Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2

Concerns
I have just removed two external links that were distinctly not reliable sources. And I have some concerns about the overall organization of the article and WP:weight of the article, which results in leaving a reader confused regarding the efficacy (or not) of earthquake prediction. I think there are some improvements that could be made; anyone here interested? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If no one cares, I may just take a few swipes at the article. Revise the introduction, perhaps try restructure things. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just go for it - the earthquake sensitive section and the claim to its effectiveness definitely needs another look. Mikenorton (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, doesn't seem like anyone is too concerned about their toes. I have a whole new introduction about ready to go.  Starts with:
 * Earthquake prediction can be defined as "specification of the time, location, and magnitude of a future earthquake within stated limits"...


 * And ends with:
 * This article will examine the nature and difficulties of earthquake prediction, the criteria for determining a successful prediction, several famous predictions (or alleged predictions), and various approaches which have been considered.


 * Which is currently more prospective than descriptive (note the will), but hopefully that can provide a general plan around which the article can be organized. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. As I get time to collect and assess additional material I will take some whacks at improving the article in regards of organization, content, and citation. Part of my motivation arises from the low regard Wikipedia is held in parts of the seismological community, apparently because of this particular article.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from 174.227.130.180 to new section ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) -- Sacuar: presumably the reference you just added will be supporting new material. However, I am getting ready to do a major overhaul of the whole "precursors" section, and may just drop a lot of that content. So you might want to hold off for a bit. Or discuss? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sacuar: I have fixed the Hussain ref, AND put it back into alphabetic order. Please note: I appreciate your effort to do the template properly. But we should discuss this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress report
And I think I am making progress. Today I deleted several sections that were not about prediction as such. I am also leaning towards deleting "History of research programs", which doesn't really do a good job relating the history, is based on press release materials and proposals and two or so primary sources of narrow applicability, and really needs a good secondary source such as a review of said history. If anyone knows of any such good source, and is willing to re-write that section, let me know. Otherwise it is headed out.

Previously I have rewritten the introduction and the first section to give the readers a stronger understanding of why earthquake prediction isn't faring so well. Currently I am reworking the "Prediction methods" section to replace the "gee whiz, did you know?!" approach with a scientifically based view of these different methods. I have also done some major rework in the Notable predictions section, with additional rework and additions to come. When I get there.

One point where I could use some help: does anyone here have access to the BSSA or SRL archives?
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

More progress(?). I have deleted the History section and several other sections which I think were not quite pertinent to the topic, sub-par, and which I did not feel like upgrading. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to some such sections, but if they were to go back in I would expect a much better re-write. There are other possible sections I am contemplating, but in general I want to improve the quality (at least so it won't be professionally embarrassing) of the existing material before enlarging the scope. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Notable predictions" section is pretty much up to snuff. There are some additional predictions that could go in, but the main thing is that the existing material adequately written and supported. More work is needed in the "Trends" section, which I turn to next. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Coren's dog findings?
Elvey: I question why "Professor Coren's dog findings" should be included. I have doubts about that material's notability and relevance, and also that it is presented uncritically, with nothing for the reader to evaluate it. I am particularly concerned that we do not get into this mode (so common through out Wikipedia, and even in the prior form of this article) where editors add stuff just because it seems interesting. There is much material about animal behavior in this context (several books, and scores of articles), and I don't see how Coren's findings are more significant or more notable than any of the rest. Comment? 


 * Thanks for your work on this article. Did you actually read/skim the citations I gave?  What are you comparing the findings to?  Can you make a specific comparison?  (Note, e.g. The Psychonomic Society and its meeting seem legit, has proceedings, the findings are NOT peer reviewed but are presented in the form that one finds in peer-reviewed journals ...) Uncritical?  Hardly!  It IS presented critically.  Actually, I was considering removing the most critical sentence because it's OR by YT, namely: "The professor did not report where the dogs were, or any control data, or consider that reports from dog owners who had just lived through an earthquake would likely be skewed." but I think it can and should be kept - if improved, perhaps by connecting it to the previous paragraph's discussion of "how much warning".  I don't think these dogs predicted the earthquake; these findings serve as a good and notable example of bad pseudo-science; thats' why they merit inclusion, IMO! --Elvey (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Yes, I have read both references — one is Coren's paper, and the other is his rehash of the paper on a web page. At one level it appears that Coren's paper is in no way notable in itself, not scientifically, nor in any public way; in itself it would be excluded per WP:NOTABILITY and even WP:FRINGE.
 * However, I gather your intention is to use Coren to illustrate/deconstruct "bad pseudo-science". I have no problem with that intent (esp. as that accords with my own approach, as seen in my treatment of the Washington Zoo report).  But it seems to me there are better cases to use for that purpose, perhaps even some that have been criticized/deconstructed by others.  Also, for that purpose it needs to be written better. E.g., here you comment on why the Psychonomic Society's seeming legitimacy may fall short, but there is no suggestion of that in the article.  Nor is the POV clear: I think most casual readers would take away an impression that evidence had been presented (which is true), not that the evidence presented is faulty.
 * At any rate, if you want to deconstruct some bad science, I would ask if we can't find a better example. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be offended if Coren's findings were replaced with other animal quake findings -- were replaced with a better example; it IS the one I'm now familiar with, however, and you haven't offered content based on a 'better' candidate. I don't wish to make animal quake prediction appear more notable than it is; belief in it IS wide-spread, so it is far, far from non-notable, and that notability justifies the inclusion of Coren's findings, not the findings themselves. My intent is to present appropriately weighted, fair info on animal quake prediction, including a fair explanation of some of the thinking that has made belief in this animal ability widespread, not to caricature it.
 * I believe we have no disagreement that the belief in "animal prediction" is notable enough to warrant consideration. But I do not believe that Coren's findings are notable. (E.g., no one else cites him, it seems, except as an example for something else.)  Also: I am not required to find a better example.  That is your responsibility.  (Though I will be happy to assist.) It shouldn't be too hard to find other examples (Google is your friend), though you might have to search a while to find any explanations as to why "animal predictions" are not, in fact, any such thing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * NOT my responsibility. I haven't looked.  YOU really need to (re?)visit and show respect for some policies and guidelines that you point ME to, e.g.  and the ones discussed below.  Assist away.--Elvey (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Assistance: go to Google Scholar, search for "earthquake animal prediction". Ignore all the "my dog predicted...." reports; look for studies, and especially any study which has been commented on. Watch especially for Ikeya, Rikitake, and Everenden.  Don't give up on sources behind paywalls; there are ways of getting to some of those.  And, sorry, but if you can't be responsible for content you add perhaps you should not be adding content. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are busy collecting additional material? That would be fine, though we should really discuss what points need additional material. I reiterate that discussing Coren's study is insignificant, and adds nothing to the article; I am inclined to remove it. If you insist on retaining it I will insist on proper citation, and we could move to the discussion below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not busy collecting additional material. I'm surprised you ask that, as collecting material would mean doing what I implied I would not do.  Again, it is "NOT my responsibility.".. to delete appropriate content just because you think better content could be written, or to write such 'better content'.  I am NOT shirking responsibility for my content!  Your saying so doesn't make it so.  If at this point you delete what I added on notability grounds, it may lead to edit warring, based on the section I linked to before -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTABILITY#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article.

If you still think it violates notability policy despite that, please (REREAD that section and if needed) seek third opinions before removing it - on that and the citation issue below. I feel like you keep ordering me around when you phrase things as orders: "Go", "Ignore", "Watch"... especially as you've been saying that if I don't do certain things, you're inclined to remove my contribution to the article.

P.S. Thanks for being so civil about this; it's nice to be able to disagree without being disagreeable - something I'm getting better at.

To recap: they're not bad ideas, but, no rule says it is a contributor's responsibility to delete appropriate content he or she added just because another editor says better content could be written, or to write such 'better content', or even to include any citations at all for the content added. (Unverifiable content can be more easily challenged and more easily deleted ... of course!)

Are you saying Ikeya, Rikitake, and Everenden are good or bad sources of proper studies?

--Elvey (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My civility is being greatly strained by your assertion of some inviolable right to drop in just any kind of crappy verbiage, for which you have no responsibility to fix, and no one else is allowed to delete. And it is crappy. It's a crappy study that appears to be totally uncited, of no scientific significance whatsoever, for which you have offered no justification. I can only wonder why you are trying to promote this guy.
 * As to Ikeya, Rikitake, and Evernden: why don't you look them up and figure it out yourself? You might even learn something from the exercise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been over week with absolutely no sign that you willing to discuss this matter. So anticipate reversion of the material you added. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No discussion in a month. My original objections (notability, relevance, uncritical presentation) still apply, but as you won't discuss those I cited WP:CITVAR. Same result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if that material is to be retained I would remind you that urls are NOT adequate citations, and that (per WP:CITEVAR) citaitons should conform to the form and style established. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You say, "I would remind you that urls are NOT adequate citations." Well, there was a failed push to make it the case that "Raw links are also not permitted in lieu of citations" but the actual guideline (and that's all it is) is just that "Raw links are not recommended" So basically, you're claiming tht WP:CITEVAR says something it doesn't say.   (WP had/has some automation tools for turning bare URLs into cite template cites, but they don't work for me; if they work for you, use 'em to improve my citations.)   There will be no linkrot, as the URLs have been archived. --Elvey (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, but let's defer that while we focus on the issue above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re-visit
Elvey: as you restored the bit on Coren (which Dougweller reverted), perhaps we should return to the original question of whether that material should be present in the first place. As I said before: it appears that Coren's paper is in no way notable in itself, not scientifically, nor in any public way; in itself it would be excluded per WP:NOTABILITY and even WP:FRINGE. If you can show otherwise (citations?), fine, but it seems pretty insignificant to me. If you think we need more on animal predictions, then check the authorities I mentioned previously. If you think we need some illustrated debunking, well, that could be considered, but I suspect there are better examples than Coren. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If Coren's view isn't discussed in reliable sources, then it doesn't appear significant, and our WP:NPOV policy would exclude it. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear tag-team persons with tag-team characteristics, mainly JJ: You haven't answered my questions, or addressed my concerns, JJ. And I've told you before, stop ordering me around.  You've come up with umpteen bad reasons for preserving your version of the article, all of which I or someone else has shut down.  Give it up.  I cited reliable sources, DW.  Guys, what I've added is not pushing any point of view - read it and tell me, what POV do you claim I'm pushing?  What do you like about the other examples that you don't like about mine?  That you came up with them?  I see no evidence that they're all relatively more notable; do you?  --Elvey (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop the personal attacks, 2 people disagreeing with you doesn't make a tag team. Coren's view needs to be discussed by reliable sources - independent of him of course. If it isn't, it's just his view and it fails to be significant as required by WP:NPOV. If you think it complies with WP:NPOV, take it to WP:NPOVN and see if you get agreement that it does. Meanwhile, you don't have agreement here to add it. Deal with the issues, don't just try to force it in please. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you haven't I've done the work (or rather am still doing it). It is significant as it's been discussed in, for instance, the New Scientist. I'll rewrite it when I have the article. It needs work in any case (really, "psych professor"?). Meanwhile you're attitude needs improving - this sort of behavior got you blocked 4 years ago. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why bother? New Scientist and Psychology Today, despite their titles, are popular magazines, reliable only in that we trust them to repeat something fairly accurately; they do nothing to establish scientific significance. At any rate, I believe the ICEF's conclusion on animal predictions (end of the section) is controlling: "there is no credible scientiﬁc evidence...."
 * Elvey: If "Animal behavior" needed expansion — which I doubt, and you have not claimed — there are certainly better studies. Why are you so wedded to this insignificant third-rate study? If you really think something more needs to be said on the topic, how about giving us something that's not dead on arrival? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, DW. Unlike JJ, I'm perfectly happy to have my contributions refactored, etc. As you have more sources, I'm happy to have you take over from here. Unfortunately, JJ is still acting as if he owns the article. It sounds like you noticed that I'm not pushing a POV, e.g. the POV that Coren has or hasn't shown that dogs can predict earthquakes! As for "psych" - yes- too informal for an article, but relevant, IMO. I wrote, "There is no such thing as WP:NOVN. ???" but got no response. I see you linked to WP:NPOVN in your subsequent reply, and I guess that's what you meant. I wasn't aware of that forum, and it does seem appropriate if we can't find agreement on how to respect WP:NPOV, but I'm looking forward to seeing your constructive edits. I struck my comment as Only JJ displayed a significant number of tag-team characteristics; thank you for the constructive criticism. JJ, you're re-asking a leading question that you've already asked, and which I've already answered, TWICE: "I wouldn't be offended if Coren's findings were replaced with other animal quake findings -- were replaced with a better example; it IS the one I'm now familiar with, however, and you haven't offered content based on a 'better' candidate. [I further argued why] to find a better example ... IS NOT my responsibility." As I've said before, continual ignoring of points is a problem. And the add'l sources DW has found, make your loaded question seem even more dubious and mean-spirited (come now, "dead on arrival"?). I would bet that, to use your words, "there is no credible scientiﬁc evidence" in support of many fringe theories, (Intelligent Design, ESP...), but that it would still be INappropriate to call such supporting evidence "insignificant third-rate," or "dead on arrival" in discussions. --Elvey (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, "dead on arrival". As no one in the scientific world has found that study worthy of citing (except as an example of statistical outliers). And nothing "mean spirited" about it: in your own words it is "bad pseudo-science" (which is likely why it has been ignored); its only signficance was in being presented one evening at the Psychonomic Society. Aside from that I can hardly imagine how less significant it could be. Even if dogs could predict earthquakes, this study is insignificant. And third-rate. Sure, you don't agree, but that is because you do not understand.  I am about to upload some answers for you; if you could trouble yourself to examine the references provided you might get a glimpse of what is needed to have a hope of being significant. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Answers to Elvey's questions (italicized):
 * 22:52, 15 September:
 * 1- Did you actually read/skim the citations I gave?
 * As previously answered: yes.
 * 2- What are you comparing the findings to? and
 * 3- Can you make a specific comparison?
 * What "comparison" do you mean? A good animal study? There hardly seem to be any, but look at Lindberg, Skiles & Hayden 1981 and Schaal 1988. (See references in the article.) As to what it takes to do credible hypothesis testing see: Jackson 1996a, Stark 1997, Console 2001, and Luen & Stark 2008. See also Doug Zechar's tutorial at http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar2010corssa.pdf.


 * 20:36, 1 October:
 * 4- Are you saying Ikeya, Rikitake, and Everenden are good or bad sources of proper studies?
 * I believe there are hardly any "proper" studies. But reading certain works of these authors would be a good start on reducing your vast ignorance of the subject.

New questions (19:13, 26 November):
 * 5- what POV do you claim I'm pushing?
 * Weight, fringe, reliable source, notablity. a) Out of the hundreds of precursors that have been studied, only a few can be touched on in the article. Animal behavior is included because of its popular interest, but that does not warrant giving it more weight than the other featured methods. (Though it does have more coverage than the others, even without Coren.) b) Considered scientific consensus is that animal behavior cannot predict earthquakes (e.g., ICEF 2011); Coren's finding is therefore a fringe view, which must not be given undue weight. c) For all that Coren may be an acknowledged expert on dog psychology, he seems to have no prior experience in the particular challenges of earthquake prediction, his study is weak for the very reasons you mentioned, and his proposed explanation ("auditory cue") entirely speculative. d) Despite all the popular titter, this study has no scientific notability.
 * 6- What do you like about the other examples that you don't like about mine?
 * It is not that I like the other examples, it is because they have been cited in scientific articles. Except for the National Zoo: that was here before me, but being a widely reported story from a recent quake, I felt it was notable enough (in the popular sense) that many readers would be aware of that specific story, and a fuller explanation was warranted.
 * 7- That you came up with them?
 * I don't claim that things good just because I like them. I like them because they are good. Why do you like Coren's study?
 * 8- I see no evidence that they're all relatively more notable; do you?
 * Yes, I see such evidence, as explained above. That you can't see that sounds like a personal problem; do you want to examine that?

Those are all the questions I could find. I believe the answers are adequate.

As a more general response: you seem confused as to what you were trying to do with Coren. You have stated (in bold, no less) "these findings serve as a good and notable example of bad pseudo-science; thats' why they merit inclusion, IMO!" While this study may indeed be "bad pseudo-science", that is not what the study itself is about, and your opinion on this (without some other source saying as much) is your own opinion; clearly unsourced and WP:OR. If you want to deconstruct some bad science you should look at the VAN case and all of its many sources to see how that is done.

Now answer my question: Why are you so wedded to this insignificant third-rate study? Only because it is the only study you know of? If so, then why don't you chase down some others? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your last three edits inserted text into my statement (breaking the word "TWICE" in half) and also inserted text into your previous comment. Both edits seem unintentional.  Please revert the erroneous edits, so I can respond better, though I'm going to give DW more time to edit first.--Elvey (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have a seriously injured finger that sometimes hits the insert button, and when I am running short of time I don't always find all of the little messes. And now, if you don't mind, how about answering my question: why are you so wedded to this study? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It subsequently occurred to me that, by the argument you adhere to, I would have been perfectly "right" to leave those little messes for you to clean up; that, by your view, I have no responsibility to clean up even the messes I create. Right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Absolutely.  And bare URLs are are not adequate citations.  Will you finally admit at least that raw URLs can be acceptable references? --Elvey (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * JJ, as for your question, "why are you so wedded to this study?": let me quote myself, as you're re-asking a leading question that you've already asked, and which I've already answered, THREE TIMES (oh, the irony!!!) : "JJ, you're re-asking a leading question that you've already asked, and which I've already answered, TWICE: "I wouldn't be offended if Coren's findings were replaced with other animal quake findings -- were replaced with a better example; it IS the one I'm now familiar with, however, and you haven't offered content based on a 'better' candidate. [I further argued why] to find a better example ... IS NOT my responsibility." As I've said before, continual ignoring of points is a problem. And the add'l sources DW has found, make your loaded question seem even more dubious and mean-spirited"--Elvey (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked, "Are you saying Ikeya, Rikitake, and Everenden are good or bad sources of proper studies?", but your response is an insult, not an answer.

--Elvey (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked, "What POV do you claim I'm pushing?" and you replied, "... d) Despite all the popular titter, this study has no scientific notability." Assuming that's true for a moment, so what? Does discussion of claims that water can be used as fuel not merit including even though it has no "scientific notability"?  Yes.  Likewise here.  "scientific significance" and "scientific notability" != "notability", and you confuse the former with the latter.  It's about verifiability, not truth!  You've failed, IMO to identify a POV that I'm pushing; "Weight, fringe, reliable source, notablity" - these aren't points of view!  They're references to policies that I respect as an editor.--Elvey (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By saying that Coren must not be mentioned because "scientific significance" is not established, you seem to have caused DW to give up in frustration. Why is the higher bar of "scientific significance" that you've set for Coren's study appropriate, rather than the bars actually set in policy?--Elvey (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My, aren't you quite the drama queen?
 * So in the end your attachment to Coren (shorn of all the drama) is: it is the only "animal quake findings" — what ever that is supposed to mean — that you are familiar with. Well, perhaps you need reminding of the guidance at WP:NPOV, that if a viewpoint is in the majority, or even a significant minority, it should be easy to find references and adherents. And if not — if neither references nor adherents can be easily found — then it does not belong in Wikipedia.
 * You say wouldn't be offended if Coren was replaced "with other animal quake findings". Why are you so insistent that other "findings" are needed?  What "findings" do you require — that dogs can predict earthquakes? (Good luck finding anything on that.) What is wrong with the studies of Lighton & Duncan, Lindberg, Skiles & Hayden, and Schall?  Why should "animal behavior" be given greater weight than any other claimed method of prediction?
 * You object that my reference to weight, fringe, reliable source, notablity "aren't points of view!" Well yes, those are merely policies. But strictly speaking your question ("what POV do you claim I'm pushing?") is wrong! Because — I never said you were pushing a POV!!! You made an untrue statement!!! (isn't this fun?!!!) I do say that the source you are pushing (is that a kind of POV?) violates those policies.
 * By the way, if you really respect these policies, how about getting them right? E.g., you asked rhetorically whether water can be used as fuel merits inclusion, and then answered "yes".  You undoubtedly picked up this link from WP:FRINGE/PS. Only, there it is cited as an example of "obvious pseudoscience" that should not be presented alongside scientific consensus.
 * Again: what kind of "animal quake findings" do you feel are needed? And why?
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You still have not shown how Coren is notable (by any "bar"), or how this section is so deficient that additional "animal quake findings" are required, etc. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The objections of WP:FRINGE and non-WP:NOTABILITY remaining unresolved, and there being no further discussion, I will be removing the section on Coren soon. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, no personal attacks (like " My, aren't you quite the drama queen?").
 * I feel like I'm trying to reach consensus with someone as open-minded as a FOX News anchor.
 * I asked, "Are you saying Ikeya, Rikitake, and Everenden are good or bad sources of proper studies?", but your response is an insult, not an answer. Over and over, you fail to answer, dodging the questions I ask.
 * You can lead a horse to water...  I'm not. I don't. I haven't looked at them. Why should "animal behavior" be given greater weight than any other claimed method of prediction?  It's more notable than my your ESP.
 * I asked, "What POV do you claim I'm pushing?" and you replied Weight, fringe, reliable source, notablity." but now you claim that you never said that I was pushing a POV. And you write, "What "findings" do you require — that dogs can predict earthquakes? (Good luck finding anything on that.)" Which is it?
 * It's you who needs to reread policy. What is your answer to the question "Does discussion of claims thatwater can be used as fuel not merit including even though it has no "scientific notability"?" and why?  Clearly the Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell topic merits inclusion despite having no scientific notability - there's a whole article on it, that isn't going anywhere.  The bulk of Earthquake prediction Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell are and should be presenting information about theories that are pseudoscience.  Or do you think that Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell and all references to it should be deleted from Wikipedia?
 * What's the difference between "scientific significance" and "scientific notability" on the one hand and "notability", on the other? You confuse the former two with the latter.  It's about verifiability, not truth!  " and you dodged the questions.--Elvey (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually starting fixing your formatting, but decided I rather like your misnumbering. It is so indicative of what follows.

You accuse me of a personal attack (and not the first time). Well, it seems quite evident that you are engaging in WP:drama, a behavior that does not facilitate discussion; stating that hardly qualifies as a personal attack. You should note: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."

And at this point your repeated uncollapsing of the following section, where there are personal attacks against me, can be seen as having no point other than reviving someone else's attack, and is therefore itself an attack. Please desist.

You complain that I have failed to answer your questions, even though I did just that here. I think your real complaint is only that you don't like the answers. As your comments are verging into incoherency I am disinclined to respond further. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. I just note that I asked questions in #3, 4, 5, 6 (3 of 'em), and 7.   That's 8 questions, and you addressed 0 of them; you did NOT do that with the diff you link to.  If you don't address them, fine.   But then you haven't done your part to try to have a productive discussion. --Elvey (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a funny of counting to 8. As I already have answered eight of your questions (see the diff; do you require a Request for Count?), and you still have not explained why you think the section requires more "animal quake findings", nor shown that the dog study is anything other than an extreme minority viewpoint, I feel my efforts have been quite adequate. I will be pleased to address questions from anyone else, but "engaging" with you is getting to be tiresome.  Attempting to engage with you may even be futile, in that you seem to think (comment below) that the basic Wikipedia principle WP:WEIGHT is nonsense.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine. I'm undoing my last revert.  Will you please stop beating your wife? In other words, shame on you for trying to shove 'WP:WEIGHT is nonsense" into my mouth.  --Elvey (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Coren - Notability focus
I just notied that there's an article on Coren. It reads in part, "He has published more than 400 papers and articles in journals like Science, Nature[2], The New England Journal of Medicine and many more. His research has been recognized with numerous awards over the years, including being named as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada." That's damn impressive set of scientific accomplishments, and it goes on. Makes his earthquake paper more interesting. So we have two more sources - http://cogscilibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-animals-predict-earthquakes.html and "Beastly powers; Surely it is too much to believe that animals can predict earthquakes when we haven't cracked it ourselves?" Matt Kaplan, New Scientist, February 17, 2007, pg. 34-37., which I've just read, plus a follow-up letter to the editor. Of course I bet someone's going to trot out the same nonsense argument that these don't help to demonstrate t notability of the study, because they don't evidence "scientific notability", logic be damned. Sigh. --Elvey (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Scientific notability is not established on blogs (which are generally not even WP:RS), nor articles in popular magazines. That Coren has published hundreds of articles is beside the point; he is a psychologist, with no qualifications or experience whatsoever in earthquake prediction, whose single study on earthquake prediction does not appear to have been cited by any other study.  That you call all this "nonsense" is only more drama that demonstrates your non-understanding of the principles here. Including WP:Civility.


 * I remind you (again) of WP:WEIGHT: "... articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all ...." Coren's "finding" is as tiny as can be, and thus does not belong here. Your continual re-insertion of this material amounts to edit warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your answer IS nonsensical; MY PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE WAS ACCURATE, when I wrote, "Of course I bet someone's going to trot out the same nonsense argument that these don't help to demonstrate t notability of the study, because they don't evidence "scientific notability", logic be damned. Sigh."  OMG,  I can predict the future! Thanks for the entertainment.   WP:WEIGHT again?  How many people think animals can predict earthquakes?  Lots.  You are aware that the Chinese have an official snake-based early warning system?  --Elvey (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So, the title of this section is Coren - Notability focus. We have two more sources - http://cogscilibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-animals-predict-earthquakes.html and "Beastly powers; Surely it is too much to believe that animals can predict earthquakes when we haven't cracked it ourselves?" Matt Kaplan, New Scientist, February 17, 2007, pg. 34-37., which I've just read, plus a follow-up letter to the editor. But you refuse to see them. --Elvey (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT is nonsense? If you have so little regard for basic Wikipedia principles perhaps you should direct your efforts elsewhere, perhaps to some congenial blog. The nonsense here is entirely yours, your "prediction" only demonstrating what I have suggested before: you are a drama queen. It appears you have nothing else to offer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Will you please stop beating your wife? In other words, shame on you for trying to shove 'WP:WEIGHT is nonsense" into my mouth.  --Elvey (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief." - from WEIGHT.


 * "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. " -ditto.  --Elvey (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's review what is going on here. You said that Coren "has published more than 400 papers", and "we have two more sources" (emphasis added), refering to the blog post and Kaplan's article; it appears you were trying to establish notability.


 * I said: "Scientific notability is not established on blogs ... nor articles in popular magazines", that Coren is unqualified on this topic, and his other publications do not make this one study notable. I also reminded you of WP:WEIGHT, the relevant policy here.


 * Then you said: "Your answer IS nonsensical". With nothing in support of that assertion but ranting and drama. (And again you claim two more sources.)


 * So: my "answer" was about the application of WP:WEIGHT to establish notability, and your response is that my "answer IS nonsensical", without any explanation or qualification that you are referring to anything else but — WEIGHT. But when I seek to confirm if this rather obvious inference is indeed what you meant, you say shame on me for "trying to shove" that "into [your] mouth".  (Hey, ding-a-ling, I didn't "shove" it there, that's where I found it.) If I misunderstood something (and you certainly have not helped) then the civil response is explain what you really meant. Not go off about beating my wife.  Since you have not offered anything else, it seems to me that this characterization of your view is correct.


 * (By the way, your recent edit summary] comment of "two editors unwilling to engage in discussion" is specious and inaccurate. What we have here is one editor — you — engaged in nonsense, drama, and even ranting, as just seen, while the rest of us wait for a discussion.)


 * Moving on: please note that your two quotes from WEIGHT are prefaced with: "articles on historical views", and "articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint". However, this article is not about Coren's study, or even the belief that dogs can predict earthquakes.  You have therefore misapplied these quotes.  The pertinent language is as I have quoted above: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." And you have provided no basis for thinking otherwise.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has dragged on since mid-September, and languished without comment for three weeks now. It seems a fair characterization that there has been no showing of why the "Animal behavior" section needs augmentation with Coren's dog studies, nor that Coren is a reliable source in this context, or that this study is in any way notable. All this despite a great deal of non-helpful drama. I think this discussion is going no where. If anyone else agrees I suggest this section be hated and the discussion mercifully closed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Audio/Acoustic/ EM prediction by humans- Successful Example Deleted
On April 8, 2012 a post was made on an independently time stamped website regarding the detection of a Great Earthquake 'signal'. On April 11, 2012 not one but two Great earthquakes struck making the prediction valid timing-wise (but no location was given). Afterward J. Johnson took over editing this article and deleted this report (arguing mistakenly that the cited website was a 'blog' and missing the point that no poster could change their post content or timestamp of their post on this website). Does anybody care that J. Johnson swept this 'timing and magnitude-wise' successful report under the rug? There was an additional comment on the very low probability of detecting this great earthquake signal etc. This section should be restored in the interest of reporting pertinent and independently sourced progress in the precursor section. Of course, if editor J. Johnson is towing somebody else's line then that might explain his/her 'oversight'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.146 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If such a prediction is reported on by a reliable source, then there would be a weak case for adding it - predictions are constantly being made using a variety of scientific and non-scientific techniques, so coincidental matches will happen. If the same technique has predicted other such events in the past and continues to do so into the future, it would be reported on and at that point should be included, but not before. Mikenorton (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not read or understand the import of all of what was typed so your response is appropriate but for another sitatuion. Typed into evidence is 3 cases where the signal was detected and subsequent great earthquakes (>M 8.2) happened.  The signal only appears before very large events and is 'low probability' and is not likely to be coincidental and therefore noteworthy (well maybe not to you but) to some who might visit this article.  BTW, this is not a science journal.


 * My "oversight" and general purpose here has been to raise this article out of the National Enquirer style "golly gee whiz" and pseudo-scientific mode, and make it less professionally embarrassing. (And it was embarrassing; I can attest to that personally.) Which is why I have both emphasized the nature of a "proper" prediction, and given some explanation why some seemingly successful predictions do not really qualify.
 * This is not a science journal.
 * Your failure to recognize that a significant global prediction for a large rare event is every bit of scientific interest and should not be excluded by your narrow definition. You walk before you run.
 * Since you apparently 'live here' you are welcome to enforce your own 'standard' of defintions.  However you hazard slowing the 'speed of science' should others have noticed the same thing and maybe dont see mention of it here.  Thus forward advances may be slowed or retarded.  This is assuming said parties would even bother reading WP at all, which is a big If, given the arbitray deletion and clique behavior exhibited by WP editors in general and specifically here.  If they find no mention of it anywhere here and dismiss it as a 'coincidence' then maybe a collaboration opportunity would be missed.
 * That's not to say you haven't added some plusses but at what expense? Incremental science steps may not always travel your preconceived ideas and defintions.  "Haste makes Waste" may apply here.


 * As to the former section referred to (I believe that was "Human Aural Perceptions driven by Electromagnetic signals"), sorry, no, that should not be restored. Merely posting some suggestion that "a Great Earthquake 'signal'" has been detected does not constitute a prediction, nor does the mere coincidence of a subsequent "Great Earthquake" validate any such post as a successful prediction. Additionally, the material in that section did not meet WP standards in that it was not supported by reliable sources, was speculative ("Even though aspects of human consciousness are considerted mysterious..."), and verged on a fringe POV in trying to advance a position totally unsupported by science. In no way did it constitute "pertinent and independently sourced progress" in earthquake prediction. Sorry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See previous comments above.
 * Your are missing the 'independent time stamp' point of that ref. and it's subsequnet success given the low probabilities.
 * Your are drawing firm conclusions out of thin air and therefore don't measure up to science standards. You could be a 'poster child' for the 'pilot who learned enough to take off' but not 'how to land'.  Carry on with your preemptive blowhard "I-the-expert-here' rant.  All of it is easily rebutted but since you live here and can speed delete then what's the point?  You are a sterling example of why nobody takes WP seriously and never will.    You said "Sorry".  Yes that applies but not in a way you imagine.
 * Remember that as the precious minutes of your llife are wasted guarding your propaganda posted here you may be blocking a possible collaboration opportunity (which may lead to some type of specific location triangulation maybe for where a possible incoming great earthquake may strike).
 * You may also consider that your attitude displayed here is also 'professionally embarrassing' to science - just as you feared when you arrived to 'correct things.' In the history of science many things were condemned as fringe etc but were pursued scientifically to their successful conclusions by real scientists not 'conclusion spouting pontiffs' like yourself.
 * Do you live where a Great earthquake strike would ruin your day? If so then think twice -if you care about anything except protecting your spiel here in your version of this article.
 * Again, in the interest of being fair, you have added some value here but at the expense of unwarranted censorship and 'firm conclusion' spoutings (based on your imaginings and inferences). Maybe another 'J.J.' will come along and have the time to clean up some of your thinking here and have the time resoruce to deflect any of your counter speed deletes?


 * A rant. Apparently you are unaware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fantastical expression. And your concept of how science is done is quite fantastical. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your failure to recognize that a significant global prediction for a large rare event is every bit of scientific interest and speaks volumes about your ignorance and lack of scinetific prowness. So go ahead and pontificate away -maybe your mom will give you an 'attaboy' for your twisted view of science (whilst you sit on her basement couch in your underwear).  Thanks again for affirming the process by witch WP will never have any credibilioty anywhere and is mostly a waste of time
 * (See-you served a good purpose afterall! Your mum would be proud!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.150 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * More ranting. This has slid into personal attack, and thus is justifiably deleted. But I won't — it amuses me to see such raving from someone whose concept of "scientific" does not extend far enough to even spell it correctly.  So while I don't mind the entertainment, I will advise you that you are in violation WP standards and norms. And lest my tolerance be construed as complicity I do ask that you cease these personal attacks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you can't risk being blocked and thus your version of this article being reverted -so of course you're amused (as a misdirection). More importantly you've dodged addressing the scientific point(s).   Also like a predictable troll you took the 'mispeling bait' (overlooking the correctly spelled version earlier in the sentence) and went on and bloviated from there hoping your futile misdirection would 'stick'.  LOL - we'll something sticks - that's fo sure.  But of course, you then had to follow up with a diaply of your immense knowledge of WP procedures etc etc no doubt trolling for a 'barn fish to the head -whack!' or whatever!  lol.

Oh yes - but of course YOUR tolerance and amusement and 'advise' and complicity (via fantasy slam remarks) attests to your overblown view of yourself and delusions about your skill in rightly dividing 'worth' from 'worthless'. Your reward is that all your time spent here will be to no avail when it all gets 'speed deleted' and 'reverted' with the same air of arrogance as you have demonstrated here. What comes around goes around - lol. Carry on fool cs the youngins' need to see a sterling example of a blowhard editor like yourself to realize to steer clear of such a time-wasting task and exercise in self-delusion/power tripping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.150 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing style
The tone of this article seems a little too informal to me. Since it’s apparent that a fair amount of revision is currently being done on it, rather involve myself as well in that, I suggest to the fine editors already working on the article to make its writing style a bit more formal.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to prefer a little less formality in tone, provided the treatment of the topic is otherwise sound. But it is something that could be discussed.  I am rather tight for time now (trying, among other things, to have the substantial rewrite of this article done by the end of the month), so could we defer this till January? Then we could an in-depth consideration of style, etc. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Providing the world doesn't end tomorrow and everyone is not too busy with Christmas, I'm about ready to discuss style. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

An injudicious edit
EHT: First the bad news: I am going to slap your hand for your edit of the lead. I don't object to the quote. But you SHOULD NOT have wiped out that last sentence that previewed where the article is going; that should go back in. I also question it's placement right there, in the text. Like, what does that do to the narrative flow? I suggest placing it in a quote box, just like the Richter quote. (It can fill some of that empty space.) The good news is: what a wonderful opportunity for your further education! Just copy the quote box with the Richter quote, and substitute.

Another educational opportunity: don't put the {cite ....} template in the text. Put it in the "References" section with the other references (in alphabetical order). If you convert "|author= Tom Kington" to "|last1= Kington |first1= Tom" (which you really should do) and convert from "cite web" to Citation (like most of the other references use) then a suitable ref id is automatically generated so that in the text (or in the quote box) you only need to add: and a suitably linked short-cite is created automatically. Try it, it's not hard at all. And please restore that last paragraph. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand by that edit, and your last sentence has no place in any Wikipedia article. "This article will..." is bad writing - don't say what the article will discuss, just discuss it. Lede sections work best when the last sentence has a hook that keeps someone wanting more - at D. B. Cooper we have "...or maybe someone just remembers that odd uncle", at Ted Bundy we have "Ted was the very definition of heartless evil", and the quote I had previously is just this kind of hook - it's an exciting quote that makes the reader want to know more. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could pay a little closer attention? I disagree with you about the "hook", but will defer that discussion for the moment. What you seem to have missed is that my objection is not much the quote it self as its form and citation.  Per WP:CITEVAR citations should be consistent within an article; in this article that means the citation template with the full reference goes into the "References" section, with a Harv link in the text.  It is not hard, and I have already shown you how to do that. If you won't clean up your own little messes you have no place to be whining about my work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This just boggles the mind. You reverted what you yourself said was a good edit because I didn't ref it correctly? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that's is petty bureaucratic behavior. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be less boggled if you would pay closer attention. E.g., you have misinterpreted me, because I did NOT say it was "a good edit". What I said was: "I don't object to the quote.  But you SHOULD NOT have wiped out that last sentence ...." As to the quote, I do object that you did not "ref it" correctly.
 * As to "bureaucracy": again you are not paying attention. What WP:BURO says is (emphasis added for your convenience): "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia...." Well, you don't get to the "ignore them" bit because "the rules" (here, WP:CITEVAR) have NOT prevented you improving the encyclopedia. With proper citation — which I have practically given to you — my main objection to how you included goes away. Inconsistent citation does not improve the encyclopedia, so it is not excused by WP:BURO. (Note: I still object to deleting the "last sentence" of the lead.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I thank you for adjusting that citation. I think you will have found it was quite easy. And if you are curious I would be pleased to explain why I have found that a superior method. (I still have objections to the last sentence, but let's deal with those after some of the other points.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * JJ: Your comments above, from calling a citation improper because it doesn't use the relatively very rare on Wikipedia Harvard citation format that you use on this page, but rather the dominant-on-Wikipedia "cite web" format to your argument from authority, reversion threats, and general attitude toward edits to 'your' article are all not in the spirit of WP:OWN, IMO.  I see you have justified reversion of my additions to the article based on WP:CITEVAR, as if that's really the reason you reverted them, not the reasons you've brought up 'till now.  I agree with EWT and Whatamidoing's argument to back, " If someone puts in enough information to identify the source, but doesn't follow the correct citation style, then the solution is "Others will improve the formatting if needed", not "so you can delete all the verifiable, sourced information that was just edited"." You unjustifiably attack multiple editors (at least 3 just since I started editing this article) for believing they have a 'right' to edit the article.  When in fact, they do, at this time, at least, have as much 'right' to edit it as you do, and as much obligation to follow policy as you do.  Another user said it well, and you should take heed,"rejecting everything I say just because you disagree is not how it works."  You don't get to argue from authority on Wikipedia.   I know, it sucks when people who don't know what they're talking about try to introduce nonsense into an article one has edited in an area where one is an expert.  I've been the expert in that situation (in other articles; I'm no earthquake expert!).  But I've learned how to deal with it pretty well.  And sometimes it's required what seemed at times like ridiculous amounts of time spent leading horses over long distances to clear, tasty water...that usually they eventually drink (though at times, they lead me to clearer water).  I hope you see the analogy (and no analogy is perfect!)  It's improved my communication skills - my ability to express what I know in a way that others learn and understand.  And that better-expressed knowledge often improves articles, which improve global understanding of ideas I feel are important.  I hope that doesn't come across as condescending.  What I'm trying to do is talk up the consensus-building that wikipedia requires; It's not Nupedia, but it does give experts a sort of captive audience on which to hone their message.  --Elvey (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your considered comments. There are couple of aspects where I would take issue, but if you don't mind I also would like to take some time for consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are several points where I would take issue with your comments, particularly regarding some of your mis-characterizations. (I explicitly reject your statement that I have "unjustifiably attack[ed] multiple editors".) But I wonder if there is any point in responding. I will point out that this section is about a specific edit, so your comments are off-topic.  If wish to discuss my behavior than I suggest you put your comments into a separate section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Notable predictions" subsectioning.
EHT: I wish you had asked about this before converting all of the predictions to subsections. On one hand, there is much merit to that. (In an earlier version I even tried it myself.) On the other hand, these really are list items, and the "scores" really should be on the same line. Now they hang in an empty space below the header, and it is less intuitive just what that red "x" (or whatever) means. It's quite ungainly, it's ugly. But what to do?

If there was some way to hang that stuff to the right of the header (same line), I think that might look okay. But I don't know if there is any way to do that.

Another possibility is to have the whole line, as it was, below each each header. That's simple, and I think would look better than the floating stuff. But a little redundant, and I am not entirely happy with the appearance. Any ideas? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And the "Notable predictions" section was tagged with list (saying that perhaps the material would be better arranged as a list). Possibly showing that you can't please everyone all the time. I am inclined to stay with the sectioning, though (per above) some adjustments seem needed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually read the maintenance tag - it says that it is a list and it shouldn't be one, the exact opposite of what you think it said. I see this section as as candidate for a separate article called List of earthquake predictions, but I don't think the tag made sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
A couple of days ago, an IP user put Overly detailed, Tone and Over-quotation on the article, and the IP user was absolutely right for doing so.


 * The IP user that did the initial tagging likely being yourself?
 * Whether that self-abnegatious user "was absolutely right for doing so" is unsupported opinion. But fine, let's take it up. I will also refactor your comments into subsections. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be a worldwide collaboration. When I commented on my opinions for this article, I was instead accused of sockpuppetry and told that my opinion is irrelevant. You also repeatedly mis-stated my opinions, and I'm honestly not sure if you don't read before you post or if you're intentionally using strawman arguments. This article is not yours, and everyone has a right to contribute. And the worst is that I felt that you've done a very good job with this article. You're getting upset and angry about petty details. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So that "IP user" wasn't you engaging in some minor sockpuppetry? That was a question; it seemed like a strong possibility. But if you say no, fine, it's not a big deal. Even if you say yes, still no big deal, just don't do it again.  As to being "told that my opinion is irrelevant" — where? What I said is that your "absolutely right" comment is unsupported opinion.  Which indeed it is. And perhaps on that basis it ought to be deemed irrelevant, but I have not said so.
 * One of the bases on which my work can claim any worth is close attention to details. (Including reading other's comments attentively.) But I dispute that these are "petty". Good information (which is what we are trying to produce, right?) can't be based on incorrect details, and getting the facts right is the basis (but only a start) on improving what was an embarrassingly bad article. I hope you might help showing what Wikipedia can do, and not insist on a non-existent "right" to stick chewing gum where ever you fancy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You said my statement is "unsupported opinion" which seems to me to be the same as saying it's not worth anything. After all, your statements are as well-supported as mine are - and I provided detailed rationales below for all of these maintenance tags. It's true that good information requires good details, but it requires good factual details - Most of my comments are about stylistic details rather than factual details. And I'm not insisting on a right to "stick chewing gum" places, whatever that even means. I tried to improve this article and you have reverted me, not over the quality of my edits, but on not placing the right kind of ref tags. So, I was showing what Wikipedia can do and you reverted me for it. After being reverted, I'm now trying to suggest ways to improve this article, ways that don't require undoing any of the work you've done, the worst thing that would happen with my suggestions is that some of your content is moved to another article. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be very pleased if we can work together more smoothly. To that end let's address your complaint re "unsupported opinion".  First, it is factually correct that you were not "told that my opinion is irrelevant." Your opinion might indeed be so (presumably on the basis that it is unsupported?), but I did not say so.  If you were simply confused about what I said, and confounded the two meanings, I would suggest acknowledging that you misunderstood what I said. Where upon I might suggest paying closer attention in the future, and that's the end of the matter.
 * On the other hand, if you really feel that the one implies the other... Well, I would say that you are wrong, that you should not be so quick to make that inference. But let us consider a situation: suppose that some opinion you hold is indeed irrelevant. Or even flatout wrong. So what?  Does this mean the end of the world? Is your career at Wikipedia thus meaningless? No!! Opinions (or so I think) are like clothes: feel free to change 'em!  (I am minded of quote — from John Maynard Keynes, if I recall correctly — Sandra Hough uses in one of her chapters: "When I am wrong I change my mind. What do you do?") Keep in mind that if you have an opinion I feel is better than mine, I am going steal it — in a flash.
 * So consider: your initial statement ("...absolutely right for doing so") is unsupported. Which is not to deny it; this means only that you have not shown that it is correct. As it is, absolute statements are almost never correct, so you have a doubtful position. But what is the point here? Isn't it about maintenance tags? If you want to convince me of something (I have a saying: I'm not cheap, but I can be had), then you need to make a valid argument. If I reject some statement (opinion?) of yours, I am implicitly saying: that didn't work, but try to find some argument that does.  So I am actually trying to help you convince me. Okay? [—JJ  01:43, 7 November]

 The comments that went here have been refactored into the sections below 

So, please don't remove the tags until these issues are addressed. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I removed the overly detailed tag and instead put an offtopic tag on the appropriate section. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Overly detailed/off-topic
Overly detailed: This is not an article on prediction in general, but specifically on earthquake prediction. Thus, prediction 101 topics such as false positives should not be explained here - instead, merely mention the term in the context of earthquake prediction and like to the term. An appropriate example: "In order for a prediction technique to be useful, it must not predict earthquakes that never happen (a false positive) nor fail to predict one that does (a false negative)". This article is not the place to explain false positives, or the difference between predictions and random chance, or many other statistical or prediction concepts. These are already explained at other articles, and it's better to just link there. [Ego White Tray 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)]
 * Overly detailed? Not an article on "prediction in general"? Who decided that? You state that this article is (should be) "specifically on earthquake prediction". Ah, but I would say that it is "specifically on earthquake prediction". With the difference being that (for some unstated reason of your own) you seem to think that means only instances of specific earthquake prediction, while I take it to mean the process of specifying. It appears that you want just a list of instances, with absolutely no consideration as to how those specfic cases were derived or what significance we should give them.  What you seem to want (considering your other complaints) is a very dry recitation of facts. I am hard pressed to imagine any other formulation of this topic that would be more BORING than that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that article name is not "List of ...". But if you insist on just a list then I would also point out that "prediction" is singular (no "s"), so, by your strict interpretation, only one prediction. Which as a general topic works fine, but as list — gee, which single specific prediction is it limited to? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article should be specific to earthquake prediction. I was, in fact, pondering moving a bunch of that content over to prediction, which doesn't have this type of content. The items I'm saying to move over to prediction are the items that could apply to any kind of prediction - the statement that a prediction that doesn't specify time and place is useless is every bit as true for hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires, or any other kind of event. Obviously a discussion on how common earthquakes of various intensities are worldwide absolutely belongs here, since that is specific to earthquakes. This does not mean to merely list earthquakes. I never said that this article should only list specific earthquakes, you are misstating my comments.
 * As far as "list of..." above, I was saying that the section where you discuss various earthquakes that people tried to predict maybe at some point should be split into A SEPARATE ARTICLE called List of earthquake predictions, mainly do to concerns about article length - I wasn't at all saying to change the name of this one. Once more, you have mis-stated what I said. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And you have not paid attention to where I say that this article is, as it exists, "specific to earthquake prediction", and that our different views arise from how to interpret those last two words. And, lacking any argument otherwise, I dispute that your view should prevail over my view. You are advocating a radical dismemberment of this article, based on your peculiar notions of what this article should be.  Sorry, I do not agree with your plans, nor with your presumed unilateral "right" to solely define the scope and structure of this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "To be more meaningful than a parlor trick, an earthquake prediction must be properly qualified. This includes unambiguous specification of time, location, and magnitude.[14] These should be stated either as ranges ("windows", error bounds), or with a weighting function, or with some definitive inclusion rule provided, so that there is no issue as to whether any particular event is, or is not, included in the prediction, so a prediction cannot be retrospectively expanded to include an earthquake it would have otherwise missed, or contracted to appear more significant than it really was. To show that was truly pre-dicted, not post-dicted, a prediction must be made before the event. And to expose attempts at scatter-shot multi-dictions predictions should be published in a manner that reveals all attempts at prediction, failures as well as successes.[15]" - If you change two instances of "earthquake" to "event", this paragraph is true of any prediction of any kind of event. This is even true of hurricanes, one of the most reliably predictable disasters, since the hurricane researches draw probability maps showing possible places a hurricane could go. That's what I mean when I say that it's not specific to earthquake prediction. Because this paragraph, and similar others, are applicable to predicting any event, I feel it makes more sense in prediction, rather than here. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To a certain extent you are correct. But (!) the prediction article is pretty minimal, is short on citations, and is so general that it does not even mention earthquakes. (And mentions "weather" only in the caption to the image of the Farmer's Almanac.)  And there is an immense difference between weather (and especially hurricane) prediction and earthquake prediction.  Weather can generally be extrapolated from prevailing meteorological conditions; earthquakes are abrupt, largely unexpected (except that they can be expected over periods of decades), and, as is seem in the article, currently not predictable. A general knowledge of "prediction" is inadequate for its application to eartquakes.  Therefore it is reasonable to explain certaim aspects of earthquake prediction that a reader is likely to be unfamiliar with. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the information EWT is proposing to remove is essential to the article. Encyclopedic articles should stand well on their own when read by the typical educated person.  Sadly, prediction 101 topics are not widely understood, so it's appropriate that they stay in the article, IMO, and the off topic tag is not merited.  (I don't recall a guideline/policy/essay re. how much foundational material belongs in an article, but as noted, there are regarding when an article should be split, and I don't think a split is warranted here.) --Elvey (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tone
Tone: "This article will examine...", "To be more meaningful than a parlor trick..." "But is it worth the cost of civil and economic disruption" are some of many examples of inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. [Ego White Tray 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)]

Over-quotation
Over-quotation: Mainly the excessive use of quote boxes. A quote in quote boxes must be unforgettable and interesting. While bureaucratic language ("there is growing empirical evidence that precursors exist", "... routine announcement of reliable predictions may be possible within 10 years...."} can be quoted, it shouldn't be in a quote box. The boxes should be reserved for what you might call featured quotes, such as the first quote box in the article "Only fools and charlatans predict earthquakes", which is both memorable and spoken by an well-recognized expert in earthquakes. [Ego White Tray 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)]


 * Who appointed you to be arbiter of what quotes qualify for a box? Or how many quote boxes are allowed per article?
 * What you have failed to notice is that all of the boxed quotes in the prediction section are from scientists (not "bureaucrats") commenting on the scientific expectations of the likelihood of earthquake prediction, and that these quotes provide a view showing how the initial optimism has shifted. These provide a backdrop to, and they run parallel with, the specific predictions. But you may not have considered that in each case they are not part of the contemporaneous prediction, and it would be improper to not set them apart, as the box does. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between bureaucratic language and a bureaucrat. I never denied that any of these quotes were by scientists. I said that a lot of the quotes used bureaucratic language - scientists often speak in bureaucratic language. "Routine announcement of reliable predictions..." is bureaucratic language no matter who says it. I'm not saying to delete the quotes - just that most of them shouldn't be featured in the quote boxes. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by "bureaucratic language", aside from scientists tending to be more careful and more precise in their language, which (to many people) therefore seems more "formal". (Which is rather ironic, as you have been complaining that my writing is too informal.)  Nor have I seen any restrictions (and I did look) on content, uses, or number of quote boxes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Like a lot of stuff on Wikipedia, there is no exact rule or guidelin. But the simple reason that these quotes shouldn't be in quote boxes is not formality, but this simple fact: They're boring. Quote boxes are for featured quotes, quotes that are famous, or exciting, or controversial. The kind of quotes you might write an article about, like Death panel, or sound and fury signifying nothing or It ain't over till the fat lady sings - these quotes are controversial, profound, hilarious. Most of the quotes you have in boxes are none of these things, they're just boring. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And there we have it: you oppose the quotes because you think they are boring. There is no WP standard involved but your personal point of view (see also WP:I just don't like it).  Sorry, that is no grounds for rejecting the quotations, and certainly does not grant you any basis for being the arbiter you have presumed to be.
 * As to "boring": if you are not interested in statements of scientists themselves as to the prospects of prediction, and how these have changed, then I wonder just how interested you are in the topic in the first place. This might also explain your antipathy to the first part of the article (too statistical!), and I expect to the methods section (too technical!).  This might explain your desire to extract the predictions section (the juicy part!) as a separate article, presumably leaving the rest as a boring article that no one reads.  Recall that we are not selling newspapers here; there is no reason nor purpose in trying to maximize readership of this article by dresssing it up in sexy quotations.  I have tried to both structure and write this article that it might be of interest to people who have never before encountered the subject (including the use of quotes and quote boxes), but it is not wrong to presume adult readership.  I have no objection if somone wants to read, or you want to write, a "Cartoon guide to earthquake prediction". But that is not this article.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the third time, I never suggested that you delete the quotations. Only that you move them out of the quote boxes and into the prose. Your only reason to keep them in boxes is your personal point of view, and WP:I just don't like it is only relevant to deletion discussions, and your only defense of quote boxes is I Like It. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, so rejecting everything I say just because you disagree is not how it works.
 * "Not interested in the statement of scientists" - strawman argument, I never said that. First part of the article too statisical - strawman argument, never said that. Methods section too technical - strawman argument, never said anything at all about that section. "Predictions section...as a separate article - strawman argument, never endorsed it, only suggested it as a possible future course of action. I want to write a "cartoon guide to earthquake prediction" - cheap insult with no basis in reality.
 * Come up with some real arguments with any basis whatsoever in anything that I have actually said. If you can't, I'll start moving those quoteboxes into the prose (not deleting) in a couple of days. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And your unilateral, contested edits will be reverted.
 * Yes, WP is supposed to be collaborative. But that does not mean that I am required to agree with whatever you want just because you find something "boring". (Your actual words, above, referring to the quotes: "They're boring.") Trying to find agreement with you is made difficult because you seem more inclined to find insult than to pay attention.  E.g., what I actually said is (please pay attention):  if you want to write a "Cartoon guide to...", I have no objection. (And would be mightily impressed if anyone should do that.) My point is that this article is not the cartoon.  I find it difficult to fathom why you should take offense, unless you aspire to something more serious (adult readership?), and felt that was being questioned.
 * Your fury is further misplaced when you misstate what I have said. E.g.: I said "if you are not interested..." — you left off that all important qualifying "if".  (If you are interested in the statements of scientists themselves then "boring" is hardly an objection.)  I could go on, but it seems pointless unless you will pay attention.
 * As to "real arguments": I am beginning to think you do not understand the concept. You still have not given any reason for removing the quote boxes (other than your personal view they are "boring"). Lacking any semblance of consensus or any argument based on an actual policy, your proposed edits will be properly reverted.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't have any semblance of consensus or any argument based on an actual policy either. Why can't you get that? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Either". You recognize that you have no "actual policy" basis, "either"?   Perhaps you would also recognize that I have just as good "right" to add or delete material as you have claimed?  And that if you just jump in and start whacking you are essentially triggering an edit war?
 * One way of resolving these kinds of differences is to invite comments from other editors (which can get sticky), or we can try to resolve matters ourselves. But this is very difficult when (as I said in my last comment) you misunderstand what I say. Note that I am not saying you are deliberately misunderstanding (AGF, after all), but you have been more confrontational than has been really useful.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Another unrelated weakness of the quote boxes is that these is that it does not connect these quotes to the particular quakes being discussed. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, the subsections under "Notable predictions" are not about the quakes. They are about the predictions of a quake. And in some cases there were no quakes (such as would fulfill the prediction).
 * Second, you misunderstand the relation of the quotes to the section (prediction!) where they are placed. They are not explicitly about ("connnected with") the specific prediction (so it would take some contortion to fit them into the text), but about the general background at the time of the prediction.  (That is why the Bakun et al. 2005 quote about the 2004 Parkfield quake is juxtaposed against the 2004-2005 Southern California prediction, and not the section on the 1985 Parkfield prediction.) Being in a quote box allows the quote to be placed with the contemporaneous prediction, but set apart from it.  Not being strongly connected, where such a strong connection would be incorrect, is thus an advantage.  Clear? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I get you - it wasn't clear that was the intention of these quotes. One alternate way to approach that would be to say "At the time, it was believed that earthquakes could be predicted within ten years" and work the quote into a statement like that. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But that requires a bit more text, and would quickly become repetitious. The quote box implicitly sets the quote apart without over-explaining what is going on, and we basically trust the reader to understand that the quote is context. The quote boxes also facilitate the connection from one quote to the next, thus roughly showing the evolution of scientific opinion on the matter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In that the tag is for "too many or too-lengthy quotations", but your real issue was that the quotes are "too boring" to be featured in a quote box (and perhaps your view on that has changed?), I suggest that the quote tag is inappropriate. Would you object to removing it? Which would not imply that we can't continue discussing your concerns.  But we really shouldn't retain tags that are inappropriate and might confuse people. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As it has been ten days with no further comment, I am presuming that your concerns have been satisfied, and I will be removing the quote tag. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have done absolutely nothing to resolve it, so that claim is flat out bullshit. I'm putting it back. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary! I have discussed this with you at length, and judging by your last comment ("I get you") — nearly two months ago — you seemed to have accepted that. That your stated objection is not "too many" quotes, but that you personally find them "boring", shows this is not an appropriate tag.  That you simply added the tag without any further discussion really undermines the assumption of good faith. So, per WP:BRD, I am going to revert your tagging. Continued re-insertion of the tag, unilaterally and without discussion, will be tantamount to edit warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW: note that in a following section I have made the argument as to why the quotations in this article are neither "too many" nor "too lengthy" (which are the bases of the "over-quotation" tag). I note also that there has been no allegation here that the quotations are too many or too lengthy, but only too "boring", which is an unsupported personal opinion not warranting the tag. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed "controversial" tag
I have removed the "controversial" tag as this subject is not controversial. The only controversy here is the attempted insertion of Coren's dog study (see above); that does not make the article controversial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Major concern with the content and style of this article.
1) The style of language in the article has been reduced. 2) The quality of the overall article has been reduced. 3) Important material has been aggressively culled and has been replaced with opinion and original research. 4) A huge amount of work by many authors has been deleted and has been replaced with work of a lower quality by a single author. 5) There are too many quotes on the page, many of them are opinion. Quoting someone else's opinion and adding a reference doesn't change an opinion into a fact.

The work done on the page needs reviewing. Some of the content that has been removed will need to be reinstated. Some of the work done has been good. The new content that has been added will need editing to improve the style and content (eg too many indefinite articles) and some of the opinion will need removing.)

Technically the work done on the page is pretty faultless but the flow of the article, the structure, and the content has been degraded.

I am aware that a lot of good work has been done on this article but the article requires some work by others now to repair some of the damage. I would hope that someone has the humility and common sense to accept criticism of their work and to learn from it instead of seeing the criticism as a red rag to a bull. A china shop is there for the display of the china and bulls are not welcome in them. Wikipedia is a cooperative, it is not a dictatorship. It's about teamwork, not lone wolves.Scottonsocks (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The one point where I would agree with you is that a large amount of previous work has been deleted. However, a lot of it was crap; I strongly disagree that the new work is "of a lower quality".  (Of course, I could have a blind-spot regarding my own work, but I think it will pass expert review.) If, in your opinion, there is "important material" that should be restored, "damage" to repair, or original research to remove, please be specific.
 * You also complain of "too many quotes ... many of them opinion." (Presumably you refer to the quotes in the quoteboxes.) I have yet to see that there is any specific limit on the number of quotes permitted in an article. The text at WP:Quotations is mostly about lengthy quotes; in the discussion at Template_talk:Over-quotation the only two examples given of overquotations (this and this) are of multiple sections of essentially lists of lengthy quotes. Here there are only 13 quotes (in boxes) in the entire article, and the longest of these is only 20 words. In neither number nor length does this approach "too many".
 * I would allow that all of these quotes are, arguably, opinion. What you fail to recognize is that these are expert opinions. They are all from noted scientists (except Kerr, who is a respected scientific journalist), and provide an assessment of the experts as to the prospects of earthquake prediction over the last four decades. (Who else is qualified to do that?)  In the "Notable predictions" section they provide a backdrop to the ongoing effort to predict earthquakes, and they also show the shift from optimism to pessimism.  As to whether these quotes are representative: well, that is my assessment, based on extensive reading.  If you have some basis for suspecting otherwise, please describe it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Micklinux comments
Micklinux: I question the neutrality and objectivity of an article that begins with the political ramifications of the topic. Political ramifications include the concerns of fraud, the effects on society but theyare a tertiary effect of the main topic. Part of the problem may be that the political authorities assert that the main subject cannot be predicted, and should not be predicted, and is bad for the economy even if it is, while research has then left the political authorities behind. Another part of the problem is that in an immature science, observation and classification need to be guided by prediction, no matter how faulty the predictions. However, the first is typically going to be the case with an increasing range of topics as we enter greater levels of governmental emergency. The second is not a problem, just a situation. Therefore, I think that this needs to be brought up for wikipedia policy decision. Normally, I would advocate just putting the documented claims out there in an orderly manner, first the generally accepted claims (eg. earthquake lights), then the controversial claims (eg. dreams) and noting briefly at the front that there is controversy, and including the sub-article of controversy at the end. micklinux12:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC) [Originally posted from 174.227.130.180]

Tendentiousness
Elvey:

You have re-tagged the article with "Tone". When first tagged last October there were three examples given. One ("To be more meaningful than a parlor trick..." has been removed, and no explanations were made why the other two ("This article will examine...", and a rhetorical question) are objectionable. There being no other discussion, the tag was duly removed.  On this occasion you have provided no basis for tagging, so, per WP:BRD, I will be removing the tag.  Please note that if you wish to pursue this point the proper next step is NOT to "boldly retag", but to discuss. Note also that repeated retagging qualifies as WP:tendentious editing, even WP:disruptive editing.

You have also re-tagged the article with "Quote farm". I have previously provided a detailed explanation of why Quote farm does not apply here. You might also recall last November's discussion Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2, where the stated objection was not the quotes per se, but "excessive use of quote boxes". Only, the discussion revealed that the real objection was that the quotes were "boring" (a species of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). There was no further discussion then, and you have provide no discussion now, so there is no demonstration of any basis for this tag. Therefore I will be reverting its. Again, please heed the cautions about disruptive editing.

You have also re-inserted the "Coren dog study", without comment. Surely you have not forgotten our extended discussion ended just two months ago? Despite a lot of drama on your part, you have never shown that Coren is in anyway a reliable source in respect of earthquake prediction, that this study has any notability, that the section on "Animal behavior" needs any expansion. Or why you are so insistent on adding this dubious material, other than it is your WP:OWN. I will therefore revert it.

I will also revert your "hook" quotation, per WP:BRD.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The material you added to the L'Aquila section is inappropriate, as it is not about Guiliani's prediction, but the alleged consequences of not making a prediction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * JJ:


 * To understand why my editing is productive, see Disruptive_editing.


 * Your arguments do not persuade me, JJ. Regarding the 4 reverts you just made:


 * Re. #1:"This article will examine..." was not critiqued, you say. But it WAS, though not by me.  You just don't get it.  That doesn't mean the tone tag isn't justified.  I see that you warn me twice, above, that repeated retagging qualifies as WP:tendentious editing, even WP:disruptive editing, and that you believe I have repeatedly retagged the article with  "Tone" and  "Quote farm".  How many times do you believe I've thusly tagged the article?  I belive I've done so ONCE, so warning me -twice- that repeated retagging qualifies as WP:tendentious editing, even WP:disruptive editing is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.


 * Re. #3:WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not justify your constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits to this and similar articles, J.J.!  Indeed, there was drama regarding Coren's study.  I guess you somehow consider "Per WP:OWN; see Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2" to not be a comment regarding the restoration.  Because you claim I reverted without comment.


 * You fail to understand simple things - you don't believe that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Rather, you INSIST that I MUST prove that "Coren's findings are notable", or allow you to remove them from Earthquake prediction, and even berate me for my belief.  You believe that unless you're convinced a change is correct, you should keep it out of Wikipedia, policy be damned.  You even go so far as to insist on keeping out ANY MENTION of this esteemed scientist's  published study may not be mentioned because its "scientific notability" has not been established (despite multiple news reports about it),and (!) it is not a reliable source. You repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it.  You repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. You are insisting that it is out of place in an article on the fringe/proto-science of earthquake prediction because of WP:FRINGE - as if the article on the Flat Earth theory should not talk about the main claims in support of that theory either!  Included as well is a blatant personal attack (including use of an epithet) which you take no responsibility for, but rather dismiss by pointing to my comments regarding content and policy, as if my behavior could justify your personal attack, which it could not even if it had been a personal attack as well.


 * You have reverted four edits, in order to return 'your' article to the way you think it must be.


 * Re. #4: You justify your revert by pointing me to BRD, but what part of 'Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work', which is a quote from BRD, do you not understand? --Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your quote from WP:BRD-NOT left out the bits about "good-faith efforts", "simply because you don't like the changes", and "provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common-sense". In fact I have given reasons, based on policies. But you have not. And your campaign at WP:Administrators' noticeboard rather undercuts any claim that you are proceeding in good-faith.
 * I did not say that you had previously tagged the article; that you assert I did is misinterpretation on your part. Nonetheless, your tagging was a retagging, as the article had been tagged before. That your only explanation was a link to the archive (presumbly referring to the prior discussions therein), shows that you were carrying on with the previous tagging dispute, and is warrantably tendentious. Can you say "tag-team"? (For the benefit of any observers, "tag-team" is what Elvey accused me of back on 26 Nov. after another editor removed the Coren material.)
 * As to the rest of your comments: how am I to reach you? You rail bitterly that I insist on having "my" way, yet fail to notice that you are just as insistent on having it "your" way. You can't put together a coherent argument, and seem oblivious that it takes more than chanting "Per WP:OWN! Per WP:OWN!" to explain anything. You continually mischaracterize (as above), and have yet to understand something as simple as scientific notability not being based on news reports. Until you can present better arguments than you have heretofore, or show that trying to explain something to you is not an utter waste of time, I will not be troubling you with further explanations.


 * If anyone else has questions please ask. And don't miss Elvey's thrilling complaint of a hostile environment at the Administrators noticeboard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

New section?
Perhaps your article should have a section on eartquakeologist (source) Pat Robertson. Whaddya think JJ? Robertson said the widespread practice of homosexuality "will bring earthquakes.'' Can't make this shit up! --Elvey (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Labelling of earthquake predictions as correct, incorrect, or questionable
I have removed the, , and 12 marks from "Notable predictions." First of all, no criteria is given as to how these symbols are assigned, making this WP:OR. It seems to be related to the sources, but who is to judge whether a source is saying "yes," "no," or "maybe"? That would be pure speculation. Moreover, the use of multiple such symbols in the same subsection violates WP:SYNTH: it is an attempt to aggregate sources to provide something like a tally of votes. Another problem with this is that if we find another sources supporting some view, then that would change the tally of marks, rendering the whole thing meaningless. Just let the sources speak for themselves. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Second, the results are "related to the sources", they are derived from the sources. (And I emphatically reject "pure speculation".) I didn't put in in-line citations as I couldn't figure out how to avoid making at all quite messy. But if you think such specific citation is necessary, let's talk about it.
 * I could wish that you had raised the objection first, and possibly avoided some work. I believe you are off-base here. First, criteria are given, at the head of the section: "To be judged successful a prediction must be a proper prediction, published before the predicted event, and the event must occur exactly within the specified time, location, and magnitude parameters."


 * I don't see any violation of SYNTH (may I suggest consideration of WP:What SYNTH is not?), but possibly I do not understand your objection regarding "tally of votes". However, I am about to run out of time so have to put off discussing that. I disagree with your "just let the sources speak for themselves" because that suggests just pointing the reader to a source; I believe that, as editors, it is our role to extract, summarize, and present. It is a disservice to do less. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is taking long walls of text and categorizing them into one of three categories, which I don't think can be done in an objective manner, especially when you're trying to extract a collective opinion from several sources (which may disagree with each other). What exactly does a question mark mean? There's going to be doubt about anything, so how much doubt is necessary before marking something as a question mark rather than a check mark or an X? Also, the Haicheng example had many sources of which there were positive, neutral, and mixed opinions, but it was marked with an X. Setting up the positive sources for them to be refuted by the negative sources is WP:SYNTH for me; I would be more inclined to consider this example mixed rather than negative. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I still need to study this some more. As a preliminary comment I will reiterate what I said above: that these comments are derived from the sources. Also, the criteria for judging whether a "proper" prediction was made are stated, but in some cases that determination was also made in the source. Perhaps your complaint is the lack of inline (specific) citation of these points?
 * In the particular case of Haicheng: yes, that is interesting. There are reputable authorities that said Haicheng was predicted, and that result was accepted not only in the popular media (which doesn't count here) but also within the geological community. (As explained in the article.) But in doing my scholarly due diligence I did find criticism of that. So I exercised my proper editorial role of examining and weighing the different results. (This not "original research", nor "synthesis".) I found that the "predicted" opinions were essentially echos of the visiting delegation that relied on Chinese official (i.e., governmental) sources, and had been criticised as uncritical acceptance of unsupported claims. I also found the report of Wang et al. 2006, which looked into the matter. These were Chinese-speaking scientists, and their examination of the records was meticulous. All in all, I find the original claim(s) of a Haicheng prediction to be doubtful, and the critics more persuasive. I also note that I did not find any criticism of Wang et al. 2006, nor any claim of a successful Haicheng prediction by any professional since Wang, whereby it appears that it has been persuasive. Now if should subsequently develop that Wang et al. 2006 was some kind of imperialist fraud, and some cache of overlooked records be found, possibly the scientific community's consensus would switch. But that is if and then; it appears (as I have documented) that the current assessment is: no prediction. As explained in the text, and supported with citations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But I don't see what the benefit of the labels are. By reading the whole text of a section alone without the labels, readers are able to form a nuanced opinion on what parts of a prediction are valid and what parts are not. For example Haicheng and Parkfield are both marked as negative, and they couldn't be more different. In one case, a major earthquake did happen, and the dispute is over whether governmental sources can be trusted and whether it actually counts as a prediction. In the other, a prediction ultimately amounted to nothing. And in the extreme case of Greece (VAN), the 14 marks just look like way too much clutter. What would you have done if the study involved 50 cases? 100? All in all, I just don't think the labels add the reader's understanding. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * An earthquake happened in both Haicheng and Parkfield; the issue in both cases (and indeed, in all cases) is whether the predictions actually made (not what they are stretched to fit after the the fact) fit the actual earthquake. Regarding VAN, those results are from the source. If there had been 50 results, well, that is not the case, so it how is it an issue?
 * Whether (or not) these add to the reader's understanding is, I am afraid, rather subjective. But I feel quite strongly that they do. They are a simple, clear graphic that readily communicates the key results. And as these results are (at least among seismologists) the most important datum associated with each prediction, I think it is warranted to emphasize that. For sure, the reader gets a more nuanced understanding (at least I hope so!) reading the text, but as the graphic is not intended as a replacement to the text, but only a supplement, I fail to see the objection. Originally I tried to work the marks into the header, so that the reader could see the result in the TOC, but that wasn't so workable. (And was cluttered.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I maintain that they are different. In Parkfield, the earthquake did not happen in the predicted timeframe. In Haicheng, it did, according to the government report at least, and it is that which is disputed.
 * For me, the difference between this and, say, Paul the Octopus, which has similar correct/incorrect designations, is that in the latter example, it is trivial to tell whether the prediction was right or wrong. There is an event guaranteed to happen at a specific time, and the only thing unknown is the result of the event. Paul chooses A or B, and then the result is A or B, and finally the two are compared. Here, the criteria are much more complex: "To be judged successful a prediction must be a proper prediction, published before the predicted event, and the event must occur exactly within the specified time, location, and magnitude parameters." It's not like, "OK, so it is known that an 8.0 earthquake is guaranteed to happen on January 1, 2015. Tell me, will it happen in the Western Hemisphere or the Eastern Hemisphere?" -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but prediction really isn't quite as simple as you state. (Though I would not say it is "much more complex".) As is explained in the very first section of the article (was that not adequately explained?), earthquake predictions inherently have multiple dimensions (space, time, and magnitude). If these are not specified the prediction is not useful, and is prone to manipulation. And if not published before hand we have no way of knowing that a claimed prediction isn't really a postdiction. These are the requirements that distinguish the science from parlor trickery. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly why they should not be reduced to mere symbols. The prediction could be right on certain dimensions and wrong on others. I don't think a binary classification (even with ? as a fallback for uncertain cases) does justice to those predictions. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you clear on what your objection is? At the start you complained of "no criteria" for assessing the predictions, WP:SYNTH, and a purely speculative concern that has not happened (and is unlikely to happen). Then you objected (21 April) to the extraction of a collective opinion from several sources "which may disagree with each other". But again your objection is speculative because you have not shown (cited) any disagreeing sources. (I would allow Haicheng qualifies on that ground, but I have explained why I went with "fail".) Then you invoke Paul the Octopus to illustrate a pure binary prediction ("A or B"), and it seems to me that you were complaining that the basis of determining that result were too complex. Now you argue that a prediction "could be right on certain dimensions and wrong on others", and complain that a binary result doesn't do justice to a prediction. If you keep trying to hit as many objections as possible until one scores I will think the real issue is that you just don't like it. And that is no basis for objection.
 * As to the binary (pass/fail) result not conveying the whole story, I agree. But it is not supposed to. Each result is a summarization, which is fully allowable. For the full, detailed, nuanced explanation the reader can go to the text, just as you have been suggesting. Perhaps you think it is unjust to not give partial credit? Sorry, that is not the way prediction works. As was explained at the very start of the article (did you even read that?), leaving any dimension unspecified permits manipulation of the results. A prediction is "proper" only if all dimensions are specified, and successful only if ALL the criteria are met.
 * I note that despite your objections generally to summarizing the results, you have yet to show any actual error. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My unifying objection is that the text alone is sufficient, and the symbols are too broad to be helpful. Yes, you do have criteria for saying "yes" and "no," but what do the question marks mean? And it appears to me that Blue Mountain Lake and Iceland both managed to find an earthquake within the parameters, but both have been dismissed as statistical flukes by some scientists. So why is one marked as correct and the other one marked as disputed? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I ask for your specific objection, because then we can examine it, and possibly even resolve it. And I am willing to do that.  But if you keep changing what the problem is, then it becomes a wild goose chase. Which you are still doing, having just raised three questions. If we just about have all objections covered, fine, but hopefully this won't drag out too much longer?


 * Taking your questions in reverse order: Although the Iceland prediction is seemingly successful on its face, it is definitely questioned. But note that Seher and Main did not say that the prediction was false, only as likely due to chance. And it may be significant that the seismological community seems to have not embraced either that prediction or its basis. So I gave it a question mark. The BML is, indeed quite similar, and likely equally due to chance.  But it differs in that the prediction and its basis were both endorsed by the seismological community, and only the basis subsequently disputed. So I am inclined to credit the prediction as meeting the criteria specified. Give me a good argument and I might switch, but note that you would need to review the sources cited. Note also that I have been trying to get a seismologist to review all this, and would be strongly influenced by his take on this.


 * So why does a nominally binary result have three outcomes (pass/fail/?)? The question mark is basically "unable to classify".


 * As to your "unifying objection": I agree that the text alone contains the full information. But by their fullness these "long walls of text" (as you previously remarked) are not sufficient for communication of the essential results of whether a given prediction was successful, or not. This is why summaries exist: to concisely communicate the key results. I fail to understand why you would think this is not helpful.


 * BTW, I do want nudge the seismologist again, and it would be best that he see whole article. Also, if some other change should intervene it would be much harder to restore the "results" than to remove them. So I am going to restore them, but with the understanding that this is not yet settled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not object to having symbols per se; my issue is that the results are subjective and likely to be challenged, at least partly due to the availability of the ? option. As I see it, a more appropriate classification would be first, does it meet the given criteria, and then whether it is correct or incorrect. After all, if I say there's going to be an earthquake in California soon, you can't say I'm wrong, can you? And I'm not really right either because it lacks well-defined parameters. A prediction can be judged correct or incorrect only if it is rigorously defined, in which case it's as simple as "did the earthquake with the specific constraints happen or not?" So in my opinion, there should be the following three labels: 1) the constraints were not published properly (i.e. specific time, date, and magnitude ranges) before the earthquake (if there was one), so correctness cannot be objectively quantified; 2) all the constraints were published properly, and such an earthquake did happen within the constraints; and 3) all the constraints were published properly, and no such earthquake occurred.
 * Regarding BML/Iceland: So we are extracting these labels from opinions, which may differ across various sources? I'm fine with labels, but I think that they need to be given in an objective manner, not because a majority of sources hold a certain opinion. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the ticks, etc. I don't think they belong in an encyclopedia, at least not one like ours which isn't one person's view of a subject. When I looked at it it seems obvious to me that this was one editor's take on the subject, and thus original research. Maybe if the most noted expert on earthquake prediction devised such a system we could use it (for the quakes he used it for) although that might be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * KoH: I totally agree with your last sentence, about being objective, and "not because a majority of sources hold a certain opinion". However, that would be more applicable to the Haicheng "prediction", where I suspect that professions of success were indeed in the numerical majority. (At least prior to about 2004.) I went against that majority because (as I explained above, as well as in the article) it was a hollow majority that was pretty much echoing only a single and largely uncritical source, while a subsequent report's (Wang et al. 2006) "fail" was based on actual study of the records. Assessing both sources, I find the latter more reliable. I explain this to show that I well understand the principal that consensus is not a majority vote.


 * So you say "the results are subjective and likely to be challenged", while Doug says "this was one editor's take on the subject, and thus original research". I point out to both of you that all of this is documented.  Admittedly, I did not explicitly cite the basis of the results; that could be done, and that would satisfy any WP challenge. If you mean a challenge at the scientific level, well, I greatly doubt that we will ever see a report challenging the affirmation that (e.g.) there was no major earthquake in 1990 at New Madrid.  The presentation of these results is not original research because there is nothing new added, merely extraction of existing information based on objective criteria.


 * You also complain that "we are extracting these labels from opinions...." Please note that these are scientific opinions, which is to say not merely any idiot's "opinion", but based (presumably) on sound research. Would you dismiss E=mc2 as merely Einstein's "opinion", Hiroshima not withstanding? I think not. All affirmations of supposed facts are, at the bottom, opinions, but some deserve respect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The key difference is that E=mc2 can be directly quoted from Einstein's paper. While these are the opinions of scientists, those papers don't come with big red labels on them. It is ultimately your opinion that a collection of papers on a certain earthquake prediction should be given a certain label. Notice when you say "Assessing both sources, I find the latter more reliable." That is original research. You can put both in the article, and even discuss how one source tries to refute another, but you can't just go in and say one of them is correct. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In actual point of fact my basis for assessing the Haicheng "prediction" as a "fail" is (no less than E=mc2) directly quoted from the reliable, published source: "there was no ofﬁcial short-term prediction..." (Wang, 2006). I have not advanced any position not advanced by this source; on this basis I say it is not original research. Nor is it OR that I have assessed this source and weighed it against the many contradictory sources; this is (in my view) the proper and even required role of an editor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is where I would disagree. For me, graphical elements (I'm using this term broadly to include all non-text) should be plain facts. Now the facts may originate from opinions, but ultimately they have to be facts. For example, in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, there is a table of review scores. However, note that the scores are actually given in the reviews themselves, so it is a fact that a particular reviewer gave the game a particular score. It's even acceptable to make a general conclusion like "received critical acclaim" (note that this is in text, not the table). However, what you can't do is take a review that gives wholehearted praise for the game but no rating, and plop it in the table as a 10/10.
 * Here is a hypothetical example which is closer to what you are doing. Take an article which is, say, a list of video games from some company. For each game, look at all the reviews for that game, assessing and weighing them against each other, and then put a check mark at the top of each section for a game with positive reviews, a question mark for mixed reviews, and an X for negative reviews. It doesn't matter that in your specific case they're scientific opinions. The scientists are not attempting to represent their judgments on the validity of earthquake prediction results as facts, whereas Einstein did intend to present E=mc2 as a fact. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In your example the fact is the assignment by some reviewer of a certain score. But the score itself has no objectively determinable basis; it is just the reviewer's subjective rating. While the score might be taken to characterize the game, it really characterizes the reviewer's opinion of his subjective assessment of the game. That's a big difference.


 * What you don't seem to be grasping is that these "scores" for the predictions "are actually given" in the sources. Also, please note that where a prediction had multiple "scores" that was not (as you said at the top) "an attempt to aggregate sources"; that was where there were in fact multiple predictions. E.g., Brady actually made three predictions, and Keilis-Borok had three and possibly four predictions that covered Loma Prieta. Similarly for VAN: the fourteen results are not fourteen "votes" on their method, but the results of fourteen cases (as reported by Geller).


 * What may be confusing you is the evaluation of the Haicheng prediction. Here (as I have explained before) many of the older sources credit it as a success. But investigation showed that they were largely just "opinion" (such as you decry), while the more recent source was based on documented facts.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You still have failed to identify any objective reason why BML is considered a success and Iceland is not. Both of them were predictions that met the criteria but have been accused of being statistical flukes. It is not a documented fact that BML was a better prediction than Iceland. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could clarify whether we are discussing the process, or objection to a particular result? I have already explained the basis for the BML and Iceland results. In brief: the seismological community generally endorsed the BML prediction (even if the endorsements are only opinions, and the prediction possibly only lucky). Crampin's prediction (Iceland) was not endorsed, and the finding that it was (at best) merely lucky was supported with rigorous statistical analysis. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am actually objecting to the entire process, and the only way I can prove my point is to raise specific examples. Recall when you said I was "trying to hit as many objections as possible until one scores"; on the contrary, my purpose was to show that there are so many places where the process could be disputed that the issue was not limited to me questioning one or two results, but rather that the process is fundamentally flawed. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is one way to proceed. How about we do this: in regards of the process of determining whether any given prediction is pass or fail, you make a list of each instance where you think this process has failed.  We then go over those instances individually, to determine whether it is a problem, and if so then whether it arises from failure of application in that case, or failure of the process.  We can also look at whether any problems are fixable.  I will mention again that I wonder if your objection has been in part because I did not expressly document the exact basis of the each determination in a footnote; is that part of the problem? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I do have opinions on whether they should be pass or fail. But even if all the labels were changed to match my opinion, I still wouldn't be satisfied, because ultimately it's based on my opinion. You have your opinions, I have mine, they have no place in an encyclopedia. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not a credible answer. All knowledge is opinion (even Einstein's E=mc2). What matters is an opinion's basis. E.g., are there facts, reasoning, documentation, or such that support it? I say that my "opinions" are supported. If you can't support your opinion (and particularly your opinion that my results are unsupported) then you are right: your opinion does not belong here. What I am suggesting is that we lay out what our opinions are, and then see how they stack up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's different. E=mc2 is an opinion on whether something is true or false. Here it's not. It's an opinion on whether a prediction should be counted as valid or not. The validity of E=mc2 can be tested by experimentation, but with an earthquake prediction, we can't generate more data; even if we eventually master earthquake prediction, we can still only discuss the validity of a past prediction by interpreting past data. While we're on the topic of earthquakes, a much closer analogy to E=mc2 is the "opinion" that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. And I'm not saying that opinions backed by solid arguments can't be included; I'm perfectly fine with the content of the list of predictions section. But the labels are unwarranted, as everything must be supported directly by sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We can't deduce our own labels. WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR are policy. I'm busy in real life the rest of the month, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not so much in deducing a label as deducing which category applies. Okay, so we have List of earthquakes in California, which editors freely add to when they have a RS that says an earthquake happened in California. It is not deemed OR where an editor thereby determines that an earthquake is in the category in California. I am claiming that the analogous determination that a prediction is in the category successful is equally not OR.  Though perhaps KoH would claim a difference in that in California is more factual (testable?) than successful?


 * KoH's position that E=mc2 is more testable than the result of a given prediction seems correct. But determination of the magnitude of a single quake is equally untestable: we can't regenerate the data here either, we can "only discuss the validity of a past [magnitude] by interpreting past data." (And sometimes there is an issue there, and sometimes a readjustment.)


 * KoH: is the core problem here that the labeling was not "supported directly by sources"? Which is perhaps to say, that I did not explicitly cite the sources? Like I said before, I could do that. This is why I am willing to look at specific cases, but you need to be a bit more specific. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Which is perhaps to say, that I did not explicitly cite the sources? Like I said before, I could do that." No, you can't. When we're talking about earthquake magnitude, there may be disagreements, but ultimately we have standards like the Richter scale, Moment magnitude scale, etc. There is no such standard for evaluating earthquake predictions attempts, nothing that takes all the data and spits out a "yes" or "no." Any seismologist will recognize a properly measured magnitude for an earthquake, but for an earthquake, one might call it successful while another may call it unsuccessful, and both could be right by their own standards. And more importantly, we, as editors do not need to interpret anything; for earthquake magnitudes, we just take it at face value and copy the numbers into the article. If there are multiple values, and each organization still sticks by its values, then we include them all, putting down a range if necessary. If we were to take preference of a certain organization's numbers over another's, that would be original research even if we cite the organization we choose to use. Contrast it to earthquake predictions, where we are interpreting the papers and judging them. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is where we really need to look at individual cases. E.g., I would like to say (because it appears to be a true statement) that the "VAN method", and all of the alleged predictions ensuing from it, are rejected by nearly all seismologists. And I could produce at least two dozen papers that say strong fail, and only about four with at most tepid support. But though there is a strong case for an editor to characterize the matter in that general way, it does run up on the point you state.  However, the thirteen fails I assigned to VAN was not my interpretation, but taken directly from a cited source. And those are not contested by any reliable source.  Note also that for the Loma Prieta quake, for which there are a host of claimed predictions, I assigned a result only to predictions where expert opinion is clear. For those predictions where expert opinion diverges I did pretty much as you suggest: I described the opposing views, and cited the authors that provide fuller analysis. Where I judge a paper it is in my proper and dutiful editorial role of assessing the reliability of the source, or (as regards Haicheng) whether earlier papers should be deemed superseded by later papers. Aside from that I am not interpreting the sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So now you're introducing a fourth category for predictions: "yes," "no," "uncertain," and "so controversial that a label cannot be affixed"? What the difference between that one and "uncertain"? Giving different labels requires a very clear dividing line, not someone's "proper and dutiful editorial role of assessing the reliability of the source." By the way, yes, that is our role, but assessing the sources does not extend to assigning entire labels to the predictions. Another problem is that by giving them labels, we are claiming that there is a unifying standard for evaluation. But there isn't. No matter how reliable two sources are, a "successful" label by one source regarding prediction A will not necessary be worth the same as a "successful" label by the other source regarding prediction B. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am not introducing a fourth category. The third category ("unable to determine pass/fail") covers all indeterminate cases, whether the experts can't determine because of lack of data, or lack of consensus.
 * The rest of your comments are disjointed, and I haven't made out what you mean. E.g., I am not aware that we are making any claim of a "unifying standard for evaluation", what ever you mean by that. But I'll take another look at it when I am not so tired. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are not introducing the fourth category, then for the Loma Prieta quake, what entitles you say that some claimed predictions get labeled and some don't? You said, "I assigned a result only to predictions where expert opinion is clear." For the ? ones, the expert opinion is not clear, so why did you assign a result to them? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I assigned the result success or fail where the expert opinion is clear as to success or fail. The "?" is not a result, it indicates a lack of a determinable result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry for misinterpreting your statement; I assumed your use of "result" was synonymous with my use of "label." Anyways, it is still ultimately you who are able or unable to determine a result. There is nothing in the sources that authoritatively indicates, this one is definitely a yes, that one is definitely a no, the other one we can't really tell... There is no well-defined cutoff as to what is considered a certain result and what is considered questionable enough to give a "?" mark. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the labels covered the three cases of two results (success/fail) and one meta-result of "no determinable result". A point which has already been covered (look back around 24 April). As to no authoritative indication of a definite yes/no: have you even looked at the sources?. E.g., the 13 (I don't recall right now, I think that was the number) fails and one "?" for VAN, that is straight from the source. (And I think there was even more than one source for that, but I am not going to bother looking for it if you won't even look at the supplied source.) As to determining the borderline of what is borderline, well, that is what we have to do. It's called weighing the sources. If you think I had it wrong some where — and not a general wave your hands around sentiment of "wrong" — then please be specific. (And I will grant that Iceland may be borderline borderline. Give me an argument.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to be more specific; in fact, I am going to be even more general, because this is a fundamental problem not limited to my disagreement with one or two labels. For example, on a page which contains a list of statistics, what use is it to argue over whether a number is 52 or 53 if the list of statistics shouldn't even be on the page? The point is that the very fact that the labels are controversial means that they should not be used. Any kind of graphics (I'm using it very broadly to include any non-text like your labels or even a table) is different from text in that text can be used to capture a wide range of opinions, while a graphic is just meant to bluntly convey a fact. Even if that graphic represented an opinion, that opinion must have been translated to a fact by the source. That is, you can have a box saying Roger Ebert gave a movie 3.5/4 stars, because it is a fact that he gave that opinion, and not an opinion by the Wikipedia article's author that Ebert meant to give the movie 3.5/4 stars. Likewise, you are in no position to make the determination that certain sources meant to call an earthquake prediction successful or unsuccessful. Weighing the sources means devoting portions of text to cover each viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, not taking one and marking it corrrect. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not going to be more specific? That is a problem. You're just going to wave your hands about and make general, theoretical complaints that lack any specific basis. You seem to think I am making these results up, but you won't even look at the sources. You have made some bizarre statements, such as your implication that I have been trying to determine what a source meant to call a prediction, as distinct from plain reading of clear statements in sources which you won't even look at. That you have made several general complaints shows further that your real complaint is "you don't like it". Which I am not interested in exploring.


 * So congratulations. You win. Not on any merits, I am simply tired of arguing with someone who will neither look at the sources nor even state what his specific complaint is. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that the sources do not have a unified labeling scheme like what you were doing. I have looked through several of the sources, and wasn't able to find such a thing. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unified? Perhaps you mean uniform? Or that if some sources say a prediction failed, others that a prediction was a failure, and yet others that a prediction was not successful,

I can't combine all of these as "failures"? Why should presentation of results (as distinct from any interpretation of results) be controlled by the sources? It certainly seems that you have more criteria in play than you have let on to. But discussing those would be getting specific, so let's not bother. Your "simple fact" is meaningless. And this discussion is dead in the water. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)