hasn't taken time to find a valid argument. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Again, diffs please. You are not an expert here, no more than I am: you may know more about the subject matter but you have not got a clue how to write a Wikipedia article. And this is Wikipedia. Your knowledge of the sources is obviously a boon but if you want to write an academic paper then this is almost certainly not the place to do it. You go write that thing, then someone else will paraphrase it here. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  Diffs for what — MOS:QUOTE? WP:Lawyering? Or can't you find Ca2james' comment at the top of this section?

  As to Wikipedia: I have never claimed to be an expert, but I have written several articles. You are not really one to criticise, your understanding of WP policies and practices being rather idiosyncratic, even incorrect.

  Your imputation that I "want to write an academic paper" is quite off the mark. Although "academic paper" is an ambiguous term. You seem to be using it for any level of writing that is the least bit more rigorous or more challenging than your personal level of comfort or comprehension. Certainly you know that many articles on WP are highly technical (and acceptably so), so I wonder why it is you think this article should be written at the level of Weekly Reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Johnson (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

 Diffs for all these accusations you are throwing around about me and others. Either provide them or belt up. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, we are trying to improve this article. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What accusations? Perhaps you should provide some diffs. Or even better, quote the exact words you want me to support.

I would also improve this article, by explaining what needs fixing. Or, as the case may be, un-"fixing". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of this discussion resolving anything was lost when it veered into imputation of "lawyering" and other meta-issues. I have tried repeatedly (this diff and following) to mark that turn (with a faint hope the disucssion could be put back onto the rails), but Sitush keeps reverting, including removal of my comments. He waves at WP:TPG, but seems to have not read down to WP:TPOC, where it says: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, I think the issue of quoteboxes was resolved. While you supported having them, several people were opposed. I think it is possibly "wikilawyering" the way you kept dwelling on this issue, repeatedly raising different interpretations of words and making overly technical distinctions. That's the way I see it, at least. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And repeatedly attempting to add a non-neutral subsection break is itself a breach of the very guidelines that JJ refers to, without even having to read down as far as TPOC. FFS, there are admins watching this and in addition, as I've already explained, you are welcome to take my behaviour to ANI. The consensus is clear, as DocT says, and any continuance of this discussion is clear WP:IDHT tendentiousness. So either belt up or I will take you there myself. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Is "Arbitrary break" non-neutral? Or is it that you can say "wikilawyering" but I am not allowed to? Or is simply that you WP:OWN this discussion and I didn't get your permission

  It is not an "overly technical distinction" to point out where someone has relied on an interpretation that is directly opposite of the text cited. (Or, for that matter, corruption of what the sources say.) If you think I have misinterpreted anything, or am "too technical", please state precisely what that is, instead just making broad, unsupported allegations.

  The bottom line to all of this is that there is a mass of sentiments as to what this article should say, and how to say it. I say sentiments because, when examined closely, they are often found to be lacking any objective basis. For trying to examine these arguments closely (and for pointing out some of the problems that have been introduced) I am accused of tendentiousness and even wikilawyering; there is no resolution. Even when a discussion on an issue does get rolling Sitush has a tendency to deflect it into meta-issues and personal attacks. So not only is the article becoming junk, it seems futile to hope for any kind of resolution based focused, objectively-based rational discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Satellite expectations

The section "Satellite-based detection of ionospheric and electromagnetic precursors" makes two statements: that the French Demeter satellite was launched in 2004, and the Chinese satellite to be launched in 2016, are intended to detect electromagnetic precursors. For both satellites there is (was?) an expectation that some kind of phenomena will be found that will preceed earthquakes in a manner that will enable reliable prediction of earthquakes. All of this remains in the future, as well as any actual prediction of an earthquake, and is thus, at best, hypothetical. I am therefore tagging that section as speculating about event that might not occur. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In an article that is about the general issue of earthquake prediction, what scientist are doing, at the present moment, can, in principle, be worthy of inclusion. In this respect, I disagree with Johnson. Just because it is about present attempts to predict future earthquakes doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Having said this, I went ahead and removed the material, not because it is about the future, but because, in the big scheme of things, it just isn't that important. Johnson might reflect on this, but I won't be engaging in a lengthy argument about it all. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrupted quotations

This edit made this change to a quote from the ICEF:

there is no credible scientific evidence that animals display behaviors indicative of earthquake-related environmental disturbances that are unobservable by the physical and chemical sensor systems available to earthquake scientists the imminent occurrence of an earthquake.

The original says only that it appears animals have no special means of detecting quake phenomena, not that they cannot detect imminent quakes. This change misstates the ICEF's conclusion on this point.

Another edit arbitrarily removed a relevant point, and inserted a statement not found in the source.

Just for the record: other recent edits also have problems and show sub-standard editing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Diffs for the other edits, please. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems rather pointless, lacking any interest in fixing them, but here you go.

• Diff (13:36, 25 Aug) replacing a quotation as to why the Browning prediction was notable with the trite "Browning died of a heart-attack seven months later".
• Diff (23:44, 26 Aug) removal of section on Type I/II errors; discussed below.
• Diff (23:46, 26 Aug) unnecessary removal of page number from citation, making it harder to verify.
• Diff (00:06, 27 Aug) removing "prospective" (edit comment: "just seems like a word for the heck of it") from description of the CSEP prediction experiments. Says the source (Zechar et al. 2010): "All of these experiments are conducted prospectively; that is, the models are based only on information available prior to issuing the forecast." That is, it is not allowed to adjust the model after making a forecast, which other studies have allowed.
• Diff (00:20, 27 Aug) unwikilinking "aeronomy" and "zoology" (where a short description would not be suitable).

Not a complete list, but sufficient to show "there exists". Some of the edits also show some carelessness, but it is mostly obvious enough to eventually be corrected. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is bloody pathetic, sorry. You can't write, mate, let's face it, and you cite guidelines etc selectively. If you really think that "prospective" was necessary in this article then you really do need to start editing more articles instead of wasting so much of your time and everyone else's discussing minutiae. If you really think that the zoology etc microquote is even necessary, let alone with delinked words, then you're more suited to writing fiction than factual articles, to the drama than the nitty-gritty. The more I see you trying to justify specific words, quotes etc by citing the sources, the more I worry that you may in fact somewhere be breaching WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Do you have you own voice? My article % is usually somewhere around 70-75: even allowing for my numerous typos etc, that's where you pick up the experience of writing, not on talk pages. I could bring half a dozen copyeditors here, as I've intimated previously, and then you'd really be moaning. There are people here who know far more about good writing than me and I turn to them for advice frequently, and especially when taking something to GA or FA: given my relative inferiority compared to them, you should perhaps count your blessings.

I'm away for a few days from tomorrow. You've already been advised of what I intend to do soon and, frankly, I'm seeing nothing much here that would change my mind. Let's hope something happens in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  It's pathetic that when you ask for a list of diffs I provided them? Or is it pathetic that some of the questionable minutiae is your work, which you are adverse to discussing?

  If "prospective" is of so little importance then why are you wasting so much time on this? I say it is important, because it is a key change from other studies which allowed retrospective adjustments. Of course, you wouldn't understand that if you haven't read the sources. But never mind that, let's get back to the ICEF quotations. They are corrupted, they misstate what the source says. Does your notion of good writing find that acceptable? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, what was not acceptable was the way the article was written with lots and lots of direct quotes from professional papers. The quotes that were present were not poetic nor especially memorable. They gave the article an awkward construction. If the present content is not perfect, then we can simply acknowledge that it is, and always will be, a work in progress. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, I also find many (and possibly most) of your concerns about the paraphrasing of cited sources to be exaggerated. Take the first example that you give in this Talk section, where you assert: "The original says only that it appears animals have no special means of detecting quake phenomena, not that they cannot detect imminent quakes", and where you put the word "special" in italics. The quote that you seem to think should be included verbatim, which you show with a line through part of the text, doesn't use the word "special" so I'm not exactly following you. I also don't think much, if anything, is lost by not including every single word of this particular quote. Encyclopedia articles are meant to summarize, not regurgitate. If we want the original source, then we can go to the original source. The present article, however, has big problems, and they are not the problems you are dwelling on, here. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  DrT: Sitush didn't specify what he thought was pathetic, so unless you are a mind reader (I'm not) we don't know what he meant. But to the extent you object to the number direct quotes: I don't believe there is any policy guidance for this, so it comes down to a matter of personal evaluation. A strong reason (in my view) for relying on direct quotation is less argument about the faithfulness of paraphrasing. However, simply removing the quotation marks and making some trivial changes is not quite acceptable (see WP:close paraphrasing). Changing the sense of the material attributed is entirely unacceptable.

  In the particular case here (top of the section) the "special means" I refer to are the "environmental disturbances that are unobservable by the physical and chemical sensor systems available to earthquake scientists". The source specifically says: "Animals, including humans, do respond to signals that they can feel, such as small earthquakes that might be foreshocks" (and also the p-waves). That is, animals can respond to the imminent occurrence of an earthquake, contrary to the current formulation. What there is no credible scientific evidence for is any means unobservable by scientists. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And we don't need unpoetic unmemorable direct quotes to make such points. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing introduces an element of interpretation. To avoid that (and a while back someone said we should just layout the facts and let the readers do their own interpretation) I used a direct quote. If you want to make the point differently, with different words, fine, but as it now stands the text misstates the ICEF's conclusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DocT: I will point out that 1) your paraphrase of the ICEF still misstates the conclusion, and so is not "fine" (despite your removal of the tag), and 2) re your last edit: I am not required to correct your messes. If you can't adequately paraphrase either restore the original quote, or remove that bit of text entirely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On the importance of statistics

A statement by Sitush (under #Quoteboxes, 01:09 25 Aug, diff) that statisticians "can twist things any way they choose" and several questionable edits show a need for some instruction. Unlike lawyers, who are paid to twist things around, statisticians seek to untwist, and unravel, and generally find the deeper truths hidden below superficial twisting. Prediction of all kinds involves "twisting" to improve the results — sometimes consciously, sometimes not — and earthquake prediction is a prime exhibit. A simple, lucid, non-technical explanation of how twisting can happen is given in the Mabey article ("The Charlatan Game"). This is extremely important, as it is not just a matter of tricksters; even trained scientists can fall into the same kinds of holes that tricksters deliberately exploit. This is extremely important, as without it the readers they will not understand why some claims of successful predictions (such as VAN) do not hold up.

One of the most basic concepts of statistics (explained in every introductory course and textbook) is the trade-off between what is called "Type I error" and "Type II error". Basically, there are two kinds of "success", either of which can be improved at the expense of the other, but not both together. This is the crucial public policy issue in earthquake prediction: is it better to tweak the prediction method to avoid missing one severe earthquake, or twenty false alarms?

The section that explained this, and the accompanying contingency table, was removed by Sitush (23:44, 26 Aug) with the comment: "try as I kmjight, I cannot see this in the cited sources: someone has probably extrapolated outcomes from what they say but they're going to have to explain the extrapolation". Ah, did you even look at the sources? The table is standard (see Jolliffe and Stephenson 2003 [a standard text], p. 37 [oops, someone previously deleted that citation!], Nurmi 2003, p. 17 [oops again], and Zechar 2008 [damn]). Swets (1973) doesn't use the table, but Fig. 5 is analogous (try rotating it a quarter-turn CW), and shows the "decision criterion". Swets also discusses the decision criterion at length, perhaps even clearer than the Wikipedia article. Verkade (2008) examines the trade-offs (and has the table) in section 3.1. These seem more than adequate. That you can't see any of this seems more like a personal problem. If you need further explanation you really should ask before taking the hatchet to what you don't understand.

The loss of this section leaves the article deficient in its most important public policy aspect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Says you. Alas, others agreed with the removal, both implicitly and explicitly. Game over? - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, says me. Based on the sources. No "extrapolation" was needed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tough shit. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, I think almost all and, actually, all of the material removed by Sitush can be found in other Wikipedia articles that are specifically about statistics and error types, those subjects pertaining to more than just earthquake prediction. In general, statistical evaluations pertain to probabilistic forecasts (which you, I believe, inserted, perhaps you can confirm) have excluded by inserting specific statements in the lead paragraphs, so that this article is declared to be, specifically, about a certain type of prediction (those that are not probabilistic forecasts). Whether or not this article continues to be focused on such a tight definition of "prediction", as opposed to also incorporating forecasts, is something that might change in future. In the mean time, we don't need a summary of statistical significance and error types in an article that is just about earthquake prediction. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  You think, but have you actually checked? When Sitush gutted (21:06, 12 Aug) the "Definition and validity" section he added a "see also" to Prediction#Prediction in science. Do check it out. It starts with: "A prediction [...] or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge." No source cited. Indeed, the article has been tagged since November 2007 for inadquate citation. The "Prediction in science" section has no citations, and is concerned solely about the use of predictions for hypothesis testing. There is no mention of weather forecasting (the most common application) except in the caption for the Farmer's Almanac, nor of the multiple ways of evaluating predictions, nor of any public policy issues, nor the crucial trade-off between Type I and Type II errors. Some of this material can, just as you say, be found in other Wikipedia articles. But at a much more technical level than any of the material that has been complained of here. Removing such material from this article effectively leaves the readers ignorant.

  I reaffirm that statistical methods are quite appropriate for evaluating the validity and success of particular predictions (distinguished from probablistic forecasts) and the methods by which they are derived. But I am disinclined to argue the point with people who won't make a good-faith effort to read the sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Duh? If the linked article is wrong then go there and fix it. The detail is inappropriate here and should rightly be in that article. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you understand even the basic concepts of the web and this project, ie: hyperlinks and a mesh of connected subjects. There should be no need to reinvent the wheel like this: fix the wheel instead. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that, as with several other issues being discussed here, the subject of whether or not introductory material on prediction, statistical significance, error types, etc. should be included in this article has been previously discussed. This discussion can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2 under the section “Overly detailed/off-topic”, where user Ego White Tray objected to what he called "Prediction 101". Anyway, DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that subtopic was concluded by Elvey with the comment:

I think the information EWT is proposing to remove is essential to the article. Encyclopedic articles should stand well on their own when read by the typical educated person. Sadly, prediction 101 topics are not widely understood, so it's appropriate that they stay in the article, IMO, and the off topic tag is not merited. [...] -Elvey (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(Diff, with the edit summary: "My 2 cents. - Agree with JJ.") ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Statistical significance is very general and applies to much, much more than earthquakes. This was the point that EWT was making. So, for example, the article that Johnson refers to by Swets (1973) is in a psychology journal (not about earthquakes). Independent of our opinions, here, are there guidelines on how much background material a Wikipedia article might have, when that same material is very general and probably should reasonably be found in a different article? Just curious, as there must be quite a bit of precedence for this issue. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  The Swets article is from Science, the leading general science journal in the U.S. While Swets' discussed his particular topic (ROC, a measure of statistical significance) in the context of psychology, it was developed in the context of electronic signal detection, and its use in earthquake prediction is well established.

  Statistical signficance is most certainly, as you said, very general, as well as very important, so it is quite unfortunate that its treatment at WP is mostly very general and quite technical, with the article on prediction not even mentioning it. The purpose of covering this topic in this article was to give non-technical readers accessible yet adequate coverage of an important concept, tailored for this article.

  As to your question: I am not aware of any such guidelines as to what material an article should include. It seems to be a subjective matter of editorial discretion. Which in pracice, given the widely disparate levels of comprehension on any popular topic, works out to the lowest common denominator. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, ... I still don't see how any of the discussion about statistics (the material you object to being removed) is relevant to this article, since the lead paragraph seems to exclude probabilistic forecasts. There it seems to be implied that this article is going to be about specific predictions, without probability, which presumably means that the predictions end up being either right or wrong. If this is the actual intent of the article (not clear to me) then I would think that no statistical discussion is needed at all. Maybe the lead paragraph is meant to include probabilistic one-off predictions? Again, hard to tell, but if this, then, is the intent of the article, then the discussion of statistics should be specialized to one-event analysis. That can be done, but it is really pushing the limit of what is normally addressed with statistics and hypothesis testing. Otherwise, if the article is, in the future, generalized to include probabilistic forecasts, then there might be room for a statistical tutorial. For now, I don't think we need a tutorial on statistical significance. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of a purely one-off indvidual binary prediction would seem quite difficult, but in practice matters are not so pure and isolated as to defy analysis. (See: Mason, ch. 3 in Jolliffe & Stephenson 2003; Kagan 1997 [GJI]; Jackson 1996; Luen & Stark 2008.) And while (e.g.) While Kagan says deterministic predictions (the next strong quake) are not realistic, he goes on to say "all earthquake forecasts (whether deterministic or statistical) need to be evaluated statistically to see if their success could be due to chance." (Emphasis added.) This is possible because even a one-off prediction (such as Parkfield) needs to specify a three-dimensional space, and with an adequate catalog of past history an estimate can be made of the liklihood of an event happening in that space "by chance". Furthermore, our interest does not expire past the next strong quake or 3-d space: we then want the next one, and the one after that, and so forth. So analysis is not really of a single prediction in total isolation, but of a string of predictions, and more importantly, of the method of making such predictions. For such analysis statistics is not only applicable, but necessary. Yet (as I have previously shown) an adequate explanation of this is not available for general readers of this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are describing has not been a part of this essay: one off statistical analysis, nor, even real substantive statistical discussion of the examples given. This is one of the problems: large parts of the essay have been unrelated to other parts. The "notable predictions", for example, don't really illustrate the concepts that were supposedly developed in other sections. The panorama of the essay needs to be considered better, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of the predictions to illustrate the statistical concepts, but the other way around: statistics illustrates the pitfalls of prediction. And I would have been fine providing more "annotated" illustrations, but there were complaints of synthesis, pov, and the article being too large. Still, please feel free to add anything you think is needed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There seems to be a tendency for one or two regulars to attempt a grinding down and/or filibustering of anyone who criticises the article. And, until now, they seem usually to have been successful in their stonewalling. It happened at the cycling helmet articles I linked to here some weeks ago but it does so no more. And it will do so no more here, also. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of consensus is that it is reached by trying to "persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". So where you unilaterally and without any discussion deleted material where the consensus in a prior discussion was to retain (see above), and where I attempted to explain (not even to persuade, merely to explain) what you admitted you "cannot see", your response is not to discuss the point at hand, but to accuse me of stonewalling (of what?), and to impugn my understanding of "even the basic concepts of the web and this project...." Your comments have a pattern of hectoring and attempted intimidation which have nothing to do with consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who has been hectoring, intimidating and deploying tendentious tactics over a prolonged period. And your tendency to use unnecessary italics is noted. You don't like my method? Take me to WP:ANI. You'll lose. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How do any of your comments here address either the appropriateness of including the statistical material you deleted, or of (your specific comment) "extrapolation" from the sources? Your "method" is what — more intimidation? switch topics ("italics"!) so you don't have to discuss statistics? That has nothing to do with this discussion, and does nothing to further it. You accuse me of stonewalling, but it rather looks like you are the one that flees from any discussion of the issue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think that I am intimidating you then that is a behavioural issue and it would be entirely appropriate for you to take me to WP:ANI with a complaint. Bluff. Called? - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Question - are there sources that discuss the tradeoff between type I and II errors in the context of earthquake prediction? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist The sources cited in the (now deleted) tutorial material on statistical significance were not, as I recall, specifically about earthquake prediction. Some of them may have used earthquakes as an example, some of them may have discussed inference errors (type I or II or whatever), possibly even for earthquakes. I think we all recognize that statistical significance is important for evaluating earthquake prediction methods that are, specifically, couched in statistical terms. The main problem with the material in this section was not the citations, but, rather, the material itself. (1) It did not, itself, raise any particular statistical issues that were unique to earthquake prediction. Instead, the material was an attempt at a broad review of statistical significance, but simply using the word "earthquake" in place of any other word that could have been used for any other type of statistical realization. Since statistical significance, as a general subject, is already discussed in multiple Wikiarticles, there is no need to try to repeat an exposition on the subject here. (2) The material on statistical significance was never fully integrated into the rest of the article. Indeed, somewhat paradoxically, the article remains kind of focussed on specific one-off predictions (not on statistical methods). This is more or less (but not clearly) summarized in the lead, and pretty much all the examples of historical attempted predictions are not about statistical anything, with the particle exception of the VAN method, but even here, statistical significance is not really much discussed in this article. This lack of integration within the article remains a problem, but for now, given the lack of utility of the material that was contained in the section on statistical significance, it is appropriately deleted. This article on earthquake prediction, as with all Wikiarticles, remains a work in progress. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my question was whether the literature on earthquake prediction discusses Type I and II errors. My impression of the first section is that it discusses some concepts that are useful for understanding the rest of the article. If sources on earthquake prediction don't discuss error types, there's no point in introducing them. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, some parts of the eathquake literature discusses type I and II errors, but some scientists, including some earthquake predicters, don't understand these things. And, yes, if the rest of the article actually relied on discussion of type I and II errors, then an appropriate discussion of the subject could appear in this article. DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 RockMagnetist: I think you're asking for what the laywers call "a duck law". (I.e.: the lawyer sees laws against stealing horses, cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens. But no law regarding ducks.) The trade-off between Type I and Type II errors is not only a core concept in the statistical analysis of predictions of ALL kinds (earthquakes not excepted), it is also the key concept in understanding how charlatans — not statisticians, as Sitush declared — "can twist things any way they choose". It is also the basic issue for both scientists and public authorities as to whether, in any given event, to issue an alarm for any possible natural disaster, for which I did cite sources, albeit not for earthquakes specifically.

 There are sources (not counting class materials) that discuss this kind of trade-off in the specific context of earthquake prediction, but none (that I know of) that explicitly link this to the statistical bedrock of Type I & and II errors. This I attribute to the recognition by scientists that the public and the public officials are generally as phobic regarding statistics as the general run of Wikipedia editors.

  DocT says "statistical significance, as a general subject, is already discussed in multiple Wikiarticles", so there is no need to discuss it here. I don't know which articles he has in mind, but statistics doesn't get any closer than mentioning Type I/II errors, and the prediction article which Sitush linked to in lieu of any discussion here is a joke. Lacking any specifics his statement is not readily falsified, but neither is it obviously true.

 But why are we even discussing this? The article woefully underserves the readers, but who cares? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, if the rest of the EP article actually relied in a substantial way on statistical notions, like error types, then we might reasonably have a discussion of statistics. But it doesn't, so we don't, at present, need such discussion. In the meantime, if you find the articles on statistics to be deficient, then perhaps those articles might be improved, possibly by you if you want? DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the subject that relies "in a substantial way on statistical notions" for assessing the accuracy or usefulness of prediction. That the article no longer mentions any of this (because it has been removed) is a serious omission that leaves the readers ignorant of a key concept. Merely providing a wikilink to prediction (even if it wasn't a joke) is not an adequate substitute for material that was specifically tailored for applicability to this topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Lots of subjects rely "in a substantial way on statistical notions". Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article Statistical hypothesis testing addresses type I and II errors with at least as much informational success as the material on the same subject deleted from this article. If improvements to Statistical hypothesis testing are needed, then they should be made. Again, sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Referring to Statistical hypothesis testing, is:

In the Neyman-Pearson framework (see below), the process of distinguishing between the null & alternative hypotheses is aided by identifying two conceptual types of errors (type 1 & type 2), and by specifying parametric limits on e.g. how much type 1 error will be permitted.

your idea of "informational success"? Or were you looking at:

... Depending on this Type 1 error rate, the critical value c is calculated.

For example, if we select an error rate of 1%, c is calculated thus:

$P({\text{reject }}H_{0}|H_{0}{\text{ is valid}})=P(X\geq c|p={\tfrac {1}{4}})\leq 0{.}01.$

From all the numbers c, with this property, we choose the smallest, in order to minimize the probability of a Type II error, a false negative.

Actual math in any form tends to scare off readers en masse (ask any publisher); shoving it into their faces large and bold is downright intimidating. And while that article does have a contingency table, there is no discussion of how any of this can be applied to prediction, nor how type I/II error can be adjusted to "improve" predictions, there is not even a hint of how any of that material is applicable to (say) the VAN predictions. The material formerly in this article presented the key concepts clearly, in non-technical (and non-mathematical) language, with direct relevance to the topic here; the material you point to does not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the subject of statistical significance, error types, material that Johnson has recently removed and which ‎RockMagnetist has just recently restored, etc., I'd like to suggest that all of this could be more easily accommodated if the scope of Earthquake Prediction were expanded to include "forecasting" in the sense of statistics. This would require some relaxation of the lead paragraph, where forecasting is specifically excluded. Johnson, since I believe you put that restriction there, can you live with an expansion of the scope of this article? If the article is expanded into "forecasting" then we can, very naturally, discuss statistical significance. In my opinion, we wouldn't need try to rehash general issues of statistics which are already given in separate articles. Also, my opinion, we don't need isolated islands of content, especially example sections, that aren't much related to the conceptual content given in other parts of the same article. In that spirit, I perceive that the section on Notable Predictions would need to be fixed to illuminate the conceptual issues of statistical significance. This would be natural for the VAN method, which is, as I recall, essentially a forecasting method, and so sits at odds with the lead paragraph where forecasting is declared to be excluded. And, finally, to save time for individual editors and avoid arguments that can arise from feelings of ownership of this article, I think we need to invite input from other geophysics-oriented editors. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You are laboring under a critical misapprehension. In regard of the distinction between prediction and forecasting, I did not "put that restriction there" — it is inherent in the both the common and expert meaning of those terms. (Also: the VAN method is not at all in the nature of "forecasting"; is based on the occurrence of specific precursor events.) This "tight definition" (as you called it back on 28 Aug.) of prediction is not at all mine, it is the opinion of expert sources, as documented.

In your prior comment of 28 Aug. you said that "statistical evaluations pertain to probabilistic forecasts". That term is a bit of a misnomer, as it is the nature of forecasts to be "probabilistic". Possibly you meant forecasts based on probabilistic estimations of fault rupture, as done with UCERF. It may have escaped your notice that statistics is used there rather differently than in deciding whether to issue an alarm or assessing the "goodness" of a prediction method. If you wrote an article on Earthquake prediction and forecasting you would have two different uses of statistics and statistical principles to explain — NEITHER APPLICATION OF STATISTICS BEING EXPLAINED IN ANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE YOU HAVE POINTED TO — and I expect your "informational success" would be as elusive as a hare in blackberry bramble.

If you want other input you can certainly line up a bunch of editors and vote on a more congenial definition of "prediction", but I doubt if any of the experts I cited would feel obliged to retract any papers. You could also consult with some actual experts, but I doubt if any of them would put up with the abuse found here. And by the way, the underlying issue here is not "ownership", it's editors who think the experts are wrong. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, it is common for a given scientific paper to start off by defining terms as they will be used in that paper. So I do not doubt that it is possible to find papers that define words like prediction and forecast in certain ways, in some cases like the way you are using them, and in some cases differently from they way you are using them. Take, for example, the paper by Jordan, T. H. et al., Operational Earthquake Forecasting, Annals of Geophysics, 54, 4, 2011; doi: 10.4401/ag-5350. This paper defines earthquake prediction as "a deterministic statement that a future earthquake will or will not occur in a particular geographic region, time window, and magnitude range" (p. 319). Jordan et al also define a forecast as "a probability (greater than zero but less than one) that such an event will occur" (p. 319). It is, I'm sure, possible to find somewhat different definitions of these terms in different papers. But if we accept that Jordan et al are experts (as you seek to cite), and if we accept their definition of earthquake prediction, then the prediction is either right or wrong, and no statistical evaluation is needed. A forecast, however, according to Jordan et al. is a statement of probability, and so would be evaluated using statistical methods. If we were, in this Wikiarticle on Earthquake Prediction, to use these words in the way Jordan et al. choose to use them, then there would be no need to even discuss statistics in the context of earthquake "prediction". The main point, however, is that the words "prediction" and "forecast" are not always used in the particular ways you seem to be insisting that they are. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right that "prediction" and "forecast" are not always used as strictly as here, nor defined in exactly the same way. (And even in this article the strict distinction is relaxed in one place.) But that definition is standard, long-standing ("classical"), and comports with the popular conception of "prediction" being of the "next strong earthquake to occur in a region." (Text which has been removed.) Though the experts often vary in their formulation, there appears to be nearly universal accord with the essentials of this definition of "prediction", and the distinction with "forecasting". In a strict sense your main point is true — but trivial.

But you are quite wrong in thinking that deterministic predictions are "either right or wrong"; that is, either a quake happens, or it does not, with no indeterminancy. Recall that the original "Definition and validity" section (now gutted) touched on the seemingly trivial problem of defining "earthquake" with: "it would seem that the ground shakes, or it doesn't." In fact, the ground is always shaking, so the proper question is not whether the earth shook, but whether the shaking (quaking) exceeded some threshold. With parameters strict enough to make a hit/miss determination (and an adequate catalog of quakes) it is still possible to apply statistics to make a probabilistic estimation of a specific quake happening as a random event.

You should also study Jordan et al. (for passers-by, this is the 2011 report of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection) some more, particularly towards the end of page 327 where they discuss deterministic predictions in terms of type I/II errors. Or page 328 (§5), where it says:

Statements about future earthquakes are inherently uncertain, and no forecast or prediction can be complete without a description of this uncertainty. Because uncertainty is expressed in terms of probabilities, both deterministic predictions and probabilistic forecasts need to be stated and evaluated using probabilistic concepts. [Emphasis added]

You keep asserting that predictions do not need statistics, but that is entirely your personal feeling and interpretation, "rather than the opinions of experts", and contradicted by the ICEF (among others). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I can see that I have underestimated and misinterpreted some issues, here, and I have even been confused by some statements in Jordan et al. At the same time, I must say that I am finding the tone of your communication to be off-putting. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think it is essential that conceptual issues, such as statistical testing of non-probabilistic predictions, be clearly illuminated through cited examples of Notable Predictions. Since this issue has, in the past, escaped me, I'm sure I would not be alone in benefiting from such examples. And I'm not talking about "lip service" by simply stating that this or that facet of statistical significance applies to this or that Notable Prediction. The issue needs to actually be discussed and illustrated. So, for example, if a prediction is not an improvement on a random null hypothesis, then this needs to be discussed sufficiently (with citations) to illustrate the conceptual issue of statistical significance. I don't imagine that this would always be easy, especially given the apparent slipperiness of claimed predictions. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So do you now accept that probabilistic concepts ("statistics") are applicable to predictions? Would you go so far as to accept that one of those key concepts is the trade-off between type I and type II errors?

Your last comment implies that an encyclopedia might inform and educate the reader, a position with which I fully concur. But it differs profoundly from a common view around here that an encyclopedia should merely describe matters, and let the readers interpet as they will. In what I have written I have tried to provide explanations without being overly instructive. And there is a point (touched on a long while back) that the statistics should illuminate the predictions, not the other way around. The difficulty with all this is not the slipperiness of the prediction claims (probabilistic concepts can deal with that just fine) but editors who have not studied the subject thinking their uninformed feelings are worth a damn. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the concepts of type I and II errors are important in the context of earthquake prediction. I've certainly appreciated their importance for earthquake "forecasting"! The concepts of type I and II errors are important for lots of things. But since there is nothing unique to earthquake prediction that requires its own special statistical framework (at least as far as I can see), if you think the Wikiarticles on statistical significance are not up to snuff, then those articles should be fixed, and I would encourage you to comment on those pages. You'd probably get some interesting and useful feedback. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You are backsliding a bit. There has been no doubt of your appreciation of the statistics for earthquake forecasting; in your case the question is whether you appreciate the need (as well as general usefulness) for "probabilistic concepts" in regard of predictions (such as the ICEF calls "deterministic"). But you're now good on this, right?

As to the sufficiency of linking to Prediction: for starters, that article is crap. (As to improving it: 1- not my responsibility, and 2- it would take an immense effort, which my experience here suggests would be wasted.) But even if it was FA quality, you are missing the significance of the asymmetrical relationship between these two topics. For Prediction, or any of the statistical articles, earthquake prediction is only an application (among thousands), which might serve as an example, but is in no way necessary to those topics. On the otherhand, statistical concepts are needed to understand earthquake prediction. The proper place for explaining a general topic's application to a specific topic is in the specific topic. Explaining that here allowed it to be specifically tailored to this topic, and without making the reader jump through the hoops of jumping to another topic, and trying to figure out the specific applicability on his/her own. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how I'm backsliding. I think the Wikiarticle on Statistical hypothesis testing is quite good. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Statistical hypothesis testing is quite good as far as it goes, which is as a technical review of a technical topic, as illustrated by my quotes from it (above, 26 Sept.). But as I noted before, it has no discussion of how it might be applied to predictions, nor how type I/II error can be adjusted to "improve" predictions. It provides no assistance to understanding the application of these concepts to this article.

You are backsliding in the sense that having allowed that you "underestimated ... some issues" (1 Oct.), and even agreed that "the concepts of type I and II errors are important in the context of earthquake prediction" (2 Oct.), you then slid back to your original view that they are not important enough to be included here. Don't forget Jordan et al.'s statement: "both deterministic predictions and probabilistic forecasts need to be stated and evaluated using probabilistic concepts." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you don't like Statistical hypothesis testing, then I suggest that you work to fix it. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you even paying attention? As I have already explained, even if that or any other statistical article were FA they would still not suffice to explain the applicability of any those topics to this topic. Let's try this as two very simple bullet points:

1. Probabilistic concepts — "statistics" — are needed to understand this topic.
2. Removal of the relevant "statistical" material cripples this article in a way not fixed by linking to other articles.

As you seem to be obsessing that I should "fix" the other articles perhaps it is necessary to remind you (again) that is not my responsibility, and that "fixing" other articles does not fix the problem here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course I'm "paying attention". I've already agreed with you that statistical hypothesis testing is appropriate for evaluating "predictions" as defined by, say, Jordan et al. But since there is nothing unique in the subject of statistical hypothesis testing to earthquake prediction per se, there is no need to review material here when it is either in other Wikipages or certainly belongs in other Wikipages. Indeed, one of the points of an encyclopedia is permit interconnectedness of explanations. There are lots of issues related to this particular Wikipage on EP; so, for example, we don't need to review earthquakes, since that subject has its own Wikipage. We are going around in circles, but don't point to me for that. Sincerely, again, DoctorTerrella (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you accept that some understanding of statistics is not just appropriate but needed to understand this topic, without simultaneously maintaining that it is not needed here, fine. But I do point to your repeated suggestions (here [02:16 25 Sept], here [21:05 2 Oct], here [23:20 26 Sept)], and here [21:05, 5 Oct]) that I should fix other articles as excessive circling. I have already explained why I am not beholden to fix other articles (and that "fixing" other articles does not cure the defects of this article), and it would be tendentious for you to suggest this again. Are you settled on this point? Or do we have to go around yet again? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You two are in danger of getting into a circular discussion about circularity. Here is an idea for moving forward: discuss in detail the statistical methods used by CSEP and other impartial groups for testing earthquake predictions. Perhaps then it will be more clear what background material is needed. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good path forward! Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The way of going forward is for DocT to cease repeating his suggestion that I should fix any of the statistical articles.

To "detail the statistical methods used by CSEP" (I don't know what "other impartial groups" would refer to) would imply coverage of the CSEP program. Which I considered, but rejected because certain editors were complaining the article was too long. But it is not the details of such methods that needs to be covered here, but certain basics, such as the type I/II trade-off. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, I simply disagree with you on the plan you have had for this article. I think RockMagnetist is making a good suggestion. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There has been enough disagreement already. Let's look for points we can all agree on. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My "plan" being what — that you should stop suggesting that I should fix the statistical articles? To the end of removing one small piece of disagreement, should we all agree that you should, or should not, stop making that suggestion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Going by SIZERULE, this article (at 50 kB of readable prose size) rates as "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". So you don't need to worry about that yet. So consider this: if you (or someone else) did cover the CSEP program, maybe the need for the "basics" would be more clear to the rest of us. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To cover specifics of how CSEP operates would be, in my opinion, too specific, and even too technical. And it would not illustrate the basic quandry of a public official (or scientist) as to whether to issue an alarm. This is something that was touched on in several of the "Notable predictions" (e.g., Whitcomb in 1976, Brady, and Oaxaca, all now removed), but especially in regard of L'Aquila. The Brady, VAN (various), Loma Prieta, Browning, and Keilis-Borok predictions all provide better instances of the widening of the parameter windows to improve prediction successs. But the concepts involved are really applicable to all instances, which is why I treated them generally at the top of the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, it would help to cover an example of your choice in some detail so the reader can understand the statistical issues better. One thing that is puzzling me is how you would estimate type I and II errors when there is widespread doubt that earthquake predictions can be made at all. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that earthquake predictions can be made, and even made successfully; the question is whether such predictions are useful. E.g., allow me to predict (drum roll!) that there will be at least one "large" earthquake somewhere in the world in the coming year. I guarantee this prediction will be successful. But should nuclear powerplant operators around the world shut down for the duration? Hardly.

Type I/II errors are incorrect results (false alarms and misses, resp.), which are determined after the prediction's window closes. The essential concept here is not how Type I/II errors are estimated, but that there is a trade-off: broadening the parameters makes a prediction more likely to succeed, narrowing them makes it more useful.

I suspect your interest is such that I would recommend reading Zechar's dissertation ("Methods for Evaluating Earthquake Prediction]"). Very interesting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation - it does look interesting. It may be a while before I have time to read it, though. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. You might enjoy taking a quick look starting at §2.3 (p. 17). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, those are type I and II errors. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Type I and type II errors

Classification rule

DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper ISBN

RockMagnetist: Per WP:BRD, after your Bold edit is Reverted you should begin a Discussion, not continue to revert.

Regarding your last edit summary ("According to the bibliographic info for the two isbn's, they point at the same edition. The only difference is that one has a preview."): the ISBN you are trying to replace (ISBN 978-0-691-13816-9) is the correct ISBN for the precise source used in the article. (See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.) The ISBN you are trying to substitute (ISBN 1400831806) is not found in some sources (e.g., Open Library and Internet Book Database), and in others appears to be associated with an eBook. Whether it is valid even for the eBook I don't know, but it is certainly not the source used. At a higher level: if an assessment of that source was really needed a comment that the author is a respected seismologist at the USGS would be more to the point. An inane comment by some anonymous passerby is entirely useless, and in no way warrants corrupting the ISBN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points. My purpose in changing the ISBN was to make it easier for readers to verify claims that are attributed to the book, not to assess the book's reliability. However, I now realize that your ISBN is only a problem if I'm looking for it in Google Books; through other sources like Amazon I can read the source. So I'll stop changing it. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I don't know how "my" ISBN (as you put it) would be problem finding the book, as it is the authoritative ISBN. If there is a problem in Google Books it is likely because they have picked up an incorrect ISBN. Not our problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not just let it drop now, JJ? There is no need to flog another dead horse, especially since "your" isbn does in fact appear in GBooks. RM, see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks - it is rarely worth the effort. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What, are you back already? Why don't you just leave, like you said you would? Your comment adds nothing useful to this discussion, and only continues your pattern of hectoring and intimidation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hear! Hear!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that RockMagnetist and Doc Terella disagree with you, JJ, given that they both thanked me. I thought the GBooks explanation would be useful to all concerned. CMDC: why on earth you are here stirring at a time when you are slap-bang in the sights of Arbcom is beyond me but feel free to keep on digging that hole. - Sitush (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Retracted the CMDC stuff,. Sorry, I did say that I wouldn't comment on CMDC outside of ArbCom etc. I've stuck to that until now and have just reacted to an obviously point-y post from her. My bad - won't do it again., - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Up to the point where you intruded this particular discussion was entirely about an ISBN, and entirely between me and RockMagnetist. He seems to have agreed with me about which ISBN is proper, and DocT hasn't commented here; the issue is resolved. So for you to claim disagreement where none is evident serves no purpose but to generate strife. This is yet another instance where you take discussions off topic, and part of your pattern of harassment and incivility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It looked to me as if none of you were aware of the issues surrounding linking to GBooks and there seemed to be some confusion regarding whether the ISBN could actually be resolved to GBooks anyway. That was my point and now, if not before, you should all be aware. It is not off-topic to bring people's attention to those issues and, as I said, RockMagnetist and DoctorTerrella seemed to appreciate it (you can check their "thank" log, if you wish). You do not own this article and you do not own conversations on this talk page, so accusations of intrusion are simply bizarre. Anyway, now we all know and so hopefully this situation will not recur here at least in the immediate future. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Stay on topic" do you not understand? The topic here was about the proper ISBN. RM's reference to Google Books was quite incidental. And while you can back-pedal now and claim that your point was to clarify some non-existent confusion about an issue that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, the fact remains that your opening comment here was accusing me of "flog[ging] a dead horse", which you followed with uncivil swipes at me and Carolmooredc. Your alleged point looks more a WP:COATRACK for harassing me. I would hope this situation wouldn't keep recurring, but you do nseem intent to make the most of that free pass you got here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)