Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 11

Susan Hough quote on VAN quotes on VAN, Freund and co-seismic signals
JJ recently added a quote from Susan Hough's book, regarding seismologist opinion of VAN. In context, the complete statement from Hough is: As a prediction method, most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked. The remaining question is, if one or more specific predictions appear to be successful, is it because the earth does generate these signals, or because the method manages to benefit from the tendency of quakes to cluster. In short, are the fundamental scientific underpinnings of the method valid, or are they complete hogwash? In other words, Hough is making the same point I've been trying to explain for months here. Everyone can agree that the VAN method (based on SES) gives a very high false alarm rate and also suffers from some misses, so it fails as a practical EQ prediction method. But there is still an open controversy about whether there is any statistical correlation between SES and EQ, or whether some isolated predictive successes by VAN are a result of EQ clustering. JerryRussell (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not the "complete statement", as you have omitted the context. On page 195 she is talking about short-term forecasts generally, and mentions VAN as an example. Following "hogwash" she goes on to say: "To answer this question, for VAN or AMR or M8, one needs a basis of comparison." (Emphasis added.) Which is most certainly NOT "the same point [you] have been trying explain for months". Her point is about the basis for assessing a prediction method, your point (as far as I can see that you have a single point) is that fringe views (and specifically VAN) are treated unfairly.


 * In the case of VAN, the controversy about SES/EQ correlations is not "still open", that having been settled back in 1995 or thereabouts. (What you like to call "ancient history".) Your assertion of that is false, and shows a reckless disregard of factual reality. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that in three different cases (the above discussion on Freund, this discussion on VAN, and our discussion of co-seismic magnetometer readings) we see different shades of meaning in Hough's book. In this case, "ask a seismologist" might be a very useful exercise. Her email is given at her USGS website. Would you like to contact her, or should I? Are there Wikipedia protocol rules for this sort of thing? JerryRussell (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect it would not be a useful exercise, as (given your response re Dr. Vidale's comments) you would question or ignore even quite definite statements that you don't agree with. At the very least you really should decide in advance what your question is, and then not belabor the point. And if you want to convince me you have the more accurate viewpoint it will have to a better question than what you have asked so far. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I will wait until we have a chance to discuss further. I'm short on time today, but will return to this as soon as I can. JerryRussell (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In her Chapter 15 (starting at p. 191), Hough is discussing reasons why some EQ predictions appear to have been successful, including some by VAN. She goes on to talk about "parent-daughter" statistics, and the elevated probability of another earthquake in the wake of the parent. (Are earthquakes feminine?) She discusses Rundle & Turcotte's Pattern Informatics (PI) method as an elaboration of this basic concept. She says that Turcotte referred to the results of their method as "prediction", but she appears to dispute this characterization. She writes: the distinction between forecasting and prediction starts to blur.... The difference between prediction and short-term forecasting might sound like a distinction in semantics, but of course it is much more than that. Whatever precise terms one uses to define a meaningful short-term earthquake prediction, the public has at least a general understanding of what earthquake prediction is about. In short, prediction is saying when and where an earthquake will strike, and how big it will be. Producing a map that shows that future earthquakes are more likely to strike near one of a large number of blotchy measles spots is not what the public understands to be earthquake prediction. She then complains that whether PI is any better than simple parent-daughter statistics is "difficult to say".

Hough goes on to argue that forecasts involving a weak short-term probability increase can be useful. For example, one wouldn’t evacuate Palm Springs based on a one in twenty chance of a large earthquake but one might reasonably move fire engines outside of fire houses for a few days.... and furthermore, These short-term forecast methods are also important for scientists’ continuing quest to understand earthquake predictability, in particular to evaluate proposed earthquake prediction methods.

This is the point where Hough says that as a prediction method, VAN has been debunked. I think the only way to read this, is where "prediction method" means a reliable short-term prediction which might be a basis for evacuating Palm Springs. She then goes on to ask whether the earth does generate SES signals, or whether the VAN method is "complete hogwash". She says that such a question can be addressed by comparing prediction methods such as VAN to parent-daughter methods. She concludes In recent years scientists have begun to make such comparisons. They reveal that, occasional bold statements and press releases notwithstanding, we are not there yet.

I would be the first to admit that when it comes to stating conclusions about VAN, Hough's writing is not as clear as I would like it to be. It seems to me that she is saying that while VAN has certainly failed as a reliable short-term EQ prediction method, nevertheless the relationship between SES and EQ is still an open question. But maybe she's saying that these unnamed scientists who have just begun to make the relevant comparisons, have completed their evaluation of VAN? If so, where are the results and why doesn't she provide a reference in the notes section? This is why I think it would be interesting to get Hough's personal statement, if possible.

Hough's chapter 10 (starting on p. 125) also covers VAN, Freund, Corralitos, and other aspects of seismo-electromagnetism. On p. 130 she notes that EQ prediction research is more popular internationally than it is in the US or Europe, and also: In recent decades scientists who study earthquakes have parted company along disciplinary as well as international lines. As earthquake prediction fell out of favor among scientists who call themselves seismologists it has been embraced more enthusiastically by (some) scientists with expertise in different fields, for example rock magnetism and solid-state physics. This supports my view of a split between seismologists and more broadly trained geophysicists, which would include Hough herself.

Freund is singled out as a prominent representative of this school. She says (p. 133): Among the torchbearers in this community, solid-state physicist Friedemann Freund stands tall. His research, including laboratory investigations, provide compelling evidence that battery currents can be created when certain rocks are subjected to stress— what has come to be known as Freund physics. With reference to the RfC above, I suggest this supports my view that Freund is at least as prominent as VAN, if not more so. After giving a discussion of why mainstream seismologists remain skeptical of Freund, Hough concludes that the idea of electromagnetic precursors is not entirely out to lunch and that Freund physics is not entirely black magic.

To be quite frank, Hough's statements seem almost like textbook psychological priming: associating VAN with "hogwash" and Freund with "black magic" and "out to lunch", while specifically avoiding making those actual claims, and offering some good reasons to believe otherwise.

Finally, there is the odd statement that Magnetic instruments can and do record earthquakes. But upon close inspection, one finds, without exception, an absence of true co-seismic electromagnetic signals. One possible interpretation is that she is saying all the allegations of co-seismic signals are artifacts, such as mechanical vibration of the magnetometer. But if this is what she means, is she unaware Johnston's papers that claim the opposite? Or is she denying them without even acknowledging their existence? Or does she mean something entirely different? None of these three alternatives seems reasonable, so again it would be interesting to ask her what she's trying to say with this rather enigmatic argument. 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I've written this up all in one place, so that if we decide to contact Hough, it's all here in one thread. JJ, if it would make you happier, the material could easily be split out to the other two threads where these matters have initially been mentioned. JerryRussell (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Jerry, what is your point here? Are you objecting (for some yet unstated reason) to my citation of Dr. Hough's "resoundingly debunked" statement? Or are you wanting to argue about it? You are not innocently asking honest questions; that is belied by your questioning of her statement about "magnetic instruments", as I answered that a week ago (at Talk:Seismo-electromagnetics).


 * Despite your edit summary that "this is topic consolidation, not topic drift", it is entirely unclear what your topic is, other than Susan Hough. (You have gone beyond the "quote on VAN".) Nor have you shown any reason to contact her, other than your spurious questions. So again: what is your point? Indeed, just what is your topic? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In case it is in doubt, my opinion is that Freund's and SES claims are utterly without basis in observations that have been vetted by the larger seismological community, and there is no theoretical reason that such precursors should be observable. Anything is possible in the world, including time travel and transmuting plastic to gold, but to present these precursors as having any basis in observation or theory does a disservice to public understanding of science.John (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Dr. Vidale, thanks for the clarification. Wikipedia has an article on Time travel which I hadn't seen before. In the RfC above, Staszek Lem argued that Freund should be mentioned, briefly, and debunked. He says There is no other way to combat public ignorance. Do you agree, or do you feel it is better to avoid mentioning Freund entirely in this article?


 * JJ, my topic for this section is now Susan Hough and her book, and whether we should contact her for clarifications and/or dialog. We had been discussing her in three different sections relating to three different topics: this section, on the VAN quote; above in the RfC, on her statements about Freund; and at Talk:Seismo-electromagnetics, about her statements about co-seismic signals. My proposal is to consolidate the discussions here. To further clarify my intent, I have updated the heading for this section. Do you agree to this consolidation, or would you insist on resuming the three conversations independently in their original locations? JerryRussell (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So now you want, what, a book review?? All this because I quoted her?


 * What is your precise question here, and where are you going with this? I don't know why you want to consolidate the SM discussion here – you asked a question, I answered it, and how does it go any further unless you dispute it?


 * BTW, I suggest that you do not contact Dr. Hough, as you seem to wanting to argue the points. But if you do, it's entirely on you; there is no "we" about it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no firm opinion about whether Freund should be called out for criticism. Given his penchant for spinning arguments in esoterica in which no one in the world is following the discussion, then declaring victory because no one care to unravel it, maybe better to not mention him at all.John (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pertinent to Question #2; perhaps you could say as much there? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr., I wonder if you think there would be any value in contacting Dr. Hough for clarification of her remarks in her book? At Wikipedia, we are supposed to summarize and paraphrase our sources, rather than quoting them directly. Hough spends most of a chapter in her book discussing Freund -- laying out his theories, discussion seismologists' criticisms, and ultimately concluding that he is "not entirely out to lunch". This is rather enigmatic, but basically I think it's clear enough to work with. Regarding VAN, I'm claiming that Hough's qualification that it has been debunked as a prediction method leaves open the possibility that there is still some controversy in her mind about whether SES might be useful in short-term forecasting, where the goal is to achieve a modest improvement in the probability estimate provided by parent-daughter methods. But I'm self-aware enough to know that I might be reading things into her words, and I wouldn't want to misuse her quote here if that's not what she meant. Also, she says that there are no "true" co-seismic electromagnetic signals. I'm not sure whether she is saying that the claims of magnetometer readings are artifacts, or whether she means that ULF magnetic signals that don't propagate well are not truly "electromagnetic", or whether she's just not aware of Johnston's work which purports to show that these co-seismic signals do exist.
 * I'm prepared to send Hough an email myself. But if it comes from a group here including well-known experts, there's perhaps a better chance of getting a substantive response? Or do you agree with JJ, that there's really not a well-formulated question worth asking? JerryRussell (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My impression is that occasionally (twice?) co-seismic EM signals have appeared. No precursory signals proven connected to earthquakes have been seen, although a signal (or instrumental malfunction) before the Loma Prieta earthquake was puzzling.  I seriously doubt Sue was attributing any power to SES signals.  Personally, I don't see the point of great care in describing methods extremely unlikely to have geophysical relevance, which are mostly likely junk science. John (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I suspect that Pham et al. (2002) pretty much blew away any vestigial possibiity that "SES" were in any way seismic. Jerry: your "leaves open the possibility" is just grasping at straws. It is quibbling. You have quite overlooked that VAN's significance was based ENTIRELY on being a successful prediction method. A point which Hough mentions, but you seem to have missed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify this on Jerry's question, co-seismic EM signals do not support earthquake prediction. Pre-seismic EM come before an earthquake and mechanisms proposed on the observations do not consider any co-seismic EM signals as part of the preparation process, more than they are useless. Pre-seismic electrics and EM are said to be generated by the preparation processes in several steps, the first of which seems to be the emission of SES, followed by the emissions because of smaller earthquakes occurring around the main fault to be ruptured, and finally the main fault itself, before the earthquake. It is not always expected for SES or EM to reach the surface, and in EM this is usually due to the depth of the source of EM or being underwater, more than the magnitude of the eq(s). Magnetics have better reach to the surface and SES follow specific paths. Read Susan Hough under this.-AA-2A02:587:4408:6C00:1963:FF8E:B200:FA78 (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, some people say there could be pre-seismic signals, and come up with all sorts of imaginative mechanisms. But Malcom Johnston's (et al., 2006) observations of the Parkfield quake pretty much blows away all such speculation: "No significant changes in local magnetic field occurred .... Nor were changes in magnetic and electric field in the ULF band observed...." And very specifically:
 * Writing at a professional level tends to leave out obvious inferences, so for everyone who may missed it we have Hough's pithy summary: resoundingly debunked.


 * Jerry's assertion (not a question!) that "there is still an open controversy" about SES quite begs the question of whether such "signals" even exist. Our most authoritative evidence is: they do not exist, except as random industrial/cultural noise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Arguing back to 20 years ago about industrial noise is a self-opinion, after all the publications since. Did I say somewhere, when I speak on EM or magnetics, that I refer only to VAN?-AA-2A02:587:4408:6C00:297C:DA0E:6D02:CE7 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not "self-opinion", but from a reliable, authoritative source, with a much more solid scientific foundation than VAN ever had. Or any other claim for "EM or magnetics". As to this recurring dismissal of "old" science: VAN's claim they could exclude industrial noise is also circa 1996 ("20 years ago"), while "all the publications since" would include Pham et al. (2002, tracing SES-like signals to industrial sources; citations in the article), Johnston et al. (2006, quoted above), Park, Dalrymple & Larsen (2007), and Kappler, Morrison & Egbert (2010: "no effects found that can be reasonably characterized as precursors"). Notably: no "publications since" by VAN. VAN was soundly criticized, they never satisfactorily answered the criticism, and since then have been ignored. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * During the RFC I have brought here a very recent publication by eminent USA scientists, which is based on natural time analysis, and I believe it drew attention. JJ's claim that nowdays VAN method is ignored is just his opinion. Here are three publications during the last two years (2015 & 2016) that report very positive experimental results on the detection of precursory seismic electric signals before major earthquakes in Taiwan, China and Japan.
 * Natural Hazards November 2016, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 877–895 Testing the correlations between anomalies of statistical indexes of the geoelectric system and earthquakes
 * Pure and Applied Geophysics January 2016, Volume 173, Issue 1, pp 269–284 Shifting Correlation Between Earthquakes and Electromagnetic Signals: A Case Study of the 2013 Minxian–Zhangxian ML 6.5 (MW 6.1) Earthquake in Gansu, China
 * Journal of Asian Earth Sciences March 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2015.02.022 Further investigations of geomagnetic diurnal variations associated with the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake (Mw9.0)
 * -AA-2A02:587:440D:DB00:9152:BDF3:5485:9631 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That, of course, is your "opinion" as a partisan advocate, not a neutral weigher of views. My opinion is based on the statement of our guest expert that "no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them", which certainly sounds like "ignore". ( See . For extended comments see Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_8. ) Dr. Vidale went on to say: "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 reviewers". Which would seem to apply to your references: they are speculative, with tentative and uncorroborated findings (and the second assumes that "SEMS" exist). They barely mention Varotsos et al., and certainly do not show that VAN actually predicted any quakes, nor answered any of the very devastating criticism of VAN. That mention seems more like an echo chamber, where the proponents keep mentioning everyone in the field to build up their h-index, and make it seem like there is lively development. I think they are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Shakespeare).


 * If anyone has any doubt of all that just refer to Dr. Hough's statement: " resoundingly debunked." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We all agree there is no earthquake prediction according to the strict criteria. But, pre-seismic electromagnetics are there. From all over the world, not just Greece. Dr. Vidale's " 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. " comment was not that careful. I have doubts he follows the literature and I think he just expresses his opinion.-AA-2A02:587:440D:DB00:9152:BDF3:5485:9631 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Does "all" include Panayiotis Varotsos? Has he retracted his various claims of prediction?


 * Your second sentence is, at best, wishful thinking. And your third sentence is specfically and definitely contradicted for the central San Andreas Fault by Johnston et al. 2006, which I just quoted (above).


 * The rest of your comment is a slur. It is uncivil, totally uncalled for, and does nothing to forward this discussion. Dr. Vidale has a PhD degree in seismology, and is quite active in the field, which is vastly more than we can say for you. And he certainly does follow the mainstream literature (though likely not all of the secondary tier journals).  Whereas it appears that you don't even follow the discussion at hand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Difficulty or impossibility" section
Cannot make any sense. WTH is "on decision-theoretic grounds"? How " self-organized criticality" implies an (im)possibility? Stc. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The "study of the reasoning underlying an agent's choices", and trivial to wikilink. Matthews uses decision theory to determine "how accurate earthquake predictions must be to server as a reliable basis for action." Pretty interesting paper, actually, and not beyond the competency of a layman who is willing to give it proper attention. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My issue with this section is that it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible. One version of an explanation could be, "Like most systems that exhibit self-organized criticality, the physical systems that produce earthquakes are slowly driven non-equilibrium systems with extended degrees of freedom and a high level of nonlinearity. Such systems do not behave deterministically. Instead, the behaviors follow some statistical distribution surrounding a long-term critical state. As such, individual events are intrinsically unpredictable. Only the relative probabilities of many possible events can be known." Or something like that.


 * A more simplistic way of describing one problem with prediction is, "Earthquakes occur on large scale faults, but are controlled by the mechanics of rocks and grains on a microscopic scale. Each system/fault is made of so many grains over such a large area, each interacting with the grains and fluids surrounding it on such long timescales that we can never fully model the behavior of the system. Simplified equations that model sections of fault and groups of grains fail to capture the full range of possible outcomes. In order to fully model the system, we would need to build a model as complex as the system itself, essentially recreating the entire system down to the subatomic level. But we already have such a model in the system itself. Therefore studying the behavior of that system is the best we can ever do." At least that's my understanding. If I'm wrong, then someone definitely needs to make this section clearer. And possibly edit the self-organized criticality article as well. Elriana (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not clear: that section was seriously hacked, now being only a fifth of the original. As you may recall, that section originally followed the list of notable predictions – most of which, it should be noted, are demonstrated failures – and began with:




 * Three paragraphs followed with a half-dozen possible reasons for this general failure, but only "self-organized criticality" and "decision-theoretic grounds" survived subsequent editing. It should be noted that all of these possible reasons are speculations concerning an undeniable observation: the total lack of skillful, repeatable prediction of earthquakes. They bear upon the question of whether EP is merely "fiendishly difficult", or intrinsically impossible. But the "pessimism" (as Uyeda and Varotsos call it) that EP is unlikely in the near term (contrary to the optimism still expressed in the popular media that it may be just around the corner) arises not from these speculations, but from the continuing disappointment of such hopes.


 * There are two central questions here: 1) why earth-scientists are generally pessimistic about EP, and 2) whether prediction is "fiendishly difficult or intrinsically impossible". In its current form this section ignores the fist question, and its treatment of the latter question is abysmal. As to corrections: I suggest restoration of the original. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (A) If it was "seriously hacked, why don't you restore it? As I see, the text you cited has refs.
 * (B) Even this text does not explain what the heck is "decision-theoretic grounds". Without specifics it is just a useless gobbledygook pseudoscientists love to pepper their text with. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A) Because i) I don't believe that "having refs" is sufficient for including material, ii) I didn't want to get into the heavy discussion that would be attendant on a bold Revert, and iii) there is all this other discussion that needs attending to. But perhaps you favor restoring the original?


 * B) We can't fully explain every hard or unfamiliar word for those that can't be troubled to look them up. Which is why we have wikilinks: they take you to the explanations. (Perhaps you failed to notice that "decision-theoretic" is wikilinked?) And you should note that your insinuation that the author cited is a "pseudoscientist" skirts WP:BLM. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In Greece traditional seismologists have made the prediction of the "non-earthquake" using similar argumentation, based on impossibility. After public warnings for an anticipated earthquake, they have reassured people publicly that no large event was going to occur (Papadopoulos statement). L'Aquila showed this can be considered a criminal action.-AA-2A02:587:440D:DB00:2058:30AF:3AE0:C7A9 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Staszek Lem and Elriana, critical systems show anti-persistency (an earth system is doing its best to relax the stresses and avoid the earthquake) and persistency (earthquake is unavoidable). Both have been shown to take place before an earthquake, and explaining models are available. Whereas they are not prediction methods, such publications rebut impossibility.-AA-2A02:587:440D:DB00:5092:CA97:6959:623E (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, pleas keep in mind, you don't have to convince me or Elriana. Wikipedia talk page is not an idle discussion board. We are working on article improvement. Now, how your uttering translates into the article text (with references, of course). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We will have to wait for Elriana to add the content. She has revealed the main pillar of claiming impossibility for earthquake prediction.-AA-2A02:587:440D:DB00:2058:30AF:3AE0:C7A9 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again the anonymous Athenian SPA sends the discussion right off the rails. The issue Elrianna raised is that this section "to an uninitiated reader predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible." To which she added two samples of possible explanations. Note: the issue is NOT whether earthquake prediction is possible or impossible; it is why many (perhaps most) earth scientists think it is impossible. Arguing that those scientists are wrong does nothing to clarify why they think otherwise.  Opining about L'Aquila is entirely irrelevant, and is just distraction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to see Elriana add the content with the explanations of positive and negative points of view, and remove weaselings.-AA-85.74.43.229 (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Further demonstrating your misapprehension of the issue, and your single-purpose pov of interpreting everything as "positive or negative" re prediction and VAN. You are not making any useful contributions here, and it has been long evident that you are WP:NOTHERE for building the encyclopedia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This might help the section, as well as "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." that has been said before. I will wait for Elriana, for more.-AA-85.74.43.229 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No. The diff you point to espouses Uyeda's pov that prediction has failed because it has been left to seismologists. It does not clarify why some scientists (not just seismologists) think prediction is impossible.


 * Your text is inane. Of course "we rely on physics". That is how seismologists and geophysicists have explored the earth's interior. Apparently you are not familiar with that field. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Impossibility should be shown scientifically, not brought here as a scientist's quote. Let's begin with some physics here.-AA-85.74.43.229 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. We are NOT trying to "show" impossibility. The question is why some scientists believe in the impossibility of prediction. This is about the basis of belief, not the validity of such a belief. If you can't grasp that, and can't stay on topic, perhaps you should find some less demanding task. Preferably elsewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The title of the section should change to Possibility, from impossibility. Impossibility is a minority view, from scientists without background on the field, unable to publish responding to papers like the highly cited above. Quotes making wrong impressions should be removed.-AA-85.74.43.229 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that change should not be made. That section treats the issue that arose after it became evident that (despite massive OPTIMISM) skillful prediction of earthquakes was a bust, and the question was whether prediction had failed because it is exceedingly difficult, or because it is intrinsically impossible. Many – by now, probably most – scientists believe the latter. Your disparagement of them as "without background [in] the field" is simply your opinion (and what do we know about your background?) and utterly untrue; it constitutes a personal attack. Your argument demonstrates nothing but the poverty of your argument, and your continuing partisan advocacy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A section on pessimism should have the tilte Pessimism, not impossibility. Then the explanation of pessimism that is being persistantly thrown away (that tradtional seismologists do not accept non seismic precursors as physical quantities) will at last be part of the article. Of course impossibility is a tiny minority view, I see no source citing its growth (quite the opposite, wondering only on Wikipedia being misused to shape opinion for some years now). The title of the section should not lure the reader to minority conclusions. The POV quotes from one point of view only, expressing the extreme minority pov, should either be balanced or removed.-AA-85.74.43.229 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pessimism" and "non-seismic precursors" are the shibboleths of the extremely tiny minority view (i.e., fringe view) of Uyeda (endorsed by Varotsos), the latter term referring explicitly to "electromagnetic &amp; geochemical phenomena". (We discussed Uyeda's views last August, here.) That Uyeda's views are readily shown to be false is rather irrelevant here, as your purpose seems to be only to churn controversy. That is disruptive, so I am going to ask you, nicely: please desist from your single-purpose advocacy of a resoundingly debunked point of view.
 * "Pessimism" and "non-seismic precursors" are the shibboleths of the extremely tiny minority view (i.e., fringe view) of Uyeda (endorsed by Varotsos), the latter term referring explicitly to "electromagnetic &amp; geochemical phenomena". (We discussed Uyeda's views last August, here.) That Uyeda's views are readily shown to be false is rather irrelevant here, as your purpose seems to be only to churn controversy. That is disruptive, so I am going to ask you, nicely: please desist from your single-purpose advocacy of a resoundingly debunked point of view.


 * Attempting to engage in useful discussion with you has proven futile. Given Brandolini's law, that "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it", it seems pointless to continue. I will remind you that being ignored is not implicit approval to proceed with any changes to the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Pessimism term is used for mainstream view in the lead section. Impossibility is a 1996-1997 myth, unsupported nowadays. There is no rebuttal, even answer, to recent publications like the one above on critical phenomena. Personal attacks is not argumenting. Recent publications on the topic are welcome.-AA-85.74.33.233 (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Impossibility is not a "myth", and it is not confined to "1996-1997". Most of the chaos theory and decision theoretical arguments that I have heard and read for the intrinsic impossibility of accurately predicting earthquakes were developed while I was in college and graduate school (2001-2011). The reason I have not written some great explanation with loads of references is that I have not been working in that field since ~2008, and I have not kept track of the references or the scientists writing them since that time. The idea that the systems involved in earthquakes are intrinsically too complex to predict with any model simpler than the systems themselves is a widespread concept. Even seismologists and geophysicists who do not agree with that argument are aware that it exists. Many who work on the earthquake 'forecasts' for organizations like the USGS do believe there is a fundamental limit on how good those forecasts can get. It is not about pessimism. It is about understanding the complexity of the system, and acknowledging that some physical processes have statistical distributions rather than being fully deterministic. We deal with this issue in other fields, from weather forecasts to nuclear physics. The inclusion of the idea of prediction impossibility should not be controversial here. Elriana (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Impossibility is rebutted Elriana, the way you support it, exactly because critical phenomena have been shown to behave quite the opposite from what you describe, during the last stages of earthquake preparation, and detailed models have been proposed on this, up to the micro-scale, based on both experimental and field data. Please try to write about complexity and models in our article section, by all means ask an expert, and I will be here to help giving the advance of last decade on the field.-AA-85.74.33.233 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The only way to "rebut" impossibility is to successfully predict earthquakes. We have not reliably done that. The USGS agrees, btw: https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9830/3278 . And whether or not prediction is impossible is not the point of this discussion anyway. Whether I, personally, agree or not is irrelevant. The idea that prediction may be impossible is taught in introductory seismology classes and mentioned in textbooks. It is a widespread idea that has influenced the distribution of funding and increased the focus on forecasts rather than prediction in the last couple of decades. Therefore the idea needs to be mentioned in this article and, as per wikipedia standards, the concepts should be explained as clearly and succinctly as possible. Elriana (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree also, that the purpose of this particular section is to describe and explain the belief that EQ prediction is impossible. Other sections of the article discuss various theories about means of predicting earthquakes. Thus, the article as a whole does cover all viewpoints. JerryRussell (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction
Please do it, by all means. Wikipedia is interested in what traditional seismologiosts believe and teach. Wikipedia is also interested in latest decade's findings on the opposite.-AA-85.74.33.233 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're a bit arrogant presuming to tell us what "Wikipedia is interested in". And while the topics covered by an encyclopedia (such as WP) may be guided by reader interest, we do not "balance" mainstream scientific opinion to suit fringe points of view. More particularly, we are not interested in "the latest decade's findings on the opposite", because there are no such "findings" that rise to any degree of scientific credibility. Your constant nattering on this point is disruptive to the development of this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC above proposed introducing some specific information into this article, regarding research of the last decade or two. I'm optimistic that eventually the RfC will rise to the top of the queue at AN/RfC, and we'll be able to proceed with that. Meanwhile, AA, might I suggest that we bring the article on seismo-electromagnetics up to date while we're waiting? I'm intrigued with the article references you've been posting recently, but I am still finding it difficult to find the time to do as much reading as I'd like in this area. If you post the basic facts, I'll clean up the English grammar and try to address neutrality issues, and then maybe JJ and Elriana can do quality control. I hope this will be considered cooperation, rather than tag teaming? As a final step, I envision that appropriate summaries might appear in this article, subject to due weight considerations & consensus process. JerryRussell (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Jerry, the "specific information" you want to introduce via the RfC is, in the first place, not very specific. You asked whether several resarchers, two theories, a claim of a prediction, and a company should be "discussed", but (aside from the claimed prediction) not much in the way of "specific information". Second, all of that is fringe, being largely ignored (where not outright rejectd) by mainstream scientific opinoin. (And you may be jumping the gun in one case, as it appears nothing has been published yet.) Any mention in this article (where more pertinent sub-topics are not mentioned) amounts to promotion of fringe. If you feel they really warrant mention, do so in the more narrowly focussed seismo-electromagnetics article.


 * As to AA's "latest decade's findings on the opposite" – or, as you put it in this section's header: "Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction" – that is essentially an empty topic. Sure, back on 11 Feb. (bottom of the previous section) AA cited three "very positive experimental results on the detection of precursory seismic electric signals". As I noted then, those papers were very speculative, with tentative and uncorroborated findings, and one assuming "SEMS" exist. Even AA allowed that: "We all agree there is no earthquake prediction according to the strict criteria." There simply are no findings, recent or otherwise, that EP is possible along any lines that have been proposed; this heading asserts a statement that is false. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave links to the specific information and references located in the sub-articles, such as seismo-electromagnetics. The closer's job is to sort out what policy-based consensus can be drawn from all the reams of commentary about that RfC. So let's chill out and wait for someone to take on that job from an uninvolved perspective.
 * My section heading mentions "possibilities" which might very well be tentative. They discuss probabilities, not certainties, which means they might properly be included in a discussion of short-term forecasts. The literature of the "optimists" defines "prediction" rather differently than the mainstream. All this can be made clear in our article, in very few words. JerryRussell (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Taking a guess at what "possibilities" you might have mind (perhaps the sources AA cited in a previous thread?): it's not they might be tentative, but that they very well ARE tentative. That is why they are not yet accepted by mainstream science. They claim they might have seen a precursor, but that is hardly new. Plenty of people have reported possible precursors, and they have been doing so for decades, but none have worked out as useful predictors. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

More notable predictions?
Above in the RfC, JJ and tronvillain discussed a list of additional EQ predictions that might be included in the article. Last November when I was considering whether to retire from editing this article, I reviewed the old talk pages, and I felt that the materials were deleted without anything like an adequate discussion. I would support bringing much if not all of this back. I considered copying it back in myself as a gesture of goodwill, but I felt that to do a good job I would need to review at least some of the references and consider neutrality issues. It was more work than I felt able to take on at the time. But, basically, I do think much if not all of this should be in the article.

The material was removed I think sometime in 2014, here is a link to a pre-removal version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_prediction&oldid=588172086

JerryRussell (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of bringing much of that back, but I think there should be discussion on it. And better if we hold off on that until the RfC is settled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Brought back section on '1981: Lima, Peru (Brady)'. This prediction was very prominently treated in Hough. JerryRussell (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Good! And thank you. Hough treated it prominently because it was extremely notable, and not just in Lima: in going from scientifically credible to utter fiasco it pushed the USGS into taking a deep look into how predictions should be handled.


 * The 1976 Blue Mountain Lake prediction should also come back, as it was also based on what seemed credible science, and was for a while deemed a valid prediction. But there were some later developements which need to be added, and I haven't quite yet got around to it. The two Southern California quakes should also come back, both being widely heralded prospective (instead of retrospective) predictions, or at least strong anticipations, of a quake. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC close requested
I requested an uninvolved and experienced editor to close the RfC, now that it's been expired from the active list by the bot. See: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure

JerryRussell (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the little edit war that occurred over the weekend between JJ and AA, regarding JJ's proposed "no consensus" close. Obviously, I completely disagree that there was no consensus on questions #1 through #4. I will post to AN/RfC, noting that this edit war occurred, and pleading for someone to come and perform a proper uninvolved closing. JerryRussell (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you've both already been there too. No worries, we're nearing the top of the wait list. JerryRussell (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC implementation
Many thanks to for closing our RfC.

To begin the implementation, I've restored the longstanding content about VAN's natural time hypothesis and their 2008 alleged prediction to its state before JJ deleted it last December. And, I've brought the text on the L'Aquila EQ prosecutions out of the footnote and into the body of the article.

I'm not quite sure what to say about Freund Physics, or the TEC material. I think it would be best to bring the Seismo-electromagnetics article up to date first. That article is really in sad shape, beginning with the non-existant Harvard style sources section. Once we have a consensus on the unbiased story for that article, we'll be better positioned to create a summary for this article.

Since my vacation from Wiki editing in December, I've realized that I certainly do have other priorities in my life. I'm just a layperson in this area, not an expert. Left to my own devices, I will get to this eventually. But it won't be quick.

AA, I have the impression that you follow this field very closely. Could you please help broaden Wiki's coverage of seismo-electromagnetics to give better coverage of the field outside of VAN? I am sick and tired of having JJ complain that you're an SPA, but you don't do much to counteract that impression conclusion. It doesn't have to be this way. If you're shy to make contributions in the article text (and I can understand why you might be) then make proposals on the talk page there, and we can discuss.

, I have the impression that beyond any doubt, you also know a lot more about this topic than I do. Please don't be shy! JerryRussell (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The "impression" of AA (a.k.a. "IP202") being a single-purpose editor is the cold, hard reality: there is no indication that he has edited any articles other than this (and the related VAN method), and even here has no interest other than in VAN and issues related to VAN (e.g., EP possibility). Any other impression would be false.


 * And you are his chief enabler. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF says When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus. When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. I think you have valid concerns about AA's behavior, but the correct place to address them would be in some conduct dispute forum, not here. Meanwhile, I always hope for the best.
 * If AA or (preferably) Elriana don't step up to the plate to suggest some text about Freund physics and TEC, I promise I'll do it. I'd like to give them the opportunity, as I think either of them would do a better job than I would. JerryRussell (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I have concerns about the content that results when you enable a blatantly non-neutral anonymous (and likely conflicted) editor in promoting views contrary to the scientific mainstream. I am particularly concerned about your general disparagement of expert opinion in favor of popular, sensationalistic, and even fringe points of view. But: 1) is that a behavior amenable to change? And: 2) haven't we just established that "wikipinion" trumps expert opinion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * JJ, there's an essay, WP:EXPERT, that addresses some of your questions and concerns. It clearly states: If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. JerryRussell (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You are implying that there was some question of the neutrality or reliabilty of our expert editor, Dr. Vidale, which is totally false. What you quote is from §6 of "Advice for expert editors", concerning potential conflict of interest, particularly in regarding to citing one's own research. Such COI is important to know about because it tends affect one's neutrality. This would apply to "AA" (not knowing who he is, we cannot tell if he is citing his own work), but it hardly matters because his non-neutrality is plain to see. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to imply anything whatsoever about Dr. Vidale's neutrality or potential COI. This is not an appropriate forum for such discussions. There was an editorial disagreement over content of the article, based on NPOV and due weight considerations. In such situations, the consensus of editors in an RfC should prevail. JerryRussell (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked, and found that WP:EXPERT is an essay, but WP:CONSENSUS is policy. JerryRussell (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since Vidale 1996 is used to document impossibility minority view, there should be some concerns about the expert's opinion here, regarding neutrality or mainstream view.-AA-85.74.33.233 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your comment is entirely false. Specifically, Dr. Vidale is not "used to document impossibility". That earthquake prediction is considered (and by geophysicists as well as seismologists) either "fiendishly difficult" or effectively impossible arises from four decades of negative results. In the original version (which I am thinking ought to be restored) this was explained, based on ~15 sources.


 * Dr. Vidale is cited only once, along with four other citations, about an aspect of self-organized criticality, and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to cite him. There is no COI, and should be no concerns about his opinions; your comment is nothing but disruptive.


 * You, though, are a different matter, and there should be strong concern regarding your demonstrated non-neutrality. So tell us: who are you? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a curious thing that you reject Dr. Vidales' expert opinion, yet solicit input from an anonymous SPA whose expertise, background, and likely conflict of interest are unknown to us. And when I point out that your quoted authority applies to editing by experts with possible COI, your response is that .. WP:EXPERT is just "an essay"? If you no longer find it authoritative perhaps you should strike your previous comment where you rely on it.


 * I could take you to task re CONSENSUS – particularly, that it is (ha ha) not "the result of a vote", and should respect WP's policies and guidelines — but never mind, I concede you "won" a vote that pretty much declares "damn mainstream opinion", and you're free to add any junk you find "interesting". Have a blast. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * JJ, I am not saying that WP:EXPERT is not useful or authoritative. However, if I can also cite a policy in favor of my views, so much the better. Your claim was that paragraph 6 referred only to expert editors with COI issues, and my response was that consensus should apply even when there is no question of expert COI.


 * The WP:EXPERT essay recommends that lay editors should work with experts to identify current sources, and to achieve neutrality. I believe that you, Dr. Vidale and AA have all manifested expertise in our topic area, and I respect you all as experts.
 * I disagree that the RfC declared against mainstream opinion. On the contrary, the RfC recommended that these fringe views are required to be discussed in context of mainstream opinion. There was no license to include "any junk you find interesting", but there was a finding that the listed items are sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion in the article. JerryRussell (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I should hope you think so, but you do have a tendency to slide. And you do have a decided inclination away from expert, mainstream scientific opinion and towards what is "interesting", as pushed by by someone who won't disclose his apparent COI. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For whatever my opinion, and everyone I respect, is worth, we are quite sure there is no working method now to predict earthquakes. It remains possible that one will be found, but more likely there never will be a reliable way to predict earthquakes on time scales of minutes to months.  Further, whatever credence Wikipedia gives to EM methods of prediction will inevitably diminish its reputation among scientists, several of whom have asked me to straighten out the earthquake prediction section here, although I don't have the time to do much.  To be perhaps more provocative, I could supply the names of a dozen people who each think THEY can predict earthquakes, but no one else can.  How can one listen to anonymous sources in trying to deduce correct science?  For earthquakes, the noise and confusion of anonymous posters is deafening.  John (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is no place for scientists to argue about correct science. The place to do it is peer-reviewed journals. In some cases we miss such publications for over a decade and more.-AA-85.74.33.233 (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. Only anonymous posters with vested interests can discuss content on Wikipedia.  Not people whose reputations can be inspected.  That is why it often becomes a joke.  John (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Though proponents of certain resoundingly debunked claims think WP is the place to burnish their claims and reputations. The standards are certainly no where near as rigorous as for peer-reviewed publication.


 * Anonymous Athenian: what are you hiding? Who are you to be arguing about "correct science"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back to the talk page. Wikipedia policy is that topics such as alleged EM prediction methods should be covered in our encyclopedia, since they are also widely discussed in the popular press and in scientific journals. However, our coverage should be accurate, and the mainstream evaluation should be clear. All statements in the articles should be verifiable, and sourced to reliable published sources. The opportunity to take the first cut at what our article should say about Freund physics, is wide open. I keep hoping someone with more actual expertise in this field than I, will take up the challenge. JerryRussell (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do what you think best, but I'd recommend mentioning Freund physics and VAN in the same level of credibility as the healing power of crystal, Lysenko and cold fusion. Just trying to give you the sense of nearly every practicing seismologist, but haven't the time to do more. John (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But Fleischmann and Pons were (!) respectable scientists, and published in a, and there are hundreds of other publications, so cold fusion has to be true!!! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have posted a first draft of the new section on Freund, as authorized by the RfC. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by non-experts for non-experts. And gosh darn it, people like the site. JerryRussell (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In a quick scan today, the Freund and the VAN sections looked appropriately deeply skeptical. John (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dr. Vidale! I myself have also given up all hope of predicting the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake. Or at any rate, I have brought my EQ insurance up to date, and will be installing seismic retrofits at my house this summer. JerryRussell (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Omerbashich discovery
This Bosnia crownprince discovery for Wikipedia:

Astrophysical cause of tectonics ''Abstract : Tectonic earthquakes, of Mw(6 ± 5%)+, are found forming a strengthening-peaking-waning pattern distinguishable from respectively quiescent times so well that the pattern means discovery of a universal natural mechanism that necessitates expanding on classical physics. The pattern is seen only during Earth’s alignments to two other heavenly bodies in our solar system lasting for more than three days. This empirical proof of astrophysical origins of seismotectonics is immediately obvious and verifiable. The find is consequential due to sheer size of processes and energies involved in defining the pattern that now enables all-or-nothing negative forecasting by foretelling dates without strong quakes. Earth’s energy budget and tectonics are primarily astrophysical in origin, instead of geophysical as previously believed. Near co-planarity of a solar system’s planets, which is for our solar system arguably regarded as odd, is in fact a necessary condition for active geophysics as a life system. The discovery has a potential for fundamentally rewriting physics, macrophysics in particular.''

He is in fights with other scientist: 'Paper accepted for publishing on 31 Aug 2016 by Earthquake Science journal (http://link.springer.com/journal/11589), Editor-in-Chief: Chen Yuntai, member of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Author rejected the offer as part of his protest against the way he and his discoveries were treated by the scientific community that resembled the treatment of Alfred Wegener and his historic discovery.'

It is historic, yes? He can forecast earthquakes thanks to aligned planets and sun. Must read! 217.197.143.233 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What, this nonsense again? Omerbashich and his hyperresonace theory has absolutely no standing in the scientific mainstream. (Nor his various other odd claims here and here. See for more details.) His "theory", and the claim of successful prediction, has been intruded here (typically by an anonymous IP from Sarajevo) on multiple occasions:
 * Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_3 (closed as "Stale discussion of WP:Fringe views ...").
 * Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_5.
 * Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_6 (closed with "plain to see (even for a layperson like me) that the Omerbashich material shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.").
 * Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_7 ("Discredited nonsense from the fringe").


 * This not just established fringe nonsense, it is perennial fringe nonsense. I'll hold of on hatting this in case anyone has any questions.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * IP217 and IP77, these are gratuitous personal attacks and are violations of Wikipedia civility policy. Please be polite.
 * JJ, I completely back you up on this. Not entirely because of a lack of mainstream scientific standing, but also because of a general lack of noteworthiness. There's little if any secondary source material discussing Omerbashich, either pro or con. JerryRussell (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I second JerryRussell's remarks. We have discussed this before. We have found no independent secondary source material to work with (and at least three of us have looked for it). And the proponents (who do tend to have IP's from the same small geographic area) have a tendency to resort to personal attacks instead of taking part in the discussion. I see no reason to discuss Omerbashich's claims when we have no usable sources (by Wikipedia's standards) to work with and no proponents (so far) who are civil enough to refrain from calling us all liars and/or Nazis. Elriana (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Because of these repeated promotions of flagrant nonsense, I have been wondering if we should have an RfC to the purpose of definitely settling that "hyper-resonance" is pseudoscience, that does not belong on WP, and (hopefully) end of discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Every modern society has laws and judicial review. I don't see any need for an RfC, though, when the !vote in preliminary discussion is 100% minus one.


 * This editor is logging in from a different IP every time. Using an open proxy server? This could be reported at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. But I'm not sure this is worth wasting a checkuser's time...
 * I suggest that further posts from this IP editor be treated according to WP:DENY, "Deny Recognition". JerryRussell (talk)


 * I am exploring some options.
 * WP:NPA allows the removal of personal attacks (though somewhat problematical; see WP:RPA), but, for myself, I am not too concerned (calling me a Nazi does not make me a Nazi, and I doubt if anyone here will give such name-calling any credence), so I am okay with letting everyone see what an ***** we're having to put up with. But these recurring irruptions are distracting, so what I would like is some basis for closing them on sight. I don't think the three of us provide an solid basis for that (though I'm sure several others would join us). Alternately, I think a properly advertised RfC (provided no one tries to sabotage it!) would be a solid basis. Thoughts? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP user registered as NeoNeoHunter, and disruption is continuing at Earthquake forecasting. I opened a sockpuppet investigation. We'll see how that works. JerryRussell (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/NeoNeoHunterJerryRussell (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I already opened an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bosnipedian. Note that 77.77.214.94 has added the same material at Talk:Earthquake and Talk:Seismology. And don't think we're now safe here – User_talk:NeoNeoHunter has done his ten edits and is now waiting out his four days so he can come in as autoconfirmed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So now maybe I should close out the SPI for NeoNeoHunter and add him to yours on Bosnipedian? Obviously all the same duck, right?


 * Thanks for the tip at my user page on the template for diffs. JerryRussell (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily "all the same duck". Could be a small gang of ducks. That's why we give them rope, to watch for clues. I'd leave your SPI in, as I didn't really cover NNH; the SPI admins can sort it out to their satisfaction. Beside, we don't really know that N. is the same as B. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If I'm reading WP:RPA correctly, it definitely authorizes one editor to remove personal attacks directed against another. So that's what I'm doing with this edit. JerryRussell (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't be bashful, Jerry! RPA allows any editor to remove disparaging remarks. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected for two weeks
An extreme measure but this disruption has taken place with no suggestion that Theresa y chance of serious discussion, and the insults would get an editor with a account blocked. If anyone wants to set up a subpage for IPs to post to, feel free. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You might protect Talk:Earthquake_forecasting, in light of that added the same material seen above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you have noticed that by "an editor with a account" – i.e., User:NeoNeoHunter, who now can edit semi-protected pages – was of the same type a seen from the IP editors. (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian for details.) Could stronger protection be applied?


 * Note that same issues have appeared at Talk:Earthquake and Talk:Seismology. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Monitoring, account blocked indefinitely. Doug Weller  talk 12:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Some (but not all) of the source IP addresses have been range blocked for a month. For details see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian/Archive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)