Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

How to move forward?

We've been debating the representation of VAN in the article for a long time, without reaching any agreement. I'm wondering if it's time to get more opinions. We could possibly do this informally, by pinging some editors who have visited this page from time to time and asking for feedback. Perhaps we could list again at NPOV or Fringe noticeboards or both. Or we could create another formal RfC. If we go the latter route, I'm confused about how we would go about getting the RfC closed. Last time, I guess JJ solicited Geogene to close? That worked out well, I thought the close was fair & comprehensive.

Or can we reach a compromise right here and now? I suggest maybe we leave the sentences on "Example VAN prediction" exactly as they are; leave the information about Mileti & Sorensen in the footnote where it is now; and move the proposed text about VAN SES method back from the footnote into the article text, as IP202 and I have requested. Then perhaps we could revisit this after JJ and Elriana finish their project to create an article about EQ forecasting. JerryRussell (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't agree to that. It seems to me you are proposing to just leave in all of the questionable addtions. How is that a compromise?

Regarding the ICEF and the broader issue of "mainstream view", I was tempted to start an RfC. But here's the problem: we would be asking WP editors for their opinions of what opinions seismologists hold. Better to ask WP editors for their opinions on whether the ICEF report is a reliable source that represents mainstream thought. But if you are going quibble that there is no tertiary source that explicitly says that the ICEF view is mainstream, and then that the tertiary source is "negative", and so on, it bodes nothing more than more trips around the merry-go-round. Alternately, I might be able to talk some real seismologists into commenting. But would you then object that that was canvassing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The compromise would be that all but one of the "questionable additions" would remain in footnotes, where most readers won't see them. Why are these additions "questionable"? They're all sourced from RS, and accurately quoted, right? Your objection to including these materials is based on -- what? We already had an RFC, and the conclusion was "the case has not been made, that all fringe must be removed on sight."

Of course it's true that ICEF is a mainstream reliable source. Isn't it OK to question whether such sources actually contain relevant information about the question at hand? My objection to the ICEF report is that they made a brief, ambiguous statement about VAN based on outdated sources. But I'm not objecting to quoting ICEF, either. All I'm saying is, that VAN's view of the situation should also be clearly presented in the article.

I would welcome participation from "real seismologists", just as I welcome comment from IP202, wherever his expertise comes from. I don't really understand Wiki rules about canvassing. Would you object if IP202 were able to find some more VAN advocates to join the discussion too? JerryRussell (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No, "reliable and skillful" does not "mean pretty much whatever anybody might think it means", it is a standard term in prediction that means (some what simply) predictions that are successful due to some skill or capability in the method, not due to jiggering of the prediction parameters or just luck. I think Zechar describes this (briefly) in his dissertation (freely downloadable), and Yan Kagan describes it somewhere, and one or more others in the "old" 1996 papers. Which is why your guess is NOT as good as mine: I have studied this stuff, and can claim some familiarity (however slight) with the literature, you have not.

Yeah, "then again" the ICEF may have felt that the alleged "success" did not merit any attention. You have quite a quite wonderous imagination, but you are developing a track record of assuming the worst in the critics and the mainstream, and only the best with VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I stand corrected that ICEF did not invent the terminology. But are you saying now that any infinitesimal probabilistic success beyond pure luck would meet the criteria for "reliable and skillful"? Is the ICEF really claiming that even such a minimal ability has never been achieved? Or is there some practical level of reliability and skill that is necessary for civil protection purposes? I think obviously there must be some necessary quality for various conceivable applications, and it's important to be able to provide quantitative specifications. This is fundamental. JerryRussell (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what you are getting at here (and are we possibly drfiting off-topic?), but as to your "any infinitesimal probabilistic success beyond pure luck": no, neither "reliable" nor "skillful" are assessed as true or false, nor is there any set threshold for saying that a method is "skillfull". As to providing "quantitative specifications": of what? Are you asking a question, or asserting a view? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If neither "reliable" nor "skillful" can be assessed as true or false, then how can the ICEF claim that "reliable and skillful deterministic earthquake prediction is not yet possible" be assessed as true or false? JerryRussell (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the saying that the race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong – but that's the way to bet? Can you see the applicability of that here? And do you have a genuine question here, or is this just an invitation for more quibbling?

It seems to me you want to disqualify the ICEF because for not providing a precise, quantitative measure of "reliable" and "skillful", and that there is no prescribed threshold that demarks "skillful" and "not-skillful". Though if there is, I expect you would question the authority of anyone setting such a threshold. If you are genuinely curious as to how "skillful" is determined I suggest you read the sources I have already pointed you towards. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I'm not trying to quibble, I'm trying to have a discussion. And I think you've understood me, or at any rate I've done my best to make my point. JerryRussell (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And that is my point exactly: that you are trying to make a point. If you sincerely want to learn something, I am pleased to try to assist. But if your question just leads to objections and "questions" about the answer (perhaps because you have already adopted a contrary view), then it is not surprising that we are not making more progress. If you do want to debate a point, fine, but do so expressly, and be prepared to support your own view.

I will note (as previously mentioned) that I don't mind a few questions in order to test quality of any material I add (a kind of quality control), but that is quite a different matter then augmenting your personal understanding. If you wish to assert a point (and what is your point here?) please do so as an assertion, not as question. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually I am offering my questions in a Socratic spirit, hoping that you will get insight into my concerns by thinking about the questions. JerryRussell (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. If you have a concern you should raise it directly, not make me play Twenty Questions (or is this a variant we might call "Twenty Answers"?) trying to figure out what you want to say. At any rate, if you want to play a game you should at the very least state what kind of game right up front. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Outstanding concerns

List of policies

In the discussions above, there are various issues that we've touched on. A common theme is that I've felt that various items deserve more coverage in the article. But because it takes so much energy to convince JJ that these materials are topical, I've just given up.

But I'm not sure my passive acceptance of JJ's view has served Wikipedia. If it weren't for IP202's insistence, I probably would have yielded to JJ's views on that issue also.

Reminders of Wiki's policies (courtesy of User:Selfworm):

• WP:BURDEN - "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
• WP:NPOV - " neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
  • Importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"

The view that various precursor phenomena are statistically related to EQ is still held by at least a significant minority of scientists in the relevant fields (including not only seismology but earth sciences more generally, and even extending to physics and engineering.)

A major confusing factor in our discussions has been that this article is allegedly about "EQ prediction" but also includes substantial material on EQ forecasting. Much of the literature makes a distinction similar to what we've defined, but far from all of it. EQ forecasting is a mainstream research field, while the pursuit of "reliable, skillful" EQ prediction technology is generally considered a fringe pursuit. Nevertheless "the case has not been made that all fringe must be eradicated on sight." Also, research on precursors may be legitimate if the goal is to improve "operational earthquake forecasting", as opposed to deterministic EQ prediction. JerryRussell (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

[I have moved Jerry's "list of specific topics" to the following sub-section to facilitate discussion. -JJ]

Jerry, plase note that specific concerns or suggestions are more amenable to discussion. Blasting away with birdshot just leads us down multiple, winding threads that no one wants to follow. For this reason I am splitting off the rest of your extended comment (the list of topics) for discussion. If you want to discuss anything of the above please make a specific comment. Though I think it would be better to try to resolve some of the open threads rather than starting new ones.

In your list of policies I note you neglected to mention WP:FALSEBALANCE. That is the key concept here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

List of specific topics

[This list was split off from Jerry's initial comment immediately above to facilitate discussion. -JJ]

Here is a list of specific topics I've noticed or identified that are not adequately covered IMO:

(1) Pullinets and his group, including Giuliani's ongoing research subsequent to L'Aquila.

What "ongoing research" has Giuliani published? Has he made more predictions? -JJ

If you have good references on this, draft an addition. However, unless/until something as notable as L'Aquila occurs, it will be difficult to find a lot of the discourse from the rest of the scientific community regarding any predictions. -Elriana

(2) Freund's work on EM precursors.

On what basis you determined that Pullinets and Freund are not "adquately covered"? Have you consulted any experts? Or examined what topics textbooks and review articles on this topic cover? Or is this based on your seeing their names hyped in the media? -JJ

Actually, it would be nice to see 2-3 more sentences on EM precursors, particularly since right now it is overshadowed by the over-coverage of VAN. EM signals are one of the few precursors scientists haven't actually proven to be useless yet. -Elriana

(3) The L'Aquila manslaughter trial is only mentioned here in a footnote, though there's good coverage in the article about L'Aquila.

Why should the L'Aquila manslaughter trial be mentioned at all, other than as an example of the perils of issuing alarms? -JJ

Because the L'Aquila manslaughter trial has materially affected the willingness of scientists to discuss earthquake prediction in any public setting. It is also an example of why spurious claims of prediction are detrimental to the state of the science as a whole, and the entire issue of earthquake prediction must be handled with care. I don't think a lengthy discussion is warranted, but a sentence or two with a link to the wiki article might be appropriate. -Elriana

(4) Fraser-Smith has responded extensively to suggestions that his observations prior to Loma Prieta were compromised by noise or equipment problems.

What is notable about Fraser-Smith "respond[ing] extensively"? -JJ

I would assume he has. The details would seem to be best covered in an expansion of the very short Seismo-electromagnetics. -Elriana

(5) Earlier versions of the article contained interesting materials on TEC variations (Kosuke Heki of Hokkaido University), satellite observations, and history of EQ prediction research. The history section needs an update, but should be brought back. There's nothing obviously wrong with the TEC variation or satellite observation sections.

The "earlier versions" of this article you referred to were JUNK. As I recall the "satellite observation" section was anticipation of a satellite launch set for 2013(?). However hopeful you, as an editor, feel about this (or any other) prospective means of prediction, there still have not been any satellite based predictions. Note that we don't report on the future. -JJ

a) If you brushed off the history section and put it up for edit (below or in a sandbox), we can discuss it. I'm not digging through previous versions to guess which you are referring to. b) There have been some good observations of TEC variations associated with large earthquakes. To my knowledge there is not currently enough data to know if these ionospheric signals are consistent enough precursors to be predictive. But it is one of the areas of current research (a GAMIT algorithm allows calculation of ionosphere TEC from fixed-location, ground-based GPS receivers. This is fairly new, but doesn't rely on any future satellites). I think the ionosphere signals are given surprisingly little coverage in this article for being one of the only possible predictors scientists haven't disproven yet. But as a current topic of research, any additions should probably be newly drafted, not pulled directly from the old version of this article. -Elriana

(6) Material on tidal influence on EQ has been marginalized by discussing only in context of Browning.

Tidal forces (whether of the sun, the moon, or Jupiter) are a perennial favorite of non-scientist predictor wannabes, but they have not yet been shown to have any predictive value. -JJ

In fact there have been repeated articles demonstrating the lack of correlation between earthquakes and any tidal forces. Every intro seismology student thinks of this process. Just about all of them prove to themselves (via physical models or extensive data processing and correlation attempts) that there is no useful and/or significant relationship between tides and earthquake occurrence. (The Omerbashich site discussed in the VAN v. truth check section claims that tides justify prediction based on astrological charts, fyi).-Elriana

(7) Ben Davidson's work on solar correlations, to the extent it's appeared in peer reviewed journals.

Has this Ben Davidson actually made any predictions? Has he received any recognition for either successful predictions or useful research? I can think of several other notable predictions that were removed because "the article is too long!. How is he any more notable than everyone else on the tabloid fringe? Or actual scientists? -JJ

If you think it deserves coverage, start a section on this page with links to the articles, and let the commenters go nuts. My guess is this will not meet notability requirements, since it hasn't been picked up or commented on by either the mainstream media or mainstream scientists. But I could be wrong . . . -El

(8) We've hardly begun to touch on the topic of how alarms and forecasts should be communicated effectively to the public. This topic probably deserves its own Wiki article. But as of now this is the only place in Wiki that it's even mentioned, as far as I can find. There's probably a lot of material on this that I haven't had time to identify, much less study or summarize. But that's no excuse not to mention what we do know (Mileti & Sorensen.)

Why don't we also cover how to turn off the gas and water? Because this article is about the prediction of earthquakes, not the communication of verified predictions of earthquakes. If you want a separate article on the communication of imminent hazard, please do so, but I would recommend focusing on floods and hurricanes, as having more collected experience. M&S, as ALREADY AND FULLY EXPLAINED, is quite irrelevant to this topic, it adds nothing. -JJ

I wouldn't have said it like JJ, but I think I somewhat agree. Hazard communication is a huge, complicated, and touchy issue. It also, by definition, should overlap substantially with the current Earthquake warning system and Emergency management articles. I wouldn't mind a short something on the state of current thought on the topic. But it should mostly serve to show that more information exists and provide a jumping off point for those who want to pursue it. Covering the topic well would take up way too much space here and distract from the main point of this article. -El

(9) Last but not least, the VAN section is far too long (undue weight) but still not neutral. Paradoxically, I think the great length attracts attention and gives the impression that their work is the most important in the field, which I don't believe to be the case.

I agree that the VAN section is too long. But, as ALREADY DISCUSSED IN MULTIPLE PLACES, it is bad-faith to stuff those sections with "VAN positive" material, then complain of length and use that to remove other material. As I have said above, being the most criticised method, and the most controverting partisans, does not earn them any right of rebuttal. -JJ

I think we are trying to handle this in the reboot section below. -El

This is probably far from an exhaustive list, but it's a start. Comments? Maybe we can begin by identifying any areas where we agree on what should be done. JerryRussell (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The VAN section does seem to have ballooned out of control as a result of the various points and counterpoints. The entire thing could probably be summarized in a couple of paragraphs, with the detail pushed off into the VAN method article. --tronvillain (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, I've added comments and/or questions to your list of topics you feel are "not adequately covered." Please note as general comment to all of this that the number of topics covered is limited by 1) the overall length of the article (which some editors think is too long as it is), and 2) the scope of each topic covered (which, at least in some cases, some want to expand). These are trade-offs. And given the vast array of related topics, there is also a trade-off in which topics get covered. Matters which I think we have already touched on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have commented above as well. If you want to focus on one or two of these and just leave the VAN section for a while, I would support that discussion. VAN has substantially monopolized this talk page, but the only way to fix that is to actually dive into some of these other topics.Elriana (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-boot for section on VAN 1987-1995 predictions?

Here is the text of this article section as it stood back in May, before the arrival of the Greek editors.

=== 1987–1995: Greece (VAN) ===

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

The VAN predictions have been criticized on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible, "vague and ambiguous", failing to satisfy prediction criteria, and retroactive adjustment of parameters. A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters. The VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show "a much better association with the events which occurred before them", according to Mulargia and Gasperini.

The length of this was OK, but the only possible way this can be construed as "neutral" is in JJ's context, as if this is an article on round-earth theory, and a short paragraph is to be inserted on flat-earth. My contention is that such a disproportionate treatment is not appropriate to an article on EQ prediction.

JJ complains above that the Greek editors arrived with changes such as "[t]his analysis however was shown by VAN group to be invalid... which I agree was totally inappropriate. This formulation speaks in Wiki voice against the scientific mainstream consensus. So JJ was correct to oppose this. But is the answer really to pile on with enormous detail in a summary section?

I would propose that the following additional text would be sufficient to create a neutral treatment:

Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant.Both positive and negative views on VAN predictions from this period were summarized in the 1996 book "A Critical Review of VAN" edited by Sir James Lighthill and in a debate issue presented by the journal Geophysical Research Letters that was focused on the statistical significance of the VAN method. VAN had the opportunity to reply to their critics in those review publications. In 2011, the ICEF reviewed the 1996 debate, and concluded that the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated.

(belatedly signed) JerryRussell (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable. Much more comparable to the other sections. --tronvillain (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tronvillain. To further clarify, I'm not proposing that we delete all the new material that's been written since May -- just move it to the VAN Method article. JerryRussell (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was assuming that, but better to make it explicit. --tronvillain (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, but I fault this assumed basis of "neutral treatment", the assumption that the views re VAN have equal validity. You assume that "neutrality" means giving the "pro and con" views equal balance and equal weight, but that is wrong; it is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. The proper basis is the view of the scientific mainstream, which is: VAN failed to validate. VAN does not get to submit a dissenting opinion.

BTW, I don't think it is necessary to specify in the text things like "summarized in the 1996 book "A Critical Review of VAN" edited by Sir James Lighthill", etc.; that is exactly what footnotes are for.

Also: while tracing out some of the controversy of VAN is more suitable for the other article, that is a separate issue, and deletion of matter here is is not contingent on it being added anywhere else. In respect of this article pretty much all of the material added since May should be deleted, for the various reasons I have amply noted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

JJ, the 1996 publications seem to represent something of a landmark in the history of VAN, which is why I believe those publications might be worth mentioning in our summary. On the other hand, it would also be possible to produce an even shorter version of the summary by putting that information into the footnotes. I don't have a strong preference. However, obviously I disagree that we should go back to the text from May. JerryRussell (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with the short version and the additional text proposed. I feel this summary creates a neutral treatment. The discussion will be endless unless we do it this way.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, at the moment the !vote tally is three supporting my proposal, one against. In opposing the proposal, JJ offers WP:FALSEBALANCE as a reason. I believe "False Balance" was dealt with by the recent RfC, which was closed as

practically the entire subject of the article is Fringe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, as a partial resolution I propose that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1981 "VAN" – Professor of physics Panayiotis Varotsos at the University of Athens and various collaborators over the years – claimed to have found an association between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES)[128] (see electromagnetic variations, above). In 1984 they claimed there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes",[129] – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted"[130] – the SES appearing between six and 115 hours before the earthquake. This was "enthusiastically saluted by some as a major breakthrough".[131] They also presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes.[132]

to this:

The authors of the VAN method presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes.[128]

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

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

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

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

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

In 1981 "VAN" – Professor of physics Panayiotis Varotsos at the University of Athens and various collaborators over the years – claimed to have found an association between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES)[128] (see electromagnetic variations, above). In 1984 they claimed there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes",[129] – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted"[130] – the SES appearing between six and 115 hours before the earthquake. This was "enthusiastically saluted by some as a major breakthrough".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our editing restriction expired this morning. I've created a one-sentence summary of the early VAN claims, which is supported by both primary and secondary sources. I hope this will be satisfactory. Of course if I've introduced any errors in the process, or left out any important elements, other editors are encouraged to edit my content as they see fit. JerryRussell (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Re-boot (2)

WP:FRINGE/PS describes a spectrum of fringe, and states that findings should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscience if there is a reasonable amount of academic debate. While I agree there is no debate that VAN's early extraordinary claims have not panned out, there is still room for debate about whether there is some slight degree of correlation between the signals VAN say they are detecting, and Greek EQ. In fact, neither the ICEF report nor the Johnston paper seems to rule out that possibility. The ICEF statement is ambiguous on that point. Johnston makes it clear that he believes VAN's signals are more likely caused by industrial activities, but note that BSSA published the entire debate including VAN's point of view as well as Johnston's, and that VAN papers continue to be accepted by the referees of reputable peer reviewed journals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For any newcomers here I point out that "IP202" is a WP:SPA, whose sole effort on WP is to remove all material that is (in his view) "negative" towards VAN, and to give visibility to all of VAN's rejoinders as to why the criticism is false. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Staszek Lem:, @Elriana:, @Jytdog:, @Tronvillain:, could we get some more opinions here on whether this one sentence on VAN may be included in the article? I've seen this happen over and over. JJ waits until everyone is bored with the discussion, then comes out with this completely distorted view of NPOV that requires Wikipedia to deliver "the verdict" from the mainstream. Or, if other editors agree with JJ, I'm willing to be corrected. JerryRussell (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding NPOV:

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

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

Details

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

Re-boot (3)

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

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

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

3) describes why the prediction is notable.

Subsequent paragraphs should continue in roughly the same form:

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

5) describe the outcome of the prediction, and

6) note the mainstream assessment of the prediction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was looking around for other resources on the one-to-one correspondence concept. Maybe this would be satisfying for our readers? http://www.pre-kpages.com/one-to-one/ JerryRussell (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Combining methods, satellite observations, Freund, Pulinets etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this embarrassing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no lack of deliberation on my part. Furthermore, the choice of wording was based on careful consideration of the outing policy and COI policy. And in all sincerity I did want to discuss the "embarrassment" issue first, while noting the COI issue. I wasn't trying to be snide, and any 'insinuations' (or should I say, 'implications') were intended to be clear. But I am not satisfied with the way either of those questions has been addressed. I don't see any reason to close the discussion here, and I've decided also that I am going to take up the COI question at the COI notice board. JerryRussell (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNDUE

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

An earthquake takes place so deep inside the earth that instrumentation cannot reach the fault areas. So we rely on physics that provides ways to reach these depths. The role of electromagnetics is apparent as it directly influences the ionosphere and probably the animal behavior. I have added yet another non-em method below, but we are also missing the ionospherics in the article. I fully agree with the tagging.--IP202-178.59.56.37 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Clarifying_question.2C_and_an_example_about_a_minority_view_about_earthquake_precursors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet another method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teeing up an RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry: you're wrong. On multiple counts.

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

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

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

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

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

I started this section, and I mentioned forecasting in my first post to it. So it seems to me that forecasting is on-topic. If anyone else is following the discussion, they can reach their own conclusion about what JJ is saying or insinuating, or what aspects I have misunderstood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed replies for Jerry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi JJ, thanks for the reply. It appears that we've agreed to focus the discussion on an effort to determine the scope of the article. My opinion is that the problem is one of scope, and is not just semantics. I believe that 'earthquake prediction' is defined too narrowly in the lede. Reviewing Wikipedia's general article on prediction, I've realized just how limiting our article's definition really is. Wiki Wikipedia defines "prediction" as "a statement about an uncertain event". It mentions that there is "no universal agreement" about the difference between prediction and forecast, and says that "different authors and disciplines ascribe different connotations." The subtopics in that article include: statistics; scientific hypothesis and prediction; opinion polls; supernatural prediction or prophecy; and various specific sub-fields of prediction.

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

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

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

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

Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_4#Prediction_vs_forecasting

In that discussion, you wrote: Prediction is ... about determining the specific time, location, and magnitude of the next strong earthquake. Forecasting is the assessment for a broad region of the probability of any earthquake of a given magnitude in some extended period of time. Which is, it seems to me, a pretty good way to state a contrast between the two concepts. But it's squishy in terms of the demarcation between "specific" vs. "extended". And as you wrote yourself, earthquake forecasting is closely related [to prediction], with a lot of overlap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You state that "'earthquake prediction' is defined too narrowly", and that after reviewing the Prediction article you have "realized just how limiting our article's definition really it." Then comes your true statement of what you want: to include Freund, Heraud, Pulinets, and Heki in the article. (Earlier [21:54, 11 Oct] you included "material on tidal influence", and Ben Davidson.) To this end you believe that "a suitably broad definition of the topic would make them clearly relevant."

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

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

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

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

Would you agree that the definition of "EQ prediction" might effect whether we should mention the book of Isaiah? Whether we like it or not, the Bible is at least as notable as any seismology journal. You didn't answer my question as to whether prediction is pro-fringe because it includes information on prophecy.

For the record, I am no longer recommending that Wikipedia should discuss Ben Davidson. He only has one publication, and as far as I know it hasn't been reviewed by any secondary source.

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

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

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

Ask a seismologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Dr. Vidale, thanks for participating. I agree that it's not our responsibility here to resolve any debate over VAN method here, but our responsibility is to summarize and present the views which have appeared in reliable sources. We need to identify what those reliable sources are. Also, with your help, perhaps we can understand exactly what those sources say.

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

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

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

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

To be more explicit, there is no precursor hypothesis currently extent beyond monitoring seismicity for foreshocks and deformation for anomalous loading. The articles on VAN in the literature convince almost no one I know, and no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them, and that is not because they are hard to check. It is not hard to get very unlikely results published even in good journals just by being persistent enough to eventually get 2 or 3 uncritical reviewersJohn (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Vidale, do you know of any publications in which seismologists have evaluated Freund's models, showing how they are flawed in light of state-of-the-art EQ observations and theories of friction? JerryRussell (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Vidale, thanks for the reference to Dahlgren et al. This is the sort of information we can possibly use in the article, although cautiously since it seems to be a primary source description of an experiment. For me, it only deepens the mystery, as I see that apparently the same experiment was reported in conference proceedings in 2012 by Dahlgren, Johnston, Freund & Vanderbilt. Finding that Freund has been removed from the final author list seems a bit irregular, if he was involved in doing the work. And, Freund's partner John Scoville subsequently published a letter with the unusual comment the data presented in the paper by Dahlgren, et al.1 does not actually support its conclusion and It is unclear how or why the authors of this paper arrived at a conclusion that directly contradicts their experimental results, or how such an obvious contradiction could have been overlooked during the review process. Scoville reply

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

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

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

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

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

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