Talk:Earthquake prediction

/Archive 1 contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised 20 June 2012) prior to restructuring.

Re 195.134.89.153's VAN edits

I have Reverted your Bold edits (see WP:BRD) in the VAN section because of problems of neutrality, WP:weight, and possibly a conflict of interest. I note that these edits follow your recent editing VAN method (to which some of the following comments are also applicable).

Your recent edit of 17 May removed significant qualifications of the VAN claims. E.g., you changed "they claimed that by measuring geoelectric voltages ..." to "measure[d] geoelectric voltages" – which is not same thing: you have changed a statement on which all can agree ("they claimed to have measured") to a statement of fact ("they actually measured"), which is disputed by reliable and authoritative sources.

You have also removed the information that their claim of being "able to predict earthquakes greater than magnitudue 5 ..." is not the original claim, that the original claim was modified ex post facto.

You also removed the text that "the VAN group generated intense public criticism in the 1980s by issuing telegram warnings, a large number of which were false alarms." This is supported by a reliable source, and indeed, that VAN generated intense criticism - professional as well as public - is likely their most notable aspect. Leaving that out is a serious omission. Likewise for your removal of "None of the earthquakes which VAN claimed were preceded by SES generated SES themselves ...."

The material you have added (e.g.: "This analysis however was shown by VAN group to be invalid..."; "This criticism was rebutted by the VAN group..."; "All these points have been also rebutted by the VAN group") amounts to an apologetics of VAN, and advocacy on their behalf.

In the predictions section you have replaced critical comments with what amounts to attempted refutations of such criticism. E.g., replacing "VAN’s ‘predictions’ never specify the windows..." with "These claims have been rebutted by VAN group point by point...." And again, you weakened the text attributed to Geller, then replaced the specific criticism of Jackson, Rhoades & Evison, Kagan & Jackson, Geller, and Mulargia & Gasperini with: "Other independent evaluations led to the conclusion that the results "decisively rule out the necessity of any statistical discussion in evaluating the validity of the precursory nature of SES"...." (Any necessity for statistical discussion is ruled out by ... Uyeda??? Was that a joke?)

Your edits have consistently removed or muted criticism of the VAN method and results, promoted their point of view, and downplayed the controversy regarding them. This was not done on the basis of independent reliable sources; it is the view of Varotsos and Lazaridou themselves. Your edits don't just violate Wikipedia's fundamental WP:NPOV policy of that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view...." (emphasis in the original), they are blatant partisanship. This is not permitted.

So I am not surprised to see that your IP address (see http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/195.134.89.153) is assigned to the University of Athens. It seems there is a strong possibility that you are connected with VAN, and therefore in violation of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflict of interest and self-promotion. This is not acceptable. Please desist. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

IP user 77.69.86.91 – from Athens, and likely the same as 195.134.89.153, above – has added 'citation needed' tags to the "Electromagnetic variations" on material pertaining to VAN. Fair enough. Sometime this weekend I'll see about digging out those sources and supplying more detailed citation.

The same user has also disputed the neutrality of the "1987–1995: Greece (VAN)" predictions section, on the basis of "published answers were removed". This user has not followed up with an explanatory statement here, but presumably this refers to his/her recent edit, which I removed, for the reasons described above. Sir or madam, please note: mere publication does not justify inclusion of material. Wikipedia has certain principles and guidelines for inclusion (or exclusion) of material, and how material is presented. Your edit was reverted for cause. Specifically, for violation of neutrality, balance, and apparent self-promotion/conflict of interest. I will note again that your edit did not simply add material, it also removed material (which I restored). Note also that Wikipedia is not a forum or debate: you do not get "equal time" to make point-by-point answers.

And note that per Template:POV#When_to_remove this tag can be removed if "[it] is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given", or "[i]n the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This hype abt VAN is just BS. No independent researcher managed to reproduce VAN. It seems that one must have a connection with the former VAN group and use their magic talisman in order to predict EQs using electrical signals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.136.227 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with your comments re VAN generally (based on study of the literature), but please note that the particular issue here is whether these edits are non-neutral (e.g., biased) and give more weight to certain views than warranted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep our opinion out of this and just follow scientific publications.--77.69.86.91 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that in "just follow[ing] scientific publications" we are supposed to be neutral. Which does not mean equal time for minority views, and certainly not to softening or outright removal of criticism, as you have done here, and at VAN method. You have shown a distinctly unbalanced tendency to follow the publications of Varotsos, Lazaridou, and a very tiny group of supporters, but not those of the broader community. Regarding the issue at hand: I have provided examples of how your edits are non-neutral; you have not made any showing as to how they are not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that I am not the original writer of the cited changes you removed, I 'm trying to balance here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The "balance" you seek is to restore the edits questioned above, which consistently remove or mute criticism of VAN, and promote the views of Varotsos and Lazaridou themselves, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. While you may indeed be "not the original writer", the edits are effectively the same, and the closeness of your IP address (77.69.86.91) with the last IP to make those changes (77.69.80.202) suggests you could even be in the same household. But quite aside from that, those edits are non-neutral, and so are disallowed regardless of who puts them in. I have therefore reverted them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Next time you imply I am the original writer, J. Johnson (JJ), I will consider it a personal attack. It is one already.
• Criticism muted? Really J. Johnson (JJ)? Are we allowed to remove cited scientific answers to critique as you do? Who is lying about neutrality and weight here? When we have scientific addressing to critique, is the editor's opinion stronger or only his duty to give both scientific sides? Are we allowed to take sides, giving the critique as the truth, also changing the wording as if critique was never addressed, as you do here?
• There are great concerns in the way you act here and there seems to be a conflict of interest. All we see is removing sources and not trying to help our article. You have to read the new text and point to its weaknesses, and not blind revert.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a point here we have to deal with. There is an inconsistency inside the article and probably a hidden lie behind it. I am trying to find where the parameters of the prognosis are mentioned inside the 1981 publication and I cannot. In addition we see two different versions of the non verifiable text, on in electromagnetics and one in VAN sections:

1. "In a 1981 paper they claimed ... they could predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to 7 hours beforehand"
2. "claimed in a 1981 paper an ability to predict M ≥ 2.6 earthquakes within 80 km of their observatory (in Greece) approximately seven hours beforehand"

The claim details will be removed until verified.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Next time? When was the first time I implied you are "the original writer"? What I have said is that you seem to have a close affinity with these other two writers (plurality presumed, but who knows?), and some kind of connection with VAN seems quite possible, even likely. Now even if I had implied that you were "the original writer" I don't know why you would consider that a "personal attack". Unless you feel that association with VAN is derogatory, but that (even if true) is hardly an attack. On the otherhand, I point out that accusing someone of making a personal attack is also considered a form of personal attack. Especially when you raise a question of "Who is lying about neutrality and weight here?" Or allude to "a hidden lie".

But whether one or a trinity, the problem is not about the writers, but the edits. And I maintain that a plain reading of the edits, as I have shown (above), is that they mute and remove criticism of VAN. What you don't seem to understand is that the standard here (WP:WEIGHT) is not that "both sides" of an issue gets equal weight, but proportionate weight. I further maintain that, despite VAN's extensive self-promotion and self-justification, the weight of opinion in the seismological community is on the side of the critics. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I see you have learned nothing in my absence and continue to bully, cast aspersions etc here. Were you not threatened with a topic ban? Everyone else: if you get into difficulties then ANI and DRN are you friend. It is pretty pointless slugging it out here for more than 48 hours. JJ isn't always wrong on the facts but, for example, he very quick to shout "fringe", "undue" etc when he wants something suppressed ... and he doesn't let go. Best to get the neutral third parties involved otherwise this will drag on for weeks. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No one has shouted "fringe". Attacking me only shows that 1) you have nothing better to contribute, and 2) you are not a neutral party. On both grounds perhaps you should recuse yourself from this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If editors also stay away from own original research here, pushing their opinion, we might have a nice article. J. Johnson (JJ) please help us bring here only what is really verifiable, eliminate producing own conclusions by mixing of sources and keep neutrality by referring to both sides as claiming wherever published scientific replies exist. More than this, caring for weight, scientific weight usually is in the side of the latest publication, if there is no scientific answer in reasonable time. Eliminating latest publications by rollbacks for the shake of neutrality of the wording does not make sense for an experienced editor who loves Wikipedia. We try to make articles better by correcting unexperienced edits, not by removing cited content on excuses for not knowing how to write a Wikipedia article.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You evince some interesting points of view. Like, "editors[should?]stay away from own original research here" It seems to me that may very well apply to you. And it seems that ("experienced editor" or not) you do not understand about weight being proportionate, while your statement that "scientific weight usually is in the side of the latest publication" is rather jaw-dropping. Even granting that Mary has gotten in "the last word", the scientific consensus is driven by what others think, not the parties in dispute. Noting that several seismologists are Wikipedia editors, I suppose we could arrange for a show of hands. But even without that, a plain reading of the edits (as illustrated above) shows a muting and removal of criticism of VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please point and cite your accusations, I know how to edit Wikipedia and I also know what peer review means. You are given time to bring back what you have been keeping displayed for years here, but it seems you cannot. - Is it 2.6 or 2.8? We will see about original research by your answer. - Meanwhile the article is still missing sources and I will proceed in reasonable time with these, too.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether the original claim was for 2.6 or 2.8 is a detail that can be corrected. However, such a correction does not warrant removal of the important information that the claim was modified ex post facto, or that various false alarms generated intense public criticism. Whether you know how to edit here seems rather beside the point; the central issue here is about the key principles by which editing is to be done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are (as you have implied) an experienced WP editor I should not have to explain to you about Boldly editing, Reverting, Discussing. So I have reverted your restoration of Uyeda's "conclusion" that "any any statistical discussion in evaluating the validity of the precursory nature of SES" was "decisively" ruled out. That was one of the edits I specifically identified. If want to argue that point, fine, start a subsection on that particular point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, everyone. Let's stop with the personal attacks and get back to the issue at hand. General academic consensus has not accepted the efficacy of the VAN method. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong, we, as editors, must present the topic in a neutral way. That means presenting the theory and a summary of the reasons it is both supported by a few and discounted by many. Presenting the VAN theory as truth is inaccurate because a lot of scientific literature seriously questions both the physics and the efficacy of the predictions. However, VAN is not a 'fringe' theory. It is (and should be) included in this article because it does have significant support in the scientific literature. What is at issue is how we balance the presentation to indicate both the potential of the theory and the fact that it has not yet been conclusively proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. We cannot remove criticisms of VAN or claim that these criticisms have been 'refuted' based solely on scientific papers from the same small segment of the community that published the original theory. Until/unless the larger scientific community accepts the theory (or at least stops systematically supporting the papers that refute it), we must present the criticisms as if they have merit. With all of this in mind, please discuss the specific edits that J. Johnson has mentioned. Until these have been specifically discussed, reversion of the edits is justified. Elriana (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: I have tried to smooth out a bit of the English grammar without taking a stance in the above argument. Apologies if someone thinks I failed due to some change in tone.Elriana (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elriana, thanks for your grammar edits, my English is not so good. JJ's last revert is justified, you say, even if verifiable content is removed, because with the specific addition a conclusion is left to the reader that VAN method is a valid earthquake prediction method. I think I see what you mean, I had kept the original wording of 195.134.89.153. If I have understood well, answers from Uyeda and Hamada should only be presented as the view of only part of the scientific community who still support the validity of VAN method after its criticism, in order to avoid any conclusion that VAN method is widely accepted. Is this correct?--77.69.80.202 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was trying to say. There may be a way to include the references without implying that the debate has been resolved. But I don't know that the inclusion is necessary for the average reader to grasp what is going on. As it stands, the article seems clear that there is a debate, and that both sides (despite their unequal numbers) feel that their logic/physics/data refute the arguments of the other. The article even specifies some of the reasons for contention. In my opinion, additional detail seems unnecessary for an encyclopedic article, as it obfuscates the basic information. There is a separate full article on the VAN method, and plenty of references for those who want to dig into the original sources. Elriana (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Elriana. I will give it a try hoping to serve the spirit of the described above.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Omerbashich earthquake prediction

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

---

What about this guy prediction? Totally amazing, yes? 91.203.111.4 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not a bit amazing, unless perhaps for the sheer audacity of his self-promotion. His claim to prediction is totally junk, which has been extensively discussed here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

We have different opinion, I think this prediction is great. Long time and always correct. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Think what you want, but this talk page is intended for discussions on how to improve the article, not general discussion on the topic. And in case you think he should be added: sorry, no, he does not meet the standards for inclusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggested prediction will be included... not he. You should calm down. We have different opinion, and you don't make sense. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

To quote my reply to an earlier plea for inclusion of this same site "What you'll need, but very much doubt that you will get, is an independent source reviewing these 'forecasts' and finding them meaningful - fully agree with JJ on this one". Mikenorton (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Omerbashich's supposed theory is entirely pseudoscience, utterly lacking in scientific validity, and has no place in Wikipedia. As to "always correct" – ha. It is trivial to make predictions that are "always correct". (E.g.: There will be earthquakes in California.) To make any kind prediction that actually tells us something we did not know previously takes predictive skill. This might make a little more sense for you if you carefully read the first part of the article that describes the nature of prediction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

By looking at their short contribution history, I think it's fine if we just ignore this user. Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me. They've had their 15 minutes of my time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You have no idea what your are talking about. For sure this scientist theory / predictions are valid more then you - amateurs from hobby-encyclopedia. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with J. Johnson (JJ) and Dawnseeker2000; the so-called predictions from Omerbashich do not meet the standards for inclusion in wikipedia. The theories do not have mainstream academic support. Nor are they presented in independent, peer-reviewed journals. Nor have they changed the way the general public or media handle earthquakes or their prediction, which might have made it notable regardless of academic support. In general, the theory presented at prediction is not appropriate for inclusion in this article.Elriana (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hot air from anonymous "scientist" on hobby-pedia. Very funny. Yours: Kirk Douglas (you believe I am Kirk, yes?) But even if you are that you pretending, it is irrelevant. His word against yours. And his discover is real for sure. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Mikenorton's comments held more weight. I just took a quick peak and found that the IP lacked credible contribs. 14:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

IP address? Changing with time. You don't know it and you are living in modern age. So funny. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As Omerbashich's predictions have previously been dismissed, and this faceless non-entity's name-calling adds nothing useful, I think we are done here. If anyone else wants to comment, fine, otherwise I think I'll close this in a day or so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Close? You in hurry like last time when archived it much more sooner then other archives to hide Omerbashich forecast... Dismissed? By anonymous hobby-pedians... Faceless? But you are anonymous too... And stop use "Phd geophysics" and other your fake profiles. So funny. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that an uninvolved editor should close. Okay, someone else please step up and add something like {{archive top|result= Closed as orignal poster has nothing further to offer but insults}} at the top of this section. And don't forget the {{archive bottom}} at the bottom.

Or should we take a moment to establish consensus for the future that Omerbashich has nothing notable regarding either scientific theory or empirical results? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for admit you insult people. Now I see, this some kind of Christians In Action place. Hury close your shame as before. So funny. Oh by the way, Omerbashic theory is correct as we can all see. Go good Dr! 91.203.111.4 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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