Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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)

Yes, this an encyclopedic article. And while I have tried to illustrate the debate with specifics (instead of just telling the reader that some point was raised or "addressed"), this is not the place for a full back-and-forth scientific debate. Note that the same kind of edits (and objections) have been made at VAN method. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User J. Johnson (JJ) the Van method is under debate. Presenting only the criticism is POV, especially the way the article is written, which has the result that the reader thinks the VAN method does not work at all. This conclusion is not verifiable. Additionally we would better remove all comments outside quotes, which are quite colored; "...not only fail to do better than chance, but..." is not encyclopedic tone. There is also an extremely heavy, non verifiable, "public criticism" statement that, unless cited, will be completely removed.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you not proceed in that direction. As far as I can see the debate is over, and mainstream science does not agree. As to the "public criticism", I believe the source is still there; do you doubt it? As to removing all comments, sorry, no, those are reasonable summations. As to the various DOCUMENTED critical comments being "unencyclopedic": whether you like them is not a consideration. Again, it seems that you are too close to the matter to have a detached point of view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that I was late; you had immediately proceeded to restore these questioned edits. The questioned edits are as follows:

• 19:36 (removing POV)

Changed "[a critical review] showed only case" to "considered only one case" A complete inversion of meaning. Not just POV, but deception.

• 19:50 (removal of colouring) :"The VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance,..." replaced with "The VAN predictions were also considered to be indistinguishable from chance."

The part of the quote of "a much better association with the events which occurred before them" shoved into a footnote.

• 20:03 (debate, cited as such)

Added: "The validity of VAN method is still under debate", citing the 1996 issue of the GRL. As I was just saying, it appears the debate is over. Or, was over ten twenty years ago. [Corrected 29 June. -JJ]

• 20:45 (plus citations from third parties in favor of VAN, balancing the critique silently)

Added Uyeda's "decisively rule out the necessity of any statistical discussion in evaluating the validity of the precursory nature of SES." Whether he actually said that is rather beside the point. In the first place, he is not any kind of independent third party, he is the foremost proponent of VAN in Japan. Second, it is absurd that any party can unilaterally rule out any necessity for statistical evaluation.

These edits are the same kind of blatant partisanship (and even some of the same edits) as I have previously pointed, so I have reverted them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is no justification of public criticism. It is a deception to remove the need for citation. Bringing back.
• "Considered", of course for Geller, and cited as such after an independend worker concluding just the opposite.
• As explained above, bringing back the POV expression "...not only fail to do better than chance, but..." is unthinkable, but it is done under excuses, as usual. If there is a proposal to bring quoted text out of footnotes, there are plenty more to come. It is my opinion to leave them in supportive only role.
• It is fine to say was under debate instead of is under the specific debate.
• The citations that were removed are now being used to support the "considered" wording once again, for M/G statistics.

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with you adding cn tags, but don't throw in the rest of your edits as I don't feel like picking through them. I don't believe the rest of your comments need any response, as you have not addressed any of the points I have raised. Though I will mention (again) that Uyeda is not an independent party, but in fact one of VAN's strongest proponents, and that is is absurd to just wave away any need for statistical evaluation. And you still have not addressed the issues I have raised. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No mr JJ everything is addressed and you are playing games here without respect to WP policy and breaking BRD without really discussing adapted changes. The conflict of interest is obvious, it is as if Geller is talking here frustrated with Hamada publication, which you also remove! You remove 3 verifiable published sources here to cover the lies you 've been feeding the readers for years!! And of course independed publications are enough to oppose, turning "showing" to "considering". Your edits are POV. And every time you remove citation needed for "public" in criticism, citation needed will be restored. You will address one by one and not throw smoke as you do. Reverted till you discuss first. And you will discuss the current version. --77.69.80.202 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Some one else explain to this **** about consensus. And edit-warring, and civility, and perhaps even conflict of interest. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you really (as you have suggested) an "experienced editor"? For it seems you do not understand the key principle of consensus, and that merely tossing out some retorts does not constitute discussion, and does not give you license to proceed as you will. (And have.) Also: if you want to make some uncontroverted edits (such as the cn tags) do them before the questioned stuff.

You want to consider each edit one-by-one? Fine, I will raise them individually. But note that repeated restoration of the questioned edits constitutes edit-warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Item a: Is Uyeda truly independent?

It will be instructive to start with your contention (above) that Uyeda is an "independent" worker. You say he is, I say he is not; I am not aware of any source that authoritatively decides this for us. In such cases we must rely on the judgement of other editors. I suggest that if the other editors Google on "Uyeda earthquake Varotsos" to see a sample of his work regarding VAN they will find that he is generally a proponent of VAN. He has also been a co-author with Varotsos (e.g., here and here). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Geller is published, not from Wikipedia editors, but inside the latest global review in Tectonophysics, as the exception of the scientific community: "Notwithstanding the negative views like Geller et al. (1997), significant progress has been made in the research of precursory pattern changes of seismicity (e. g., Wyss and Martirosyan, 1998; Huang et al., 2001; Huang, 2006)". He has been spotted for his attitude as alone even between scientists that are buttoned-up with earthquake prediction. Is he a trusted source? Well, we do not rely on google to make an opinion. But are we to remove him as a source for the article? You do propose to do so with Uyeda, though.
• When we click "Author Affiliations" in the links you provide, we see 4 and 5 collaborating universities / foundations / institutions on each paper. Are they not independent?

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your first point is so garbled I can't tell what you are saying. Are you trying to say that Geller is an outlier, and his views a minority view? Sorry, he is a highly respected expert, one of a score or more of VAN critics. And please note: I have not said that Uyeda cannot be cited. My objection here is that he is not, as you stated, independent, as he is closely associated with Varotsos. If you don't want to use Google (or Google Scholar) to find his papers, fine, use whatever tool you have. The association is more than collabration, it appears to be one of adulation. According to Chouliaras & Stavrakakis (1999) Uyeda "was quoted in Greek newspapers as saying that "Varotsos should be given a Nobel prize because ... VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes..."".

As to your second point: well, what is the point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Geller has left himself alone in the scientific community. Science needs peer reviewed answers and Geller has not published any on the latest 2009 global review (basically he seems to have not published any creditable critique since 1997, according to the current review example). Geller seems not able to publish any more. Wikipedia is not a play ground for what science has left behind, recent secondary sources give the weight we need for our articles.
• According to Wikipedia:No original research (and I have removed original research material with lies that had been nested in the article for years - see discussion above) "a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". The most recent published review article on earthquake prediction comes from 2009, and you remove it. Can you even think here? Uyeda is present in science, signing the review article and has not been publishing alone. With only positive publications on this review, for all years since then, it is a reliable source and you cannot remove it.
• You also claim a publication by Chouliaras to ground collaboration of Varotsos and Uyeda. The example you give clarifies your stuck in the past, which is what puts us in difficulties here for no reason. Science has advanced and scientists have stepped forward. Chouliaras has been referencing Varotsos positively.
• No point talking to you, indeed, if among all others, collaboration of 5 institutions to publish an article, in your given examples, equals dependency to you.

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have commented on Uyeda et al. 2009 (your "most recent published review article on earthquake prediction") below, noting that it is not a review of earthquake prediction as such, but of the problems faced by seismo-electromagnetics. And it seems you have 1) not actually read it, and 2) misinterpreted what is said in the abstract. However, please try to stay on topic. Which, in this case, is whether Uyeda is independent. And note that I cite Chouliaras not to show "collaboration", but to show Uyeda's adulation of Varotsos. That "science has advanced" has nothing to do with the specific point. The rest of your comments are too nonsensical to attempt any comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Uyeda is interested in electromagnetics and seems to believe in VAN method as promising. If it was not obvious he is independent, you would not use the word "truly" trying to make a case.
• You 've been shown, on your examples through which you claim he co-publishes with Varotsos, that Uyeda is independent; 5 institutions co-sign these publications.
• Chouliaras also refers Varotsos and Uyeda as co-workers (!) on the specific article. No wonder he has turned point of view now days.
• "Short-term earthquake prediction: Current status of seismo-electromagnetics" means current status of earthquake prediction focused in the field of electromagnetics. Trying to diminish it is impossible. It is the current review on the field.
• Trying to mute Uyeda in order to replace current science with ancient scientific opinion is out of the question.

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It is amusing to consider whether by "ancient scientific opinion" you mean Geller 1997, or Archimedes. However, your scatter-shot comments do not aid discussion, so please try to stay focused on the point raised: is Uyeda truly - by which I mean in actual truth, and not simply in your very biased imagination - independent, that his assessment of VAN is fair and impartial, and represents mainstream consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We see Uyeda believes in VAN. We see Geller does not believe in VAN. Supporting is not dependency, it is community health. There is no point to make such a case to accuse people. You also miss the big picture, Uyeda does not publish alone. You cannot mute him for just being a supporter you do not like. You act under conflict of interest.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not say that Uyeda is dependent on Varotsos. But when he is so close to the man that he (reportedly) believes "VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes" he definitely is standing too close to have an impartial view. At any rate he is a proponent of VAN, and while there is no problem letting proponents make a case in their favor, it is a general principle that parties with any kind of interest in a matter (such as professional prestige, and large budgets) should not be judges of same. The next item (Uyeda unilaterally ruling out any need for VAN to be troubled with any further statistical evaluation) shows actual and serious imbalance in his perspective. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• By the same argument Geller is also the outsider of the scientific community, supporting that earthquake prediction will never happen, so let's omit him, too. That is the seriousness of your argument.
• In VAN method case there are strong supporters and strong opposers and this is documented even in the 2011 publication you bring here as the "current review", referring to Van method (page 352) as "very controversial". Well, we do not see it reflected inside the article after your POV edits, do we?--77.69.80.202 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to obfuscate the issue. If you have a complaint about Geller we can discuss that, but separately; the issue here is whether Uyeda is as "independent" as you claim him to be. As I said before: Uyeda's co-authorship with Varotsos, his general propounding and defending of VAN, including writing the article that presents VAN in the Lighthill volume, all indicate a close relationship. His bias is readily apparent in his statement VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes", and his view (same source) that Varotsos ought to have a Nobel Prize.

As you accept none of this, it is perhaps time for outside comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Accusing of non independent is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It has been shown to you with examples from the beginning to the end. Uyeda is a supporter, he does not publish alone, and keeps balance to the opposers, and this is scientific community health. Go publish the dependency, first. Your edits shall be rollbacked.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not original research to assess the quality and proper weight to be given to sources. And your hectoring is noted.

Your repeated reference to the critics as "opposers" suggests you do not understand the distinction between criticizing something because one is opposed ("biased") from the outset, and opposing something because it broadly fails critical examination. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Item b: Uyeda's "decisively rule out ..." comment

As before, I say it is absurd for any party in a debate to "rule out" any need for statistical analysis. But in this case you have again mis-represented the source. He did not say "decisively rule out ..."; he said (here): "seems to decisively rule out..." [emphsis added], indicating some uncertainty. Also, you failed to mention his intial comment (two pages earlier) that "the numbers are too small for any meaningful statistics...." Leaving out such key qualifications is part of a non-neutral pattern here of making the pro-VAN comments seem stronger than is actually the case. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are right about mis-representation here, I had to dig more and not blindly accept 195.134.89.153 's edit. Still balancing but weight is lost.
  • After digging the second part, Uyeda says "Although the sample numbers are to small for any meaningful statistics, the face value of the alarm rate for MN>=5.5 earthquakes is 75%". It is clear that Uyeda discomforts those who presented statistics by so small samples.
• There is a second source (Hamada) citing against "chance", which you seem to forget. Objection is still valid.

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the quote misrepresented what Uyeda actually said. Good.

Please note something else that is very important: you are expected to cite what YOU have read, to read what YOU are citing, and not blindly accept someone else's edits.

No, I have not forgotten the Hamada quote, but the specific objection I raised here was with the Uyeda quote. As to the Hamada quote: it was introduced with the Uyeda quote, and I suspect you have not personally checked it, either. We can discuss that if you wish, but that is a separate item. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The case here is that in spite there is double verifiable scientific objection, even if the wording "seems" adds a level of uncertainty to one, we still have an unjustified negative presentation inside the article, also accompanied by removing of sources. I followed a third editor 's recommendations above, not adding answers to points of critique, only hinting that opposite publications exist, but your edit bullying is trying to mute scientific reply 100%, also introducing wikieditor POV expressions. This is unacceptable.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Objecting to the omission of qualifying language, to the effect of making a statement seem much stronger than is actually the case, is hardly "edit bullying". Use of such a term is unhelpful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course you object, but that is your attitude and we do not see any arguments. You are muting two sources to present the opinion you support as the truth. Are you writing in Wikipedia?--77.69.80.202 (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So is it your position that sources may be misquoted as a proper corrective to what you deem to be "muting" of sources? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Twisting is all you do here, once again, and cutting off one side. Either you accept both quotes hidden inside references or both inline. Just pick an option.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is your cutting out the important qualifiers "seems" and "the numbers are too small for any meaningful statistics" from Uyeda's statement. Which you conceded was mis-representation, but your argument since seems to be sources may be misquoted. Is that your position? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You are a liar. Searching for "These results seem to" here proves it. And not only that you lie, but you also remove accompanying citations on that excuse. You are not excused at all and you know well what the next step will be here for you, dont't you? Wikipedia has rules.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Uyeda's "decisively rule out" comment was added with your "balancing the critique silently" edit of 20:45 9 June. Comparison with the source (here) clearly shows the prefatory "These results seem to" that you left out. Or was someone else editing from your computer that evening? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Item c: The "showed considered only one case ...." change

As you just mentioned it, lets consider your "removing POV" edit of 19:36 (and subsequent restorations), where you made this change: "A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed considered only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters." The source (Geller 1997, p. 436) clearly considered all fourteen cases (see Table 1), and the exact quote of their conclusion is: "The critical reexamination shows that there was only one ‘successful’ prediction....". To invert the meaning from "only one success" to "only one case considered" is a flagarant misstatement of the source that amounts to dishonesty.

• If it is unacceptable to merge the two opposite views in one, then we present both. Lack of honest really is to use "showed" here while there is a contrary newer publication, which you mute; "((Harvnb||Hamada|1993)), from twelve such telegrams issued for earthquakes with expected magnitude larger than 5.3, ten were successful and two were not".

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely unacceptable to invert the meaning of the passage cited from "only one case showed success" to "only one case was considered". It is an egregious misrepresentation of the source that cannot condoned as a balancing of viewpoints. It is a deliberate and knowing falsehood. If this has to be explained to you then you really should not be a Wikipedia editor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The unacceptable here is to present your POV as the truth. There is strong scientific objection, here, which you mute, either by claiming the source meaning is altered or by removing the newest publication proving the opposite. Please pick an option, we have to balance here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears you really do not understand: misstating a source is not justified, not on any basis. As you would mis-state a source in your mission to "balance" any criticism of VAN I question your suitability for editing an encyclopedia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You omit "We make a critical reexamination of VANs claims..." before "The critical reexamination shows..." You have two options, if you really think the edit as "misstating a source". Either provide it under the proper wording frame ("Geller claimed to have shown"), or accept the opposite opinion added as well to balance.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Shown" is back under proper wording frame and proper citation.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be a slight improvement, but in mixing it in with the rest of your objected edits it is going to share their fate; I will yet again revert the whole mess. In passing I will note that your last edit summary ("All addressed according to talk page, one by one.") is not actually accurate. While you may feel that your comments here addressed these points, that does not (as I have said before) give you license to proceed. These objections have not been resolved, which requires consensus. And as also previously noted, if you and I cannot reach such resolution it will be up to other editors to make a determination. (There are sections I would re-write, but you keep taking up the time I would have spent on that.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You admit this is acceptable solution but you rollback because this is a sister edit to others you did not like!!! What are you doing in Wikipedia????--77.69.80.202 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I roll back the whole hog because you keep putting that in with the objectionable edits, and I don't feel like fine-tuning your hacks. However, as you seem unable to grasp the basic idea here I have removed the line you were tagging. It has been replaced with a fully cited revision in the predictions section. If you have any objections to that please start another sub-thread, as this has gotten off-topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course any cited additions you add will remain, only twisting will be corrected. But you also have to accept our policy here and stop muting cited content in order to push your POV.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary of yesterday's massive, hetereogenous edit was "according to talk page", but it is most certainly NOT according to any of the discussion here. It is because you are so tendentious that I am unwilling to pick through and save any acceptable edits. Any edits likely to be acceptable you should do first, before the crap. And note that the status of all these edits is still questioned, not resolved, so you are out of step putting them back in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Massive shall be the punishment you are going to get from the administrators for the wording you use for bullying, and for all your lies, your unjustifiable edits, your twisting, your POV, your removing of cited content.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I will more fully specify the other objections as these are resolved and I have time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

At all unjustified edits by JJ

• removal of current review on earthquake prediction, overall accepted by the scientific community, from the article introduction

Bullshit. Uyeda et al. 2009 (did you read any of it beyond the abstract?) is hardly an overall view of the state of prediction, it's rather one faction's complaint that their views on "seismo-electromagnetics" are not being taken into account by the broader community. In their abstract they admit that "there are well-founded causes to be skeptical", and that: "One reason for skepticism is that the observations of precursors have not yet been perfect enough[!!]and another is that some important fundamental aspects of non-seismic precursors are still unresolved." (Oh, yes.) In short, it appears they are reviewing not any accomplishments, but "some of the problems." -JJ

Your point of view. I will not go into details if not asked by someone truly interested in what really the article is about, your POV is obvious by your twisting. It seems you have access to publications, just count positive and negative rerefencing to the article. Next answer will be just numbers.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I submit that my "POV" is more in accord with the plain words and meaning of the abstract of that paper than yours. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Although you have read the introduction and the conclusion, eh? I am sure there are more people reading here with access inside the article.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the abstract, which seems to be more than you have read. Indeed, it seems you have not read (or just not understood?) the title: "Short-term earthquake prediction: Current status of seismo-electromagnetics". Anyone that wants to read the abstract and decide for themselves can find it here.

But before you get too carried away trying burnish Uyeda's article, I will point out there has been a more recent review of short-term arthquake prediction efforts overall: the 2011 report of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection. Which says of VAN: "subsequent testing has failed to validate the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by the authors". Unlike Uyeda et al., the ICEF report is a review of short-term prediction overall, is "overall accepted by the scientific community", and is more recent. So it trumps your small card – eh? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing it with one 1992 and two 1996 sources, this updated review speaks only for SES signals inside the "electromagnetic signals" section, omitting VAN method's extent with natural time. My opinion is they are confused by natural time, but it is a more recent review and it is to be respected. Inside we find this: "...and (b) the detection of changes in the Earth’s electric field, such as the VAN method [277]. The latter has been very controversial, however [278]." and I only see the negative point of view in our article.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Your particular objection here was about "removal of current review on earthquake prediction, overall accepted by the scientific community". I have quoted the abstract of that article (Uyeda et al., 2009) to show that article is not current, does not present views "overall accepted by the scientific community", and is not even so much a review of "earthquake prediction" as of the problems faced in seismo-electromagnetics. In brief, the article you cite is not what you describe. As to the ICEF 2011 report, it appears you object because of its assessment of VAN. This committee of internationally respected experts called it as they see it, and your objection demonstrates your bias. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot be serious on this. Your "current 2011 review" is cited with ancient sources ONLY; [151] Geller [1996], Lighthill [1996], Mulargia and Gasperini [1992]. Papadopoulos, who is the writer about VAN, forgets the debate he had answering Eos, Vol. 89, No. 39, 23 September 2008, The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece, where the largest earthquake in Greece during the latest 35 years was predicted and announced in one of the most respected newspaper, 4 days before it happened. It is to laugh about when Papadopoulos stated that he did not take the forecast into account as it was not sent to himself, and this of course has been also answered in the same publication of EOS (VOLUME 91 NUMBER 18 4 MAY 2010). Papadopoulos omits natural time when referring to VAN method inside your "current review" and cites back to 1997, recognizing VAN method as only the examination of SES signals. No more to say, the current review in electromagnetics has been put inside the article and you mute it. Of course it will be restored.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And your repeated insertion of disputed text constitutes edit-warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen that nerve before anywhere in Wikipedia, all my years here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

All your years? Your earliest edit as "77.69.80.202" is 12:25, 5 June 2016, not even a month ago. If you have edited from other addresses, or have other history here, you should disclose that to avoid any taint of sock puppetry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• removing need for citation on public in: "Lack of success in a percent of the predictions in the 1980s issued by telegram warnings, generated intense public((citation needed)) criticism due to false alarms.((nonspecific}}". Public is very strong to use and unjustifiable.

I have already told you: if you want to tag "public", fine, but don't mix it in with all the questionable edits. -JJ

Either tagged or deleted, somehow public shows up again, all clean.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• bringing back the wikieditor's POV expression "...not only fail to do better than chance, but..."

More bullshit. That is a fair rendering of what the source said. -JJ

Please respect Wikipedia and render differently, respecting the reader and the published scientific replies (in short respecting Wikipedia itself).--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• removal of "The current status of electromagnetics on earthquake prediction refers to VAN method as yet promising.(ref)((Harvnb|Uyeda|Nagao|Kamogawa|2009)), "As far as we have critically examined, VAN predictions are convincing", "Fig.4 shows the score of VAN predictions for the period 1985-2003. The public impact of VAN's predictions has been large because lives have actually been saved at some disastrous earthquakes", "In the present authors' view, VAN has well survived the test of time"(/ref)

--77.69.80.202 (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

VAN has been "promising" since 1981. The "public impact" appears to be mainly of controversy, with zero evidence that VAN has saved any lives. Remember that this is from Uyeda, the guy who thinks "VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please answer to the publication with a publication, and not in a Wikipedia article talk page.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Varotsos et al. (1988), "Official earthquake prediction procedure in Greece": "Since Jan. 19, 1983, .... The real-time observation of specific pre-seismic variations in the electric field of the earth (seismic electric signals, SES) allows us to predict the time, epicenter and magnitude of an impending earthquake (EQ)." Was that not "promising"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you do not like the wording that has been used to keep the tone low inside the article, and you prefer "VAN has well survived the test of time", cited and quoted.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Well, perhaps you prefer the explicit wording of Uyeda's 1998 article: VAN method of short-term earthquake prediction shows promise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I prefer balance.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Balance? It is a plain point of fact. You referred to the VAN method as "yet promsing", and I am saying that VAN has been promising (you can take that as both adjective and verb) for a long time. The "promise" is no longer new, and can be fairly described as stalled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "promising" was a lite expression to make you feel safe. The latest published expression used is "very controversial".--77.69.80.202 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would agree "promising" is out? And that VAN is (as it always has been) "very controversial"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is very controversial. As long as politicians cannot handle earthquake prediction, my guess is this will stay like this.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That VAN is controversial has nothing to do with politicians, and everything to do with VAN continuing to push a line that fails scientific scrutiny. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Item d: removal of "natural time" material as being fringe

I have removed mention of Varotsos' "natural time" idea as being fringe. A Google Scholar search indicates that the majority of papers mentioning this concept are from the small group of proponents, and that it has received no recognition in mainstream science. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"natural time analysis", quoted, in google scholar, brings back 273 results, which means scientists are using the method in Physics generally, not only seismology. Please go publish out there that it does not give any results. But seismologists do not know Physics, do they?--77.69.80.202 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As I just said (do you even read any of this?): "the majority of papers mentioning this concept are from the small group of proponents". (That is, Sarlis, Skordas, and Varotsos.) Searching for ["natural time" earthquakes] at the general science journals Science and Nature finds no mention of "natural time" in connection with "earthquake". Likewise for the BSSA and GSA. At AGU/Eos there is Uyeda and Kamogawa's "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece", which is disputed by Papdaopoulos. At the JGR we find Uyeda's 2009 article. According to the website, this article has been cited 26 times. Which would seem to indicate some interest, until we see that 12 of these are by Sarlis, Skordas, and/or Varotsos, which suggests a high degree of incestuous circularity. Another six are by a Jyh-Woei. All of this together might support a view that "natural time" is an emergent concept. But it is not a mainstream view, neither in science generally, nor in seismology particularly.

Some seismologists think physicists don't know rocks. As you apparently are not a seismologist, I wonder: are you a physicist? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [Correlations in Complex Systems RM Yulmetyev, P Hänggi - Encyclopedia of Complexity and …, 2009 - Springer New York] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [Entropy of geoelectrical time series in the natural time domain L Telesca, A Ramirez-Rojas… - Natural Hazard and Earth …, 2011 - Copernicus] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]

You ARE NOT serious. Natural time is highly cited, google scholar index for natural time publication is 252, and the above citations are without VAN group participation. In the web of science the paper of natural time in 2002 has 193 index. Back off with your POVs, your ORIGINAL RESEARCH and your BULLYING in Wikipedia and try to publish anything as a scientist, maybe to help Geller climb higher than 67 web of science index, after 2000. Respect comes after metrics. And as ALL your edits are trying to mute natural time, the article shall be restored.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am disinclined to pick through your list of papers to see if they actually use "natural time", or cited your paper for some other reason. I stand by my previous comment that "natural time" is not not a mainstream view, neither in science generally, nor in seismology particularly. More particularly, it is "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field" (see WP:FRNG), and therefore must not be given undue weight. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You ARE NOT serious. Web of Science gives an h-index of 54 for P. Varotsos and 27 for RJ Geller. And Web of Science is not Google Scholar. We can see who is a scientist and who is not, clearly. You are not trustworthy.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You have misconstrued the matter. The issue here is not "Varotsos" versus "Geller", but whether this concept of "natural time" meets the WP criterion of being "broadly supported in its field". For all the articles you link to, 1) they don't seem generally seismological (or even geological), and 2) I vaguely recall seeing as many citations in support of cold fusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• We need to see and compare, a number alone does not say anything. Varotsos is a highly respected scientist and this is obvious by the compare. Fringe is in your mind. Reverting back.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Natural time analysis applies generally in critical systems, not only earthquakes.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed: this article is not about critical systems. And it would be more accurate to say, "... not even earthquakes." If any seismologists are using "natural time analysis" they are doing a pretty good job of hiding it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed: Earthquake prediction is all about critical systems and I am afraid you have been abusing the whole article. Losing as a scientist and trying to grab on Wikipedia is bad for Wikipedia.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

For what it may be worth, User:Hlektron77 – whose sole contributions to the English Wikpedia to date has been to twice restore the large block of edits questioned here – has opened WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Earthquake prediction - Van method. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

POV issues overall

77.69.80.202's edit of 2 July (summary: "there is an ongoing discussion in administrators noticeboard about pushing POV. Do not add onesided and POV & esteemed content until discussed")

a) removes cleanup, error corrections, and references not in dispute,

b) removes sourced material re criticism and public alarm,

c) restores some of the non-NPOV ("VAN balancing") material in dispute, and

d) adds additional non-neutral material, including the seismologically non-notable "natural time analysis" concept.

That edit summary is incorrect, as there is no substantive discussion at the noticeboard. As the edit itself demonstrates the continuing pattern of repeatedly adding disputed material, and removing undisputed material, on the sole criterion of whether it favors or disfavors VAN, I am once again reverting that overly broad and unsupported edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC re neutrality/POV issues

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.

---

A request is hereby made for other editors to examine various points in dispute in the discussion above where two editors are deadlocked, and then determine, for each point, which view is persuasive, or whether additional argument is needed for resolution. Note that for #Item d: removal of "natural time" material as being fringe the precise issue is of notability.

(I caution any casual or fly-by commentators that some of these points involve scientific issues for which proper consideration requires examination of external sources; time spent on examination and consideration will enhance the quality of your comments.)

Background: The discussion above concerns a series of edits being repeatedly made in two sections (Earthquake_prediction#Electromagnetic_variations and Earthquake_prediction#1987–1995: Greece (VAN)) that touch upon the group (and work) known as "VAN". (And related to similar edits at VAN method.) These questioned edits are entirely from anonymous IP addresses that geolocate to Athens, Greece: first from 195.134.89.153 (and specifically from the University of Athens, home of VAN) and 77.69.86.91, then (since 5 June) from 77.69.80.202. In general, I dispute these edits on the basis of neutrality, weight, and possible conflict of interest, while 77.69.80.202 complains that the existing text (as well as added text) was negative, "POV-pushing", and "muting" of support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: comments on 16 July from a new IP address, 78.87.180.94, which in this edit at 14:43 and one following implicitly admits to being the "IP*202" editor previously from 77.69.80.202. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Item a: Is Uyeda truly independent?

• Comment Item a I see no evidence that Uyeda is financially or organizationally tied to the VAN group, accordingly he should be viewed as an independent although enthusiastic supporter. JerryRussell (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never said that Uyeda had a financial interest with VAN, but that is not the sole basis of a confict of interest. Note WP:COI's nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." (Emphasis added.) Also (at WP:EXTERNALREL): "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, or legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." Note: academic. I submit that Uyeda – having written papers with Varotsos, being VAN's main proponent in Japan, and being the author of the chapter that introduces VAN in the Lighthill volume – has a close academic/intellectual relationship with VAN. His reported comments that "Varotsos should be given a Nobel prize because ... VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes..."" shows adulation, not what most observers would consider a neutral, dispassionate assessment. He is demonstrably a VAN proponent (not simply someone who agrees with them), and therefore it is misrepresentation to describe him as independent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In A Critical Review of VAN Uyeda states at page 18 that:

It seems therefore only natural that the criteria were so designed that reasonable success rates would result. ... In the present author's understanding, VAN considers that double prediction, 10-20 or so km of epicentral deviation from 100 km limit, a few days of deviation in origin time – namely, not strictly box-type criteria – , for instance, or are permissible. Negation of such common sense judgments would contribute to give rise to lower success rates.

I think that in itself blows away any trace of credibility he (and VAN) might have had, as a clear demonstration of adjusting parameters to get a desired result. I haven't used it in the article lest I be accused of inserting my interpretation ("POV"), but it does seem pretty blatantly unscientific. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello J. Johnson, your point is undeniable that Uyeda is a proponent of VAN. As such, he is certainly a "Biased or Opinionated Source" as defined at WP:RS.

True that an academic relationship can create a conflict of interest, but the COI guideline goes on to say "how close the relationship needs to be... is governed by common sense." The examples given are pretty close relationships, and they don't give any academic examples. But in the spirit of the examples they do give, I imagine some examples would be collaborating on a grant, or student-teacher. As far as we know, Uyeda doesn't have any relationship like that. The guideline says "an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager". But it doesn't say the article can't be written by a dedicated fan.

As to whether COI is the same thing as "dependency", the guideline on independent sources says:

"an independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and he may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author has "no stake in the game" (gains no personal benefit from these children learning how to read), then the publication can be considered an independent source on the topic."

By this criteria: a "stake in the game" or "personal benefit", it's not obvious to me that Uyeda has that. It seems more like, from an independent and disinterested basis, he has formed a strong opinion. If all it takes to destroy "independence" or to form a "COI" is to express an opinion or co-author a paper, "independence" seems to be a very fragile construct; it's almost hard to imagine how anyone doing much work in a given field could main "independence". Teams and coalitions always form in any academic field. At what point does the relationship become close enough to destroy independence?

Finally, WP:RS says that biased sources may be used, provided they meet the usual criteria for RS, and that in-text attribution should be used. Independent sources are required to establish notability, but I don't think that's an issue here. So I'm not even sure why it matters, whether Uyeda is independent or not.

This might be a reasonable place to comment on whether the Greek editors are independent, for purposes of evaluating consensus. It's certainly possible they're all from the same department, or they all work for VAN, or have been recruited, any of which would create a COI. But on the other hand, there's no proof of that. Is it sufficient to create a COI, that they are all from Greece and have taken an interest in VAN? If VAN is believed to have successfully predicted a major Greek earthquake, that alone might have generated significant local interest. Is that all it takes to create a COI? I hope not...

I'm not meaning to go all wiki-lawyer on you, or bring out the bludgeon. I'm relatively new here, and I don't necessarily know how all these policies play out in practice. Maybe the closing admin will comment on this? Or, if there's a strong consensus against me and the Greek editors, then it probably means we're misconstruing the policy. JerryRussell (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again @J. Johnson:, I was curious about this "greatest thing since Archimedes" quote, to the point that I went to read Chouliaras & Stavrakas 1999. Aside from the adulatory quote, they also state that Uyeda was a "co-worker" of Varotsos, which certainly could imply a closer relationship that "academic collaboration". What's more important, it describes false statements on the part of the VAN group, as well as putting sensitive antennas near transmitters and industrial equipment, and it documents the claim that VAN caused a general public panic when one of their predictions was released. Is this the general tone of the controversy over VAN from the 1980's until now? And yet, VAN admits no wrongdoing, and goes right on getting their materials accepted in good journals. If this were a court of law, I would have to call all the witnesses to find out what's really going on. Wow, just wow, I don't know what to say. JerryRussell (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) revised JerryRussell (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the time and effort you have spent on this. I think you'll agree it is an intriguing topic.

Note that I do not maintain (because I think it is not maintainable!) that academic relations in all cases, or even co-authorship, necessarily imply a conflict of interest, nor that Uyeda should not be used. But in this case I find it quite evident: Uyeda is not independent. For VAN (or our anonymous IP here) to call him independent is a bit fraudulent in trying to make it seem that independent, neutral observers find some worth in VAN. It's akin to planting cast members in the audience to encourage cheering. If there should be any doubt that Uyeda is not a neutral assessor, see the quote I've added above where he accepts loading the results.

As to the "public alarm" and "general tone": oh, yes. A Greek friend of mine says it's been a big public issue over the years. Note that one of the sections of text the IP here keeps removing is the heavily cited note following "criticized on several occasions for causing public panic and widespread unrest." I'll add more about their public announcements, and their claim of saving lives, in few days. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

JJ lies, accusing me of keep removing the heavily cited criticism, with no diffs. About Uyeda there is no more to say, there is no case.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

wide-ranging, possibly off-topic threaded discussion hidden

Hello @J. Johnson:, I have been continuing to read some of these sources, doing my best to assume good intentions on the part of the VAN researchers. This is not easy in light of the criticisms that their prediction telegrams were sent only to colleagues and that many of these telegrams were simply discarded. Furthermore, we have Mulargia & Gasperini 1992 claiming that some telegrams appear to have been post-dated, and we have Uyeda himself asking for flexible or fuzzy evaluation criteria, as you pointed out. Is there any honorable explanation for this? The early papers said that the SES signals preceded the quakes by six to 120 hours. Perhaps there was much greater variability than they acknowledged at first. The newer papers are saying that the SES signal precedes the quake by anywhere up to 2 months, and now they are relying on their additional "natural time" analysis of seismicity to derive better predictions. So it is based on the old technology, but not really the same at all. In the broader community, I can see that VAN have a credibility problem. But they continue to be able to publish in RS peer reviewed journals. I wonder if they have cleaned up their act as far as sending their predictions in a verifiable manner, and whether there have been any independent evaluations of their newer predictions since they've invented this "natural time" technique? JerryRussell (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) In answer to my own question, here is a letter (Papadapoulos 2010, EOS 91:18) stating that VAN's alleged prediction of an earthquake of Feb 14, 2008 was not justified. It seems that the Greek government set up an independent institution for the specific purpose of evaluating earthquake predictions, but rather than submitting their predictions to this agency, VAN are continuing to issue vague predictions to the popular press. They also publish SES observations to Arxiv, but without any clear statements of the anticipated location, magnitude or timing of the earthquake. Papadapoulos repeats the claim that VAN are causing "negative social consequences". JerryRussell (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Back again. This book [139] contains a chapter by Papadapoulos, indicating that he is himself in charge of the 'Greek government independent institution' tasked with evaluating the VAN predictions. So Papadapoulos also has skin in the game, which might be considered COI. This makes the controversy feel more like a long-running academic rivalry. Varotsos and his team apparently feel that the SES signals are well-enough correlated to earthquakes to be worth reporting, and so they want to go straight to the press rather than trust the government to convey the information; while Papadapoulos wants crisp, hard-edged predictions and puts a priority on avoiding false alarms. EOS prints both the VAN claims and Papadapoulos rebuttals on an equal footing. I also took a look at Varotsos' web page [140] which names more publications by research groups which might be more fully independent than Uyeda. I'm not feeling confident at this point, to dismiss VAN claims as fraudulent pseudoscience. A variety of authors seem to agree that there is some sort of correlation between SES and earthquakes. Wretched excesses such as apparently post-dated predictions could be the result of correlations to pre-tremors, or even actions of over-zealous graduate students. Relevant wp:wikivoice policies are "avoid stating facts as opinions" and "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." In this case, the latter seems more appropriate, although I still believe that the dominant view in the field is closer to Papadapoulos, Geller, Jordan, ICEF etc. What do you think, @J. Johnson:? Does this seem reasonable, or have I drunk too much of VAN's Kool Aide? JerryRussell (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Those are good questions, but more of a general nature; I fear we have wandered off-topic in regard of whether Uyeda can be represented as "independent". (This kind of discussion would be more appropriate on either your or my Talk page.) To your particular question, I would say VAN is not so much pseudoscience as pathological science. See http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/PHYS_TODAY_1998.pdf. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Hi JJ, I have the impression that the designation of VAN as WP:FRINGE aka WP:PSCI might be interacting with some of these other questions, and that we would not scrutinize Uyeda's collaboration so closely if it were not for that issue. I agree, though, that I've given the RfC closer too much material to read. I'm confused about whether it belongs on your talk page, or my talk page, or somewhere else on this talk page? I hope you feel it's content related? At any rate, I'd be happy to cut and paste or self-revert per your recommendation, for a clean presentation. JerryRussell (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Perhaps move everything from your outdent down to here over to your talk page, leaving a note here that off-topic discussion was moved. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion to be continued on my talk page User talk:JerryRussell ... JerryRussell (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Item b: Uyeda's "decisively rule out ... comment

• Comment Item b and c, it seems everyone agrees what the sources said, and 195.134.89.153 was probably responsible for the initial misquotes. 77.69.80.202 seems justified in the view that citations by Uyeda and Hamada supporting VAN should also be represented for NPOV. JerryRussell (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. IP*202 was citing Uyeda to get in a statement that statistical analysis of the VAN predictions is "decisively" not needed. Which is absurd in itself (pretty much ALL seismological authorities recognize the need for statistical analysis). But to make it worse IP*202 left out two important qualifying statements: the "seems" (which he agreed was misrepresentation), and the statement that there is too little data to be statistically significant.

That the questioned edit was initially made by IP 195.134.89.153 is beside the point, as IP*202 took responsibility for that edit when he restored it (here). While he did eventually allow the "seems", "decisive" is still contrary to the mainstream view. And the objection is still valid in showing that all of the questioned edits show a pattern of pushing a biased and non-neutral POV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I may still be confused. The exact quote from Uyeda is "These results seem to decisively rule out the necessity of any statistical discussion in evaluating the validity of the precursory nature of SES." Uyeda's reasoning seems to be that the method was claimed to be 75% successful for quakes >5.5, and 100% successful for quakes > 6, but that the total number of such quakes was only five. And, Uyeda's claim is that this N is too small for meaningful statistical analysis.

So what are we voting on? I agree that IP*202 should have included the reasoning that N is too small. But with that proviso, I would be OK with including this information. Again it seems this interacts with the question of whether VAN is WP:PSCI; if it is, we would be justified with omitting items such as this as undue weight. JerryRussell (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The notion of statistical significance is very interesting (and well defined) when N is small. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Uyeda's opinion is incorrect, see G-test. Also, VAN's critics claim that the actual number of successful predictions is zero. JerryRussell (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason for this RfC is, in brief, to resolve whether a recent series of edits violates WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly WP:COI. This item is one instance of these alleged violations, and it can be resolved very simply: was leaving out the "seems to", and any mention of the statistical insignificance, a deliberate mis-representation of the source in favor of VAN, and thus part of a pattern of biased editing?

We could go deep into whether Uyeda's comment is important enough that it should be included. But in my considered judgement it has no worth, and IP*202 has not shown how it is required for "balance" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

However, there is no need for any such judgment [re "independence"] to be stated in Wiki voice. With respect to the IP editor's original formulation:

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" and that "with a confidence level larger than 95% it is rejected that these predictions can be ascribed to chance".[121]

I suggest that this could be reworded as follows:

Uyeda, accepting VAN claims to have predicted 5 of 6 earthquakes of magnitude >5.5 during the study period, stated that such results "seem to decisively rule out the necessity of any statistical discussion in evaluating the validity of the precursory nature of SES." [ref] Hamada also accepted VAN claims, stating that "with a confidence level larger than 95% it is rejected that these predictions can be ascribed to chance.[ref] 

JerryRussell (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hamada actually claimed a confidence level of 99.8%, which should immediately raise an eyebrow. As Geller (1996a) says, Hamada's number is premised on six (alternately, ten) of twelve predictions being successful. But, as shown by Mulargia and Gasperini (1996a), the premise is false, and his finding has no signifcance except that Varotsos relies on it. (Coincidentally, the 3 June issue of Science has an interesting article on such misuse of p-values.) However, please keep in that the issue here is not how to present Uyeda's statment, or even if it should be included. The issue here is whether the edit, in misrepresenting the source, and especially in light of IP*202's comments above, is part of a non-neutral pattern of edits. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Thank you for moving my comment about appropriate wording for the Uyeda & Hamada quotes into this section. I agree that this section is where it belongs.

Isn't the purpose of an RfC to resolve content issues? I would be happy to discuss conduct issues about the Greek editors ("a non-neutral pattern of edits") at my talk page.JerryRussell (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, edit-warring would be a conduct issue, but the underlying issue is whether the content the edits add or delete are non-neutral. Although IP*202 hasn't really made a case for it, he has opined that the existing text was non-neutral, in which case he is making necessary and warranted corrections. My objection applies to the totality of the "anonymous Greek IP" edits, as shown in these specific examples. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If the question is just "was leaving out the 'seems to', and any mention of the statistical insignificance, a deliberate mis-representation of the source in favor of VAN, and thus part of a pattern of biased editing?", I'd have to say yes, based on the discussion of the same name above. --tronvillain (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

JJ lies once again. The whole sentence, including "seem", has been restored by my improving edits, long ago.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered actually registering, so that one could more easily look back at your future edits? Telling the difference between edits identified only by strings of numbers is problematic.

Having nothing substantive to add to the discussion, perhaps IP*202 could amuse us further by lining out exactly how my single word "exactly" is a lie. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Item c: The "showed considered only one case ...." change

• Clarification: the edit questioned change the sense of the text from Geller "showed" only one successful result to "considered" only one successful result. See original discussion at #Item c: The "showed considered only one case ...." change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The disputed source was Geller 1997. IP.202 claimed that VAN supporters had answered Geller in Hamada 1993, which he strangely claimed was earlier than Geller. IP.202's edit to the quotation of Geller was clearly incorrect, as he immediately admitted. The disputed information now appears in the article as follows:

Nonetheless, several studies have attempted to evaluate various sets of VAN predictions using parameters ("rules of the game") used by VAN in their publications. When evaluated by definite parameters, and the background level of seismicity calculated on the same basis, the VAN predictions are found to be less successful than claimed, and no more successful than would be expected by chance.[134] One of these studies (Mulargia & Gasperini 1992) found that VAN's claimed successes could be "confidently ascribed to chance", and "show in all cases a much better association with events which occurred before them."[135]

Notes 134 and 135 are both extensive, encompassing a great deal of information. Note 134 says:

Geller (1997, §4.5) found only one successful prediction out of the 14 cases where Varotsos et al. (1996a) claimed 10 successes; with slightly expanded parameters Mulargia & Gasperini (1992, p. 36) found only two successes. See also Kagan 1996 and Drakopoulos, Stavrakakis & Latoussakis 1993. Mulargia & Gasperini (1996a, p. 1325) show only four successes in 12 predictions where Hamada (1996, p. 508) counted ten as correct.

Note 135 says:

Reaffirmed in Mulargia & Gasperini 1996a, p. 1325 and Mulargia & Gasperini 1996b, p. 1330 ("predictions follow rather than precede earthquakes"). As refutation of this Varotsos et al. (1996a) argue that four other independent groups (Hamada 1993, Shnirman, Schreider & Dmitrieva 1993, Nishizawa et al. 1993, and Uyeda 1991 [in Japanese]) evaluated their data and found correlation, and particularly Hamada's claim of a 99.8% confidence level. Geller (1996a, p. 214) finds that this "was based on the premise that 6 out of 12 telegrams" were in fact successful predictions, which is questioned. Kagan (1996, p. 1315) finds that in Shnirman et al. "several variables ... have been modified to acheive the result."

As a reader, I find this a confusing situation when so much complexity is buried in the footnote. Furthermore, the body text is not, strictly speaking, an accurate summary of the ongoing dispute hidden in the footnote. Taken together, the text and footnotes seem to indicate that Wiki voice has evaluated that Mulargia, Gasperini, Geller & Kagan are correct and that Varotsos and Hamada are wrong.

I believe that this controversy shows, once again, that the real issue is whether VAN should be treated in accordance with WP:PSCI policy. If so, it would be entirely justified for the body text to speak clearly in Wiki voice, and come right out and say something like "The scientific consensus is that VAN is pathological science".

My opinion is that the RS voices in support of VAN have been consistent persistent and diversified enough that we as Wiki editors are in no position to reach that conclusion. Whereas, JJ has clearly expressed the opposite opinion, that VAN is and always has been fraudulent and delusional pathological science. So I think this is the fundamental issue in this RfC, and this is the issue that commenting editors should speak to. JerryRussell (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, please don't overstate my position. Particularly, I have not asserted that "VAN is and always has been fraudulent and delusional." (It may well be, but I don't say that, neither for myself, nor for WP.) Nor do I consider VAN to be pseudoscience (as I just mentioned on your talk page). And while VAN as been called "pathological science", I don't think we can say that is the scientific consensus.

I don't know quite what you mean by the VAN supporters being "consistent and diversified enough". But the particular issue raised here, where IP*202 and I came to an impasse, is whether the edit making the "showed considered" change was a misstatement of the source.

As a side note re the complexity in the note: that is what is footnotes are for. Note that my original version summarized all of the material shown here in two sentences of text, with minimal citations. I expanded this to show the basis of that summarization because because it was questioned. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:, thank you so much for clarifying your position, I apologize for overstating it. By saying that VAN supporters are diversified, I mean that they come from a variety of academic institutions. I don't see them as some monolithic COI-driven entity. When I said "consistent" perhaps I should have said "persistent", that from the 1980's until now they have not deviated from their position that the SES signals are valuable for predicting earthquakes.

I agree that IP*202's "showed considered" was biased, improper and misleading. I have commented on the conduct issues at my talk page. After this RfC is finished, I may try my hand with a few edits to the article, and I'm feeling hopeful that you'll like what I come up with. JerryRussell (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There are points I would appreciate discussing with someone willing to get into the material, so I look forward to working with you. As to the "monolithic COI-driven entity": no, I don't see that either. At least, not quite monolithic, and not exactly "COI-driven", but this is perhaps more relevant to the question of Uyeda's "independence". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Making a change like "A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed considered only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters." seems like a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the source in favour of VAN. Perhaps (as implied in the above discussion of the same name) they were attempting to combine two opposing viewpoints, but that seems less likely, and misleading in any case. --tronvillain (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

They may have thought that is what they were doing, but across all fields of writing you simply do not misrepresent what others have said or done. I am not aware of any basis by which that can be condoned. Their persistence on the point suggests either knowing and deliberate bad-faith, or a fundamental lack of competence. Or both. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --tronvillain (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

JJ forgets my improvement: "A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes, claimed to have shown only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters".--77.69.80.202 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that qualifies as an "improvement", with the successive uses of "claimed." --tronvillain (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: At all unjustified edits by JJ

• removal of current review on earthquake prediction:

• removing need for citation on public,...:

• bringing back the wikieditor's POV expression:

• removal of "The current status..." [of VAN as] promising:

Comment unjustified edits, I agree with JJ that mentioning Uyeda in the lede would be undue weight. Agree with 77.69.80.202, allegation of widespread public criticism needs to be supported by citation, or else deleted. Agree with 77.69.80.202, "...not only fail to do better than chance, but..." is POV based on JJ's view that Geller represents scientific consensus and that Uyeda and Hamada may be disregarded as fringe. JerryRussell (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The specific issue here is the statement by Uyeda et al. (2009) that the current status of VAN is promising. As I have said above, VAN has been "promising" (as both adjective and verb) for over twenty years (getting on to thirty), and a fair read of the literature is that VAN is now less promising than ever before. On this point Geller is as representative as anyone else. (Well, perhaps Tom Jordan has an edge, but I also cite the ICEF report.) For a broader view, check the sources in the new text on VAN's statistical significance. Uyeda, of course, is not reliable, per the discussion above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:, I'm not sure what you mean by the "the sources in the new text on VAN's statistical significance." Is there anything addressing statistical significance for their work after discovery of the 'natural time' technology, ~2002? It's clear that the pre-1996 work is highly problematic, Uyeda more or less admits as much with his plea for fuzzy evaluation criteria.

I still would like to have the opportunity to read the entire paper Uyeda 2009. The IP editors haven't been here for awhile, I hope they aren't hiding from sockpuppet investigations. JerryRussell (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The "new text" I referred to was yesterday's addition to the article. See note 134 (assuming what I'm about to add doesn't throw the numbering off). Whatever "natural time" does for their predictions (and I doubt it does much), it does not change the applicability of all prior criticism. Which runs forward as well, as it does not appear that they have addressed any of the problems that have been exposed. As to whether VAN "currently" – either in 2009, or now – shows any promise: nope. As Varotsos seems to have retired I am wondering if they will even be any more predictions. Or ex post facto claims of predictions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

JJ forgets "promising" has been long gone by my improvements.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You previously objected (above) to my removal of the "promising" text. Do you now accept that removal?

Regardless of whether that text is "in" or "out", the relevance of that to this RfC is in demonstrating the pattern of non-neutral bias in your edits. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Item d: removal of "natural time" material as being fringe

Is the natural-time approach used by any researchers who are (1) unaffiliated with the VAN group and (2) working on issues unrelated to earthquake prediction? Just trying to get some perspective on the possible fringe nature of the natural time. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC) I perceive that if natural time is not fringe that it might be specifically tailored (through parameter tuning) for a given earthquake zone. This might be okay, so long as subsequent to the the tuning, it can actually predict earthquakes. This is always the test. Does "natural time" make it difficult to predict the time of an earthquake in, um, "normal time"? Since timescales are related to other physical properties of a system, can natural time be translated into normal time units? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Science" is a big place; I can't say that "natural time" isn't used somewhere. But as I noted above, googling for ["natural time" earthquakes] had no hits at the general science journals Science and Nature, nor (more to the point) in journals specific to this field, such as the BSSA and GSA. As such I take it to be "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". As to whether it could predict earthquakes, that would be speculative. But quite unlikely, as the phenomena to which it is being applied is quite dubious. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, science is a big place, but the IP editor might know of some examples of natural time that are made by (1) researchers unaffiliated with VAN and (2) not about earthquakes. If not, then natural time might be considered overly technical if not fringe. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If "natural time" is not notable in the field of seismology, how would notability in some other field ("not about earthquakes") justify inclusion here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Only here for RFC. I am no geologist, seismologist etc. From what I have seen in the discussion, the article, and general reading, I fail to see any merit in the indignantly intrusive VAN, natural time, etc material, nor its mode of presentation by its partisans. I most decidedly see no encyclopaedic merit, and without that, it doesn't matter whether their is any technical merit. For my part I support JJ and those who have agreed. Go for it say I, and keep the place clean. We have no reason to niggle endlessly to please the commentariat. JonRichfield (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Item d, "natural time" seems to be a mathematical abstraction, and not a claim that actual time is being distorted somehow. 77.69.80.202 provides many citations showing that this mathematical concept has been used in many peer reviewed journal articles. Whereas, JJ has provided no peer reviewed publications claiming that the concept is dismissed as pseudo-scientific by the wider community. JJ states that "the precise issue is notability" but per WP:NNC notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. It's debatable whether 'natural time' would be notable enough to qualify as an article in its own right, but as an explanatory factor within this article, I see no problem. JerryRussell (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment "Natural time" appear to literally be χ_k = k/N, for the k^th event of a series of N events - sort of a weighted ordering without a direct connection to conventional time. Is it fringe? Hard to say.Almost everything I can find about it in other fields seems to be by Varotsos, Sarlis, or Uyeda. It seems odd that it hasn't been embraced more widely if it actually produces the results that the VAN group seems to claim, but I don't see why it and the claims shouldn't at least be mentioned in the VAN section (though there's already the "Further information: VAN method.") --tronvillain (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

While it might be mentioned at VAN method as their latest convolution, it was not used for any of the predictions covered here. Any mention here would be undue promotion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. --tronvillain (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Having waded through many Google Scholar results for "Natural time", the best that can be said is that this approach has gained a little traction outside the earthquake prediction field, but only a little. In the earthquake prediction field, then most of the results are by the VAN group or people that have published with them at one time or another, so again only a little traction within "mainstream" seismology. I feel that we're a little early in the history of the approach to be sure about anything, let alone making much of it in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I fully share the aforementioned opinion by tronvillain that result by VAN group concerning natural time should at least be mentioned in the VAN section (though there' s already the "Further information: VAN method"). This is also supported by JerryRussel at 20:14 on 4 July 2016 concerning natural time who writes that that is "an explanatory factor within this article, I see no problem". As for the subsequent JJ statement concerning natural time analysis at 23:13, 8 July 2016 that "While it might be mentioned at VAN method as their latest convolution, it was not used for any of the predictions covered here", this does not stand at all in view of the following documented fact: In one of my previous improvements I have added a portion explaining that after 2001 natural time analysis is used in all VAN predictions. As an example I explained how this was applied to the strongest earthquake (of magnitude Mw 6.9) that occurred in Greece the last 3 decades or so, by explaining that this prediction -and public announcement 4 days in advance- was achieved by using natural time analysis. This earthquake occurred on 14 February 2008 in southwestern Greece as discussed in an extensive article in [EOS by Uyeda and Kamogawa. Unfortunately, this addition of mine was DELETED by J. Johnson and now he claims concerning natural time analysis that "While it might be mentioned at VAN method as their latest convolution, it was not used for any of the predictions covered here", which is obviously untrue. Thus, it seems that there exists now a consensus among a number of participants in this discussion that my former addition should be restored.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not convinced that it should be in the VAN section, since it's not clear that the "natural time analysis" is actually relevant to notable predictions. It might be worth mentioning at the end of the electromagnitic variations section. --tronvillain (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Natural time is not electromagnetics, but a method analyzing a developing critical system. VAN analyses seismological data with natural time tool. And they have used it to successfully predict the largest earthquake in Greece for the last 35 years, which is quite notable.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, then there should be another entry (4.8) at the end of the "notable predictions" section and possibly another "trends" or "prediction methods" entry, not an expansion of the 1986-1995 VAN entry. Assuming, that is, that it's all actually supported rather than being fringe. --tronvillain (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, the claim of a successful prediction is not supported. While IP*202 and Lazaridou (whom he cites) make a big deal of the Eos article, neither mentions Papadopoulos' rather scathing comment (here), which concludes: "None of the claims for successful VAN predictions is justified.". There is no indication that mainstream seismology accepts the 2008 Patras/Pirgos earthquake as successfully predicted. It is therefore as fringe as "natural time". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

IP202 claims a "consensus" to mention 'natural time', but what I see is an ongoing discussion. I feel that a true 'consensus' is when everyone is satisfied with the article contents. All too often at Wiki, what I've seen is not real 'consensus', but either a process that goes on until everyone is exhausted, or attempts to exclude some participants from the consenting group based on conduct issues. I think it would be great to reach true agreement. Regarding the 2008 earthquake, my first impression on reading the EOS articles was that I would need to put together a jury and call all the witnesses, before I could be sure what went on. But inasmuch as the prediction was reportedly discussed in the Greek media, I don't see why it's less notable than other predictions mentioned in the article here. JerryRussell (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

One cannot claim "consensus with everyone satisfied" as long as there are editors who are repeatedly abusive. On the 2008 prediction commenting, a specific editor omits that Papadopoulos is rebutted by Uyeda and Kamogawa: "We welcome the critical comments of Papadopoulos [2010]. We must point out, however, that most of them are incorrect." inside the same EOS publication. Since comments are important and we are accused of only presenting the prediction, presenting one side of the comments only (also the rebutted one) fits the definition of accusing the others for what we do. The editor not only stops at Papadopoulos conclusion, but concludes himself something never claimed by a scientific publication, that natural time is fringe (and natural time analysis publications are quite a lot). Papadopolos on the other hand claims he was not informed personally of the prediction, while it was published in one of the four most respected newspapers circulating in Greece, 4 days before the earthquake (in addition to the uploads of the prediction at Cornell University space). This is the level of his comments and the level of some arguments in this discussion. As asking for mainstream in earthquake prediction is a product of imagination (except for natural time, applied at least in seismicity (VAN), electromagnetics (non-VAN) and ionospheric (non-VAN) towards earthquake prediction), asking for "everyone satisfied" to have consensus is utopia.--IP202-78.87.180.94 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A changing IP address (which happens if you switch locations, or your ISP dynamically allocates them) can cause confusion. If you don't want to register for a regular account you should at least use some "pen name" or such to identify yourself, to reduce any confusion as to whether comments from those addresses represent a single or multiple voices. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, was summarizing your edit as "impudent talibanism" supposed to describe what you were saying, or something else? Either way, slightly odd. --tronvillain (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just tired to be addressed as a partisan and my edits as blatant partisanship, I gave an option for variety.--IP202-78.87.180.94 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is what they are. Your notion of what is neutral suggests a "balance point" that is practically aligned with VAN. This conflicts with NPOV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As the Utopian here who is still hoping for consensus, I acknowledge that no one with strong opinions is ever really delighted with NPOV. But maybe we can recognize neutrality when we've achieved it, and be satisfied with that.

IP202, I've looked at the articles in Arxiv, and I see that the SES measurements were reported, but I did not see any explicit predictions about the location, amplitude, or timing of the quakes. Papadopoulos claims that the prediction in Ethnos was similarly vague, although neither side presents a complete translation of the Ethnos article. And with a series of shocks and aftershocks taking place, any random anticipation of more earthquakes (after the first) would seem to be almost a safe bet. So, IP202, can you see a basis for reasonable people to be skeptical about the significance of this prediction?

Conversely, JJ, can you agree that since this prediction did appear in a major newspaper in Greece, as well as being discussed in a respected journal, it's at least notable enough to be mentioned in the article? And, I still don't understand the basis for considering 'natural time' as fringe, rather than either 'emerging science' or 'alternative formulation'. JerryRussell (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the arxiv article, I can't see anything about amplitude or timing, but they do mention that "the subsequent seismicity is studied in the area B of Fig.9 as well as in the larger area 36.0-38.6°N 20.0-22.5°E..." which was the area Uyeda mentions. In the newspaper article, they do mention the earthquake being predicted as a six on the Richter scale (it's in the headline) and that (Google translate) "The area under study includes a rectangle that covers the northern, almost half west of the Peloponnese, the Corinthian Gulf, part of Ionian Islands and an area of ​​mainland Greece", but no specific time other than "the next period" (Google translate). VAN apparently claims to be able to predict an earthquake happening a few days in advance, but you'd think they'd be capable of making a clear prediction in advance somewhere (arxiv for example) if they actually could. Still, as Jerry says, I'm not sure why the prediction shouldn't be considered notable, albeit with some qualifiers (I'm not sure Uyeda actually "rebuts" Papadopoulos).

We are sliding off-topic here. The specific question here is whether "natural time" is fringe. I believe the introduction here of the 2008 Patras/Pirgos earthquake is an argument that "natural time" is notable because it was (according to IP*202, above) "used it to successfully predict the largest earthquake in Greece for the last 35 years, which is quite notable." However, the assertions that there even was an actual prediction, let alone a successful one, are not accepted in mainstream seismology. It is not simply because Papadopoulos said "no", but because no one outside of VAN accepts the proposition that "the 2008 earthquake was successfully predicted on the basis of 'natural time'".

As Jerry has noted, the arxiv article doesn't seem to make any definite prediction regarding Pirgos. (Did you check each version?) If IP*202 can point to specific text, fine, that's a start, but this really looks like the very VAN-typical waving of hands and claiming that something has been said or proven, which dissipates like the morning mist when one looks closer.

As to whether the claim of a 2008 prediction is notable enough to be included here: no. The claim might have some notability in Greece, but I don't see that here. Even if there is some little notability, there is a matter of relativity: there are other predictions which are much more notable for this article, but were removed because of objections to length. The only reason that alleged prediction is being considered here is because of its connection to "natural time". And that is still fringe. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick check on Google Scholar reveals 45 citations of the Uyeda & Kamogawa paper about the 2008 prediction. At least one such paper http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/327/2009/nhess-9-327-2009.pdf states:

Recently Uyeda and Kamogawa (2008) reported on the success of associating the pre-seismic electric anomalies with the “natural time” analysis of the on going seismicity as a new tool in evaluating the occurrence of the impending main shock (Varotsos et al., 2008). The coincident reporting of successful forecast concerning the 8 June 2008 earth- quake by independent investigators that employed different methodologies seems to encourage further cooperative multi- disciplinary investigations for earthquake prediction research in Greece.

This paper is by G. Chouliaras of National Observatory of Athens, the same author who wrote the scathing criticism of VAN and Uyeda from back in 1999, here. So at least one critic has gone over to the dark side. I am finding many, many more abstracts that discuss the SES phenomenon. I would say interest is growing, rather than fading. And the only argument I can recall for dismissing 'natural time' as fringe, is that it hasn't been discussed in the very top journals yet. JerryRussell (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Gerasimos Chouliaras, a former critic of VAN, in recent years became a major supporter of it. He also became one of its two spokesmen, after Varotsos took a vow of silence (the other spokesman is prof. Tselentis). A few years ago I asked Houliaras on-line about the old criticism against VAN as published in Lighthill's book (basically Kagan and Geller). He just dismissed my question by saying that those opposing views have been proven wrong over time, but he did not comment on specific points. Well, c'est la vie. SV1XV (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that Chouliaras actually endorsed the notion that the 2008 "prediction" was successful. But however notable this event is made out to be, it has yet to make "natural time" notable. That is still not broadly supported by scholarship in its field (the field here being seismology), which is the criterion here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In the passage I quoted above, Chouliaras called it a "successful prediction forecast". That's about as clear an endorsement as I can imagine. In fact he mentions plural successful forecasts by independent groups; I don't know what other groups he's talking about.

The complete quote from wp:fringe is:

If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

I feel that Wiki-jargon about minority viewpoints is confusing. 'Fringe' is often interpreted as a synonym with 'pseudoscience' or 'pathological science' or 'crackpot', but really they aren't exactly the same. I think 'fringe' can include any minority viewpoint, including 'emerging' or perhaps 'deprecated'. VAN method in general is certainly a 'minority' view, neglected by the vast majority of seismologists, explicitly rejected and vehemently criticized by some. My impression is that 'natural time' is, if anything, more widely accepted than the VAN method: discussed favorably by some seismologists who have dissociated themselves from VAN method per se (Eftaxias for example) and also found some interest outside seismology.

But, the Wiki fringe policy doesn't say that 'fringe' topics must be excluded from articles. It just says that they need to be represented proportionately according to notability. It's an editorial judgment call, exactly how many words are appropriate. If a view is held by an extremely tiny minority, it might be appropriate to omit it altogether. But the entire universe of professional seismologists engaged in making predictions can't be that huge! I would think this has been discussed widely enough to deserve at least a word or two.

You could easily argue that the VAN method as a whole is 'fringe' (in fact I think it might very well be) and as such, the section devoted to the topic in this article might be too long. Maybe it should be the same length as devoted to all the other methods that don't work. But there would still be room to mention 'natural time' as the major innovation in this fringe field since 2000. JerryRussell (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"Natural time", in regard of application to earthquake prediction, is (as far as I can see into it, but it is pretty murky) an alleged enhancement of the "VAN method", which supposedly distinguishes SES-type phenomena from cultural effects. Although its proponents keep flogging it, its notability in the field of seismology is negligible; it is most certainly not a "major innovation" (unless in the sense of a "big" bump on a rather small frog). Your perception that "natural time" is "more widely accepted than the VAN method" might be more accurately a case of being less controverted. And that, I suspect, is because no one (?) has found it notable enough to warrant controverting.

Regarding your passage above: read it closer. Chouliaras did not call the prediction successful. He said only that "Uyeda and Kamogawa (2008) reported on the success of associating ..." [emphasis added], and that the "coincident reporting of [a?] successful forecast ... seems to encourage further multidisciplinary investigations ...." Although appearing to endorse that conclusion, he has quite adroitly avoided making any such definite statement himself. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

JJ, your careful breakdown of Chouliaras' paragraph reminds me of Bill Clinton's analysis of what "is" is. [141]

Aside, that is, that I am not the one doing the artful dancing, I am only describing how artfully Chouliaris has danced about without quite committing himself. This case may be taken as an example of how carefully one must examine artful claims of success. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Chouliaras aside, obviously there's no evidence that seismologists all over the globe are busily writing grants and otherwise fund-raising to get their hands on the latest electromagnetic sensing equipment. Whereas if this worked, and the mainstream thought so, we would already have a world-wide network of SES sensing stations.

So given this obvious situation, why can't we all agree that the whole field is 'fringe' by Wiki definition of the term? Then I would agree 'natural time' is a big bump on a small frog.

And yet, certain scientists (including Chinese, Japanese, and maybe some Californians, as well as the Greek contingent, perhaps some of all ages) are still kissing the frog. They say that any day now, this frog is going to turn into a fairy princess.

Shouldn't this be easy enough to handle from Wikipedia's NPOV, whether one is a frog kisser or not? Give the frog a paragraph or two on this page, describe all big bumps and ugly warts as accurately as possible in that small space, and send the readers on to the frog's own Wikipedia page for all the details. JerryRussell (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

By "the whole field": I don't know that "earthquake prediction" is considered a separate field within seismology. More like it is one of the problems that attract seismologists, to which "fringe" is hardly applicable. Keep in mind that WP:fringe is about ideas and opinions (particularly where they claim some validity as "true" views of reality), and how much prominence they are to be given.

As to the VAN predictions: even though they are discredited, they were made, and received considerable scientific attention, so they are notable. They have enough prominence that any treatment of scientific earthquake prediction is incomplete without mentioning them. But regarding "natural time": that concept is virtually absent from mainstream seismology, so that merely mentioning it, particularly in the context of an alleged (but contested) success, amounts to promotion of a fringe concept. It is only a bit player in a discredited method which claims a contested prediction for an unnotable earthquake, amounts to promotion of a fringe concept. Sorry, but there is a considerable amount of material that would be better included than this bit player of a discredtied method.

In 1984 VAN weren't saying "a fairy princess any day now"; they were saying they had the fairy princes, in hand. That is, a precursor (SES signals) with "a one-to-one correspondence" with earthquakes. Then they had to add on more epicycles (SES activity, GVEF, selectivity, and finally "natural time") to maintain any kind of signficance. All this on top of vague predictions, a posteriori selection, etc. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "earthquake prediction" as a term used, we should take into account that "earthquake prediction" is still under research. Some claim it does not really exist and it will never happen, and some claim predictions. But even if someone says earthquake prediction will never exist, one should define what earthquake prediction is to claim this. There is still no accepted definition by scientists, being specific on time, location, magnitude and confidence metrics. If a scientist uses the term "prediction" in a publication accepted by peer review, aligning to the terminology is safer than producing our own conclusions.

Regarding VAN predictions vagueness, here are the two ethnos pages, the prediction article and the one after the earthquake. The coordinates are revealed in the second article and it is stated that they were omitted at the first, implying this was done to avoid spread of panic. The newspaper stated that it was hard to read the publication and that the article also contained data of verified predictions of earthquakes that had occurred. I guess an average reader would be easily confused with scientific info that has to be "decoded" and I personally would prefer not to leave space to Papadopoulos to even comment on vagueness, I only do not know if this is possible. Looking at the details we can always say a prediction is vague, as long as there is not an accepted standard of metrics. Looking at the big picture, announcing a prediction in a newspaper that circulates all over Greece is very rare, and, prediction or not, vague or not, it begun with 2 strong SES signals, it was tracked down with natural time analysis and we got public warning for a rare event that occurred inside the area shown and inside a time frame that such large events are not likely to happen by chance. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the area they say is "under study" in the arxiv article because of the SES, but they never actually make a prediction... presumably because they hadn't done any of the natural time analysis on the subsequent seismic activity. There is no mention of magnitude or estimated time in the arxiv article, and no mention of estimated time in the Ethnos article (they do mention a magnitude, though from where is unspecified). If they had done natural time analysis and actually gotten an estimated magnitude and time, they should have uploaded their preliminary findings and predictions to arxiv the moment they had them. --tronvillain (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It can be seen that there existed explicit predictions about the location, amplitude(magnitude) and timing as far as the strongest earthquake in Greece since 1983 which occurred with magnitude 6.9 on 14 February 2008 in southwestern Greece. The following two documents were publicly available and appeared well before the occurrence of the aforementioned earthquake:

• First, the article arXiv:0711.3766v3 [cond-mat.mat-mech] uploaded on February 1, 2008 in the scientific website of the Library of Cornell University in which all the information concerning the SES recorded and the expected epicentral location of the impending major seismic activity were publicized. In particular, in the upper-left paragraph on page 12 of this article in the arXiv we read: "...two additional SES activities have been recorded as follows (see Fig. 16). One SES activity at PAT station on January 10, 2008 and another one on January 14, 2008 at the PIR station in western Greece...Their subsequent seismicities are currently studied ...in the following areas: Concerning the former SES activity at PAT the areas are depicted in Figure 13, while for the one at PIR on January 14, 2008, the subsequent seismicity is studied in the area B of Figure 9 as well as in the larger area: North (from 36.60 to 38.60) East (from 20.00 to 22.50) ...". The latter predicted epicentral location corresponding to PIR is depicted with the red rectangle in Fig.21.2 , page 174 of the book by Lazaridou. It is clear to see that this rectangle did includ the major earthquake(s) that occurred there later on February 14, 2008.

• Second, the central article that appeared on Sunday February 10, 2008 in the front page of the newspaper Ethnos, which was accompanied by an extensive two-page article on pages 36 & 37 of the same day presenting much of the detail contained in the 14-page paper posted on the Cornell University website on February 1, 2008 mentioned above. In the second paragraph of that Ethnos article (page 36) we read "The scientific conclusion of the two strong preseismic signals SES recorded by the VAN network on January 10 at Patras and on 14 January at the Pirgos station, is that A STRONG EARTHQUAKE GREATER THAN 6.0 RICHTER IS IMMINENT!". Four days later, i.e., on February 14, 2008 the big earthquake occurred within the predicted area.

Summarizing: the first document in the arXiv on February 1, 2008 described the SES, gave the epicentral location and additionally explained that a natural time analysis of the subsequent seismicity was going on, in order to identify the approach of the critical point (i.e., the mainshock occurrence). When the latter approach was identified on February 10, 2008, it was announced by the second document (the Ethnos article), which explained that the big earthquake was IMMINENT (apparently meaning that it was expected to occur within the next few days or so). This concurs with the main feature of natural time analysis, which is that it can identify when the critical point of a complex system is approached.

Last and also important, in the last few lines of page 8 in the arXiv article we read: "We clarify that during the last decade, preseismic information (68) based on SES activities is issued ONLY when the magnitude of the strongest earthquake of the impending seismic activity is estimated -by means of the SES amplitude(26-30)-to be comparable to 6.0 units or larger". To explain, in the case under discussion, the predicted magnitude of the impending earthquake was a big one, and it was publicized not only in the Ethnos article (scientific conclusion in page 36 as explained above) on February 10, 2008, but also in page 8 of the first document (i.e., the arXiv article) on February 1, 2008. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

So, it's your assertion that any mention of areas under study constitute predictions about earthquake location, and any reported SES activity is a prediction of an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater? So any reported SES activity that doesn't have a corresponding 6.0 or greater earthquake within the area under study is failure of the VAN method? --tronvillain (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

All that verbiage is rather pointless. Keep in mind that the topic here is whether "natural time" is fringe, and that the significance of the 2008 event to this discussion is whether it establishes "natural time" as non-fringe on the basis of being a key element in a successful prediction. However, as tronvillain just said, "they never actually make a prediction." Lacking any kind of definite prediction, there is no basis for establishing "success", let alone whether any claim of success does better than chance. I note that even if this event was allowed as a successful prediction, it is still only a single event (as in "a single swallow does not make a summer"), and it does not establish any notability for "natural time". (As one hopeful predictor was told, "if you can do this three times ....") ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, "If they had done natural time analysis and actually gotten an estimated magnitude and time, they should have uploaded their preliminary findings and predictions to arxiv the moment they had them." Science isn't done by newspaper. From your own quote of the newspaper, "The scientific conclusion of the two strong preseismic signals SES recorded by the VAN network on January 10 at Patras and on 14 January at the Pirgos station, it's not apparent that the newspaper article was based on anything other than the original arxiv article. They didn't, for example, say that natural time analysis of seismic activity since the SES signal predicted an earthquake in a matter of days. --tronvillain (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Natural time analysis, as all tools that study critical phenomena, study a series of events. Studying earthquake activity after the strong SESs, they saw organization towards criticality, meaning they were sure the earthquake was to happen, and they published it in arXiv as a prediction. Reaching the critical point was only useful for immediate warning, no new prediction was to be announced. 20 years ago natural time analysis was not in the field and predictions based on SES only, received strong critique. Critique can also be applied to critical phenomena nowadays, but critical phenomena is not simple statistics, so traditional seismologists were rather unable to follow the publications of the last decade or more.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not the case that "they saw organization towards criticality, meaning they were sure the earthquake was to happen, and they published it in arXiv as a prediction." Unless they did it in a different arXiv article? All the arXiv article you have been pointing to mentions is the initial analysis of the SES signal, not any subsequent analysis of seismic activity or anything resembling a specific prediction. Interestingly, if you look at v4 of the arXiv paper, it leads to a paper they wrote afterwards and published in Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Ser. B, Physical and Biological Sciences, "Investigation of seismicity after the initiation of a Seismic Electric Signal activity until the main shock", in which they say (emphasis mine) "This indicates the possibility of making the prediction of the occurrence time of major EQs with time window of the order of a week or less." They don't appear to even be claiming to have made any such prediction at that point. --tronvillain (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a characteristic of much of the VAN claims: a tendency to see more in the text than the rest of us see. (Or sometimes less, like key caveats.) E.g., Varotsos and Lazaridou's claim to have saved lives (see new text) is based on Yoshii 1993, which doesn't actually support that, and an article (Varotsos, Eftaxias & Lazaridou, 1994, Jishin J.) that doesn't exist.

This claim that "critical phenomena" (i.e., "natural time") "is not simple statistics, so traditional seismologists were rather unable to follow the publications" [my emphasis] is bunk. In fact, some of the critics are statisticians, and even some seismologists have published on critical phenomena. That many (most?) seismologists have ignored the "natural time" publications is more likely because 1) there is no showing that anything is actually predicted (let alone successfully), and 2) they recognize smoke-and-mirrors kind of language when they see it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.... this article appears to reference it. Based on this list of Eftaxias' publications, the article was called Greek version of earthquake prediction-truth about prediction by geoelectric current", which looks an awful lot like a bad translation of "Latest aspects of earthquake prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals, II found here or here It's missing a couple of authors, but it's what turns up when I run the title through Google translate back to Japanese and do a search. --tronvillain (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This VEL 1994 reference shows up in several places, but appears to be in error. As near as I can figure it, "Jishin" is a variant of "Zisin". Searching at J-stage finds nothing for any of these authors. And Zisin volume 17 was in 1964, while 1994 was split across volumes 46 and 47. At the very least there is a referencing error, which multiple authors have failed to catch. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Item d: "natural time", continued

Of course it is a "possibility" to make a prediction, otherwise Earthquake Prediction puzzle would have been solved and we would not need any more research. I personally see there is a lot to be revealed and verified in critical phenomena towards earthquake prediction and natural time analysis is just one of the approaches. But writing an encyclopedia article on VAN method and earthquake prediction in general, using 20-year-old publications from people unable to follow the advance of science (even read a published scientific article) and wiping out content selectively is something to be investigated as a major issue for Wikipedia 's credibility, as it is used to defame other people and their work.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Uncritical acceptance of unsupported claims is a "major issue for Wikipedia's credibility". You asserted that "Studying earthquake activity after the strong SESs, they saw organization towards criticality, meaning they were sure the earthquake was to happen, and they published it in arXiv as a prediction.", but you don't seem to have actually supported it with anything. Even in their follow up paper (see above) on the seismic activity following the SES activity all they say is "This indicates the possibility of making the prediction of the occurrence time of major EQs with time window of the order of a week or less." They don't say that they already made a successful prediction. --tronvillain (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"two additional SES activities have been recorded as follows (see Fig.16): One SES activity at PAT on 10 January, 2008 and another one on 14 January, 2008 at the station PIR located in western Greece, see Fig.13 (cf. The configuration of the measuring dipoles in the latter station is described in detail in the EPAPS document of Ref.[60]). Their subsequent seismicities are currently studied along the lines explained above considering the evolving seismicity..." and the rest of analyzing in page 12 of the arXiv document is there to read and study. But since we are no experts, we use secondary and third sources and do not analyze ourselves if we do not understand the language of the experts. So here it is: On 14 February 2008, a large earthquake (U.S. Geological Survey M=6.9) and its probable aftershock (M=6.2) occurred in the Ionian Sea close to the region of southwestern Peloponnese, in Greece. The paper by P. Varotsos et al. (http://arxiv.org/ abs/0711.3766), which appeared 2 weeks earlier (1 February 2008), reported that new electric signals were registered on 14 January at the Pirgos VAN electrotelluric station in western Greece, the earthquake for which, however, had not yet occurred. The report also indicated that on the basis of the recorded signal amplitude, the magnitude of the impending earthquake had been expected to be more than 6 and that the epicenter would be inside the area with coordinates 36.0º–38.6ºN, 20.0º–22.5ºE, i.e., approximately in a 250 × 260 square kilo meter area in southwestern Peloponnese. On 10 February 2008, an article on the front page of the Greek newspaper Ethnos announced that a magnitude 6 earthquake would occur imminently in the predicted area. Four days later, on 14 February, the two earthquakes occurred inside the expected area. The first one, the largest in Greece since 1983, was also felt in some adjacent countries. This was a case where prediction by the VAN method was documented in a scientific publication as well as in the public media well before the main shock occurred. . There was of course the answer of Papadopoulos, containing your concerns, which was rebutted point by point. We use the wording of the scientific publucations here and if they call it prediction, we follow.

If you wish to have a look at a traditional seismologist prediction/warning, here we are, it has been announced publicly by V. Papazachos that an earthquake is not going to occur. For me, this is a truly criminal action, but, as I have said before, the state cannot handle earthquake prediction and these phenomena are unavoidable. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The "wording" of one "scientific publication" (Papadopoulos' Comment) is "None of the claims for successful VAN predictions is justified.". You demonstrate a rather overweening assurance that Papadopoulos was "rebutted point by point" by Uyeda and Kamogawa. My reading of their Reply is that they beat around the bush a bit without addressing the points raised by Papadopoulos. (Particularly: they "again fail to pinpoint the prediction statements by P. A. Vartosos et al. (2008) and Ethnos." This is (as I said just the other day, above) a characteristic of much of the VAN claims. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything posted in the article is based on old references, two decades back. This is also the line of Papadopoulos, who was responsible to present an overview for Greece area in 2011 and had been using 1997 referencing only. I agree to stick to the point and let the defamation issue aside, discussion is not over yet. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic excursion into "defamation".

IP202: As there aren't any "20-year-old publications" about "natural time", your assertion of defamation is off-topic here. If you want to discuss a new topic, please start a new section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Everything posted in the article is based on old references, two decades back. This is also the line of Papadopoulos, who was responsible to present an overview for Greece area in 2011 and had been using 1997 referencing only. I agree to stick to the point and let the defamation issue aside, discussion is not over yet. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC) If you are going to "let [set?] the defamation aside" then you should strike (using <s> and </s> tags) your assertions of defamation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC) It is defamation. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC) This is off-topic. Please remember that the topic of this particular item in the RfC is the removal of "natural time" material as being fringe. If you want to allege defamation (a serious charge) you should open a new section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

IP202, the "rest of analyzing in page 12" is purely of the initial SES signal, not of any subsequent seismic activity. Your assertion that "Studying earthquake activity after the strong SESs, they saw organization towards criticality, meaning they were sure the earthquake was to happen, and they published it in arXiv as a prediction" remains completely unsupported. They mention an area under study, they mention in a completely unconnected section that "preseismic information based on SES activities is issued only when the magnitude of the strongest EQ of the impending EQ activity is estimated… to be comparable to 6.0 units or larger" (presumably that means any time they mention SES activity that isn't followed by an earthquake of magnitude six or larger that's counts as a failure of the method), and they specify no timeline whatsoever. It's not a prediction, as Papadopoulos points out. Then because a newspaper article comes out a month later (that mentions nothing about natural time analysis of subsequent seismic activity but instead refers to the original arXiv paper) that says an earthquake is "imminent", they want to count that as the timeline portion of the prediction. --tronvillain (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In reply to "Your assertion that ...they were sure the earthquake was to happen, and they published it in the arXiv as a prediction remains completely unsupported" please read in page 12 of the arXiv article the paragraph which is just after the excerpt of p.12 that I mentioned before, concerning the prediction of the epicentral area and beginning with: "We now offer some comments on the classification of the aforementioned electric signals of Fig.16 as SES activities. Concerning the signal on 14 January, 2008, which is of clear dichotomous nature, the analysis is made by... which obey the conditions (18) and (19) for the classification of the signal as SES activity".

To explain, the electric signal of January 14, 2008 was analyzed itself in natural time, showing the validity of the two conditions (18) and (19). In detail, the kappa1 value is equal to 0.07 and both the entropy in forward time as well as the entropy under time reversal are smaller than the entropy of a uniform distribution (one can see page 7 of the arXiv article for the meaning and the source of these two conditions). By meeting these conditions a signal is classified as SES activity. This means that such a signal has characteristics of critical dynamics that correspond to precursory nature, in other words an earthquake is subsequently expected, according to VAN.

After an electric signal has been classified as SES activity, the study of the subsequent seismicity begins, by analyzing it in natural time in order to identify the occurrence time of the impending mainshock. In p.12 of the arXiv article it is clearly said that the subsequent seismicity is "currently studied along the lines explained above considering the evolving seismicity...". According to VAN, when such an analysis of the evolving seismicity finds that the kappa1 value becomes equal to 0.070, this occurs only a few hours to a few days or so before the mainshock, i.e., it reveals that the mainshock is imminent (see also section III of the 2005 article by P. Varotsos et al in Physical Review E, "The coincidence occurs only a few hours to a few days before the mainshock."). This approach of kappa1 of seismicity to 0.07 in the present case obviously happened on 10 February 2008 and led to the announcement in Ethnos newspaper that the mainshock was IMMINENT. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

All of that explanation of how an electric signal is analyzed, and "classified as SES activity", is irrelevant. The question is where is the prediction? More specifically, where is any statement as to the bounds of "imminent"? (Or even "IMMINENT".) If there was any clear and definite statement, in any kind of public publication, simply pointing to it would demonstrate existence. But you have not pointed to any specific text, you just keep waving around. And according to Papadopoulos (who presumably can read Ethnos) even Uyeda and Kamogawa could not "pinpoint the prediction statements". In the end it comes down to: where's the beef? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Whenever we have difficulty reading primary sources we refer to secondary and third sources and one can find the specific wording there. Critique on this can accompany, of course, but not mute. The issue of the discussion here is critical phenomena examination towards earthquake prediction, which some editors very much like to omit from the article by excuses. It is shown in detail that critical phenomena analysis have a significant role and VAN method is not stuck two decades behind, but has advanced using it and has obvious results. Trying to omit critical phenomena from the article and keep knowledge muted back to Geller-age publications is not a good thing.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that I already said that the analysis on page twelve is "purely of the initial SES signal, not of any subsequent seismic activity" I have no idea why you felt compelled to explain what I already knew at length. The fact remains that your assertion "Studying earthquake activity after the strong SESs, they saw organization towards criticality, meaning they were sure the earthquake was to happen, and they published it in arXiv as a prediction" is completely unsupported - no such analysis of earthquake activity after the SES was published in arXiv as a prediction. Perhaps they did find κ=0.070 on February 10th and that prompted the Ethnos piece, but if that's the case, why doesn't Ethnos refer to that instead of the February 1st arXiv article? Why didn't they upload their data to arXiv on February 10th as evidence of their method actually working? Why don't they mention making a successful prediction in their actual paper on the analysis of subsequent seismic activity? It just doesn't add up. --tronvillain (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That one has to go to secondary and even tertiary sources to "find the specific wording" has been one of the long-running criticisms of VAN. That this is still a problem shows they haven't advanced even to the expectations of 1996.

More to the point: it has yet to be shown that "natural time" has any role in seismology, let alone is "broadly supported by scholarship in its field." It fails a required criterion, and is therefore properly excluded. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A scientific publication must have a new knowledge to be said. In the arXiv publication the new knowledge is critical dynamics in the SES itself, and the later "prediction" addition focuses at this point to serve the article. Seismological data analysis up to the point of the public warning was out of the scope ("Abstract: This might be due to the fact that SES activities exhibit critical dynamics...") and out of time limit they had for the publication ("Finally, we note that after the initial submission of this paper, two additional SES activities have been recorded as follows (see Fig.16):"). No scientist would ever publish a scientific paper to only show the time a value had turned to 0.07 without having a new thing to say, one month after a publication which had practically covered everything but the warning itself. The very rare event of public warning through the front page of one of the most circulating newspapers speaks for itself and the argument of Papadopoulos that he had not been sent the warning personally to consider it a true warning is ridiculous. Having the largest earthquake that had occurred in Greece since 35 years, 4 days after the rare warning beats any claim for the opposite. All scientific criteria have been extensively presented above and there is no excuse any more.

Critical phenomena analysis cannot be considered fringe in science in general and especially in the earthquake phenomenon. The fact that a preseismic electric phenomenon gives similar results with preseismic earthquake activity, is a very serious factor. And this gives results. Critical phenomena analysis is a truly valuable part of the article and omitting it is out of the question. Natural time analysis itself has been used in earthquake prediction extensively to reveal criticality in other pre-seismic phenomena than short term seismicity or electric signals; electromagnetic MHz emissions associated with seismicity before a major earthquake, long term seismicity, acoustic emissions in both lab and global scale, magnetic and ionospheric variations are examples of its apply. Please also do not forget natural time 's apply in science fields other than earthquake prediction.

Last, but not least, please study this independent work. The value of natural time analysis is obvious. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to hear very well. I would not repeat myself but that you have already expressed a view that anything not challenged must be accepted. So I will pro forma reiterate what you keep missing. Mainly, that the status of "natural time" in other fields, and even in science overall, is irrelevant; the criterion is whether there is substantial scholarship in the field of the topic, which here is seismology. The papers you reference from the physics literature are not applicable. I note also that the GJI paper claims they have long-term correlations, but 1) they don't claim any predictive capability, and 2) it hardly constitutes "substantial scholarship".

Also: no, you have still not shown there was an actual, clear prediction, distinguished form some mumble-mumble-muble which was a posteriori "clarified" into a claimed prediction. That you think the "value of natural time is obvious" is likely because you stand too close to the source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The article topic is not seismology, it is earthquake prediction. Seismologists record earthquake data and evaluate distance, epicenter and time of these events. Additionally seismologists make statistics on earthquakes and discover repeating patterns in activation of faults (i.e. decades), so they talk about "long term prediction". This is their limit. Seismologists do not come before an earthquake to say something about it, they have nothing to say because they do not understand the phenomenon. Physicists, on the other hand, see the phenomenon as a whole and think of if as something that has a beginning long before the cracking of the fault and is being accompanied by non seismic phenomena like electric, electromagnetic or other disturbances, that occur before the final rupture. A physicist, studying the phenomenon as a whole, has the opportunity to explain it. This is something a traditional seismologist will never be able to do. Eventually we come to the fact that traditional seismologists do not accept phenomena other than the breaking of faults as pre-seismic. This is the reason Gellerish edits remove this published view. A traditional seismologist is irrelevant with the article itself. They spread confusion as above, introducing non-seismological phenomena as irrelevant to earthquakes, and thus, irrelevant to earthquake prediction. There is no point bringing to them this and this article, or even this or this one, for enlightment. A cardiac arrest and an epileptic seizure are irrelevant to earthquake prediction for a seismologist. Critical phenomena are foreign language. They keep trying to de-focus the big picture towards earthquake prediction and the muting diff given above speaks for itself. The article is being built by using sources that refer exclusively to two decades old publications. Discussion is really over, everything claimed by my point of view is sourced.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

At Seismology: "Seismology (/saɪzˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek σεισμός "earthquake" and -λογία "study of") is the scientific study of earthquakes ..." (Uncited, but apparently from Merriam-Webster.) Physicists will have credibility in earthquake prediction when (if!) they show actual success. Despite all your hand waving, his has not happened.

As to your disparagement of "two decades old publications": has VAN abandoned their three decades old publications re SES and SES+? Do they renounce all of their 1996 articles? Did they feel in 1984 that the passage of just a dozen years sufficient to exempt them from the requirements of prediction as formulated by Allen? Did they ever advance to the level of the expectations of 1996? I believe the answers to all of these questions is "no". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're being pedantic, "seismology" is the science of earthquakes. Therefore, it would include the science of earthquake precursors, earthquake mechanics, and earthquake prediction, whether most seismologists focus on prediction or not does not change this definition. (Just as I am still a geophysicist, despite the fact that I don't work on mantle tomography, which a topic within geophysics). At the same time, faults and earthquakes are considered by many to be examples of critical phenomena. That does not mean all critical systems are part of seismology, but rather that some of the math/physics/philosophy of critical phenomena is relevant to seismology. As such, it would be appropriate to mention critical phenomena and/or a specific relevant concept from that field within the earthquake prediction article, with a link to the appropriate wikipedia article.

As for 'natural time' in particular, I am not in favor of a lengthy discussion or explanation of the topic here. It requires too much of an explanation of the fundamental concept and general statistics to explain, let alone debate, natural time effectively. Even if there were no dispute over the effectiveness of natural time analysis in earthquake prediction (not true), the details of the method would require too much of an explanation, and distract from the overall topic of this article. Mentioning that "the latest VAN efforts rely on the use of 'natural time', a concept from critical phenomena physics" might be appropriate, given proper citation.

Any more discussion of the efficacy of VAN methods is going to be problematic at this stage in the science. While some claims of positive results exist, the success of these predictions is still debated (as demonstrated by the ongoing conflicts on this talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:VAN_method). The lack of general acceptance of, or even strong interest in VAN by the earthquake science community as a whole means that it is not currently practical as an earthquake prediction method. To be useful, the methods must be adopted by more scientific organizations and the results must be shown to produce few enough false alarms for governments and emergency managers to trust the predictions. At this point, unilateral statements for or against VAN seem to be unjustified. This article should include VAN, provide a *brief* explanation of the idea, mention that its efficacy is still debated, despite some seemingly positive results, and refer the reader to the full article on the topic. Until VAN has produced more practical results, it hasn't changed the general state of earthquake prediction. Elriana (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

While I generally agree with your comments, there is one point of ambiguity. "VAN" – more precisely, what is generally denoted as the "VAN method" – has several distinct formulations. First was the "pure" SES, with its "one-to-one correlation" with earthquakes. Second was the 1990 reformulation to include "SES activity", and GVEF. "Natural time" would be a third (and even fourth) formulation. This might be mentioned at VAN method, but it seems to me that is more detail of clarification than is warranted in this article. I do object to any mention of "natural time" in the VAN predictions section because it is entirely irrelevant to those predictions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Old fashioned traditional seismologists are being interested solely on what happens just at the time of the rupture and afterwards and deny any research effort on earthquake prediction, while modern aspects on critical phenomena (to which natural time analysis belongs) put emphasis on what happens before rupture (i.e., when just before the complex system approaches criticality). Web of Science (h-index of 54 for P. Varotsos) reveals that scientists having knowledge on the recent advances in Science (like open minded seismologists and geophysicists as well as physicists) show a great interest on the VAN research efforts which are published in well known international journals. Natural time analysis was introduced by VAN in 2001 and is shown to have a privilege to identify the time of the approach of the critical point in a critical phenomenon (like the occurrence of a big earthquake). It has been published in first class peer reviewed journals like Physical Review, PNAS, Journal of Geophysical Research, Tectonophysics, Applied Physics Letters etc and has attracted the strong interest of the international community. This is shown above by the list of 138 non-VAN publications that refer to the first publication of natural time alone, as well as natural time analysis usage by other groups of scientists studying criticality in quite a few preseismic phenomena, different than those VAN method examines, as shown. VAN method itself, enhanced with natural time analysis, has been successfully replicated in Mexico, as shown above.

Beyond the aforementioned 2008 prediction, several others have been issued by means of natural time analysis introduced by VAN in 2001. Unfortunately, none of these predictions (as well as not even any relevant progress in the research field in earthquake prediction published after 2001) are mentioned in the article entitled Earthquake Prediction JJ has authored. Moreover, JJ in subsection 4.3 concerning VAN method solely using old literature (before 1997) presents exclusively critical comments against VAN method without even mentioning that there exist precise rebuttals to this criticism. Notably, during the last weeks he added new material (again with old literature only) strongly criticizing VAN research, thus proceeding to an unusual systematic defamation of the VAN research efforts.

Notably, the text I have revised and extended in the last several weeks was prompted by your demand for more citation. It constitutes explication of points where you questioned my previous summarization. That VAN is strongly criticized in the literature is a fact not repealed by VAN's feeble "rebuttals". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed VAN method has improved since their predictions based solely on SES signals 3 decades ago. This is science. Old fashioned traditional seismologists, on the other hand, cannot follow and unfortunately our article is built on two decades old sources. I have repeatedly tried to insert new scientific information with modern literature on critical phenomena but immediately JJ deleted it. It is a fact that nothing is let written by any other editor in VAN method by the specific editor, as VAN method section has been completely re-written by him, since all RFC topics above were proven lies. JJ acts as the owner of this article section and does tendentious editing. In addition, "many of J. Johnson's comments are combative in tone, and almost battleground" as BrownHairedGirl has noticed, once again. All this constitutes an undoubtful conflict of interest, comparable only to R.J.Geller 's against VAN.

There are editors who have showed their interest in the article earlier and with their help we might have the chance to close the discussion without having to stress here for another two months. @Elvey: @King of Hearts: @Doug Weller: @Onanoff: @Aircorn: @Ca2james: @Sitush: @Robert McClenon: @RockMagnetist: --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

IP202's comments go beyond the topic here (of whether this "natural time" method is fringe), and would be more appropriate in the following section, but no problem, we can just start another section.

We are supposed to discuss edits, but as our anonymous Athenian editor (aka "IP202") cannot make any headway on the issues he now attacks me directly. (And calls for others to jump in, although this was already listed as an RfC.) But as he wants to invoke external issues, let's also consider: who is he? (Or them?) His single focus on VAN, his (their?) consistent bias in promoting VAN and the VAN pov and muting the criticism, the fact that the original questioned edits geolocated to the University of Athens (home of VAN), are all consistent with someone very closely connected with VAN.

IP202 accuses me of a conflict of interest. Indeed. But the conflict here is between my interest in having an article of professional quality in accordance with the Wikipedia standards, representing mainstream scientific thinking on this topic, and his interest in glorifying VAN, a method deprecated by mainstream scholarship.

IP202 is good at throwing out complaints and accusations, but note his general failure to support them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note (originally posted somewhere below, but more appropriate to this section): JJ isn't the only one opposed to the inclusion of 'natural time'. I personally do not like its inclusion in this context without more scientific work on the use of this idea specifically for earthquake prediction. But I am willing to concede that it could be mentioned in the section on VAN as the newest tool being tested in this line of research. So long as any explanation is short and the math is left in the citations, since the details are a bit technical.Elriana (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• 15 years of publications in first class scientific journals, along with Varotsos h-index and all the articles referring to natural time, but most of all, 15 years of publications without a single opposing critique, should be sufficient.
• this is very well documented. Why do we remove it, User:Elriana? --IP202-94.66.56.26 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

1) The discussion here has not found '15 years of publication without a single opposing critique' in regards to natural time techniques _used to predict earthquakes_. We thought we had settled the issue by mentioning that natural time is being used in the newest generation of VAN predictions and including a link to the separate natural time article.

2) There is no documentation that supports predictions being added to the archive "at the same time they are submitted for publication as scientific articles." That implies consistent behavior over the course of 10+ years, and we would need to document that the peer-reviewed publication submissions systematically occurred at the same time as the predictions. Personally, I doubt any such consistency, particularly since the predictions need to happen before the earthquakes, but no article evaluating the success of the prediction could happen until after any earthquake prediction window had passed. If you want to provide documentation countering my common sense assumption, by all means, do so.

3) Whether the 2008 Ethos article provided "the warning for an imminent impending earthquake" has been strongly debated on this page. (I think its somewhere in the middle of the 'natural time' discussion above.) The most we seem to all agree on is that the VAN report was described in the article, not that it explicitly issued any warnings. You'll need to reach some consensus on the existence of an explicit warning before it is included in the article. Elriana (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The procedure followed by VAN during the last decade is very clear. Every article published in arXiv by P. Varotsos et al. is related to "SES activity" predictions. Uploads in arXiv are not deleted. Every such upload is subsequently followed by a submission in a journal that accepts this procedure of pre-publishing. Sometimes one can find more than one uploads on arXiv, like the case of February 2008 event, where the article was revised and enriched with latest "SES activity" info. But these publishments are not public warnings. The ethnos article was.

As far as natural time is concerned as fringe, please have a careful look at the following (additionally to all other earthquake prediction methods using it presented above), especially the given name of the forecasting (mid term prediction) method, as well as the names of the scientists:

• TITLE OF THE PAPER: Probabilities for large events in driven threshold systems, Physical Review E 86, 021106 (2012)
• Authors: J.B.Rundle, J.R. Holliday, W.R. Graves, D.L.Turcotte, K. F. Tiampo and W. Klein
• (The six authors come from six different departments of Earth Sciences, Geology and Physics of Universities in USA and Canada)

• ABSTRACT: "...We develop a data-driven approach to the problem by transforming to the event index frame, and relating this to Shannon information. For earthquakes, we find the 12-month probability for magnitude m> 6 earthquakes in California increases from about 30% after the last event, to 40%- 50% prior to the next one"

• INTRODUCTION: "Summary of our results: We have developed a method for computing the statistical probabilities of the largest avalanche events in driven threshold systems.....We apply these methods to the computation of large earthquake probabilities in California and Nevada using online seismic data from the ANSS catalog. We find that the 12-month probability ( in percent) of large earthquakes having magnitudes > 6 typically varies from 30% just after the last such event, to as much as 40%- 50% just prior to the next such event. The forecast probability method we describe here is the natural time Weibull method (NTW)"

This should ring a bell. --IP202-94.66.56.76 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations
References

Rfc: General comments

Jerry: would you mind moving these into the appropriate subsections provided above? Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Done! Hope it's OK to leave general comments below, as before? JerryRussell (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have added a "general comments" section last night but I ran out of time. I'll do it now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Question for 77.69.80.202 or other Greek IP editors: Uyeda 1996, Uyeda 2009, Hamada 1996, Geller 1996, and other important articles are hidden behind paywalls, or otherwise difficult to access. Is there some way you could make this material available, perhaps in a dropbox? Not asking for copyright violation, but to review for Wiki editorial purposes.JerryRussell (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Geller 1996a is in the book Critical Review of VAN by Lighthouse. That volume can be accessed (spottily) at Google Books (select suitable search parameters). The other notable collection of VAN papers is the 1996 "GRL Debate on VAN" (edited by Geller); some of those are freely available. Note that the issue with Uyeda 2009 derives from the summary, which is accessible. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• General comment: Tend to agree with JJ that VAN has not achieved widespread support in the scientific community, reasons have been identified and the theory has been subject to detailed critique, and that it is appropriate to point this out clearly here. Hopefully everyone can agree on a concise summary for this page, and some of the point: counter-point can be saved for the VAN method page.JerryRussell (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Conduct issues: I confess I haven't been editing here long (since Feb.) but I've found that things go much better for me since I've followed the advice at Wikipedia:CONDUCTDISPUTE to discuss conduct issues only on user talk pages, and never on article talk pages. JerryRussell (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Time to close? I note that the anonymous editors whose edits I have objected to have not participated in this RfC (nor in any further discussion of the matter). I think this is significant in showing abandonment. So while comments here have been scant, it seems to me we have a basically uncontentious RfC, and all participants share a fairly obvious consensus. On that basis (and considering that commentary has tapered off) can we close this ourselves (per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs, item #4), or do we need a formal closure by an uninvolved editor? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

At least one of the anonymous editors seems to have shown up again. Would that require formal closure? --tronvillain (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think so. He's back, and contentious, so we slog on. I am withdrawing my comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment JJ feels that the entire area of 'natural time' is not notable enough to merit a few words of mention, but he has added two new paragraphs to the article as of today, dedicated to a long and ultimately inconclusive debate about whether lives were saved by a vague VAN prediction, and somebody's opinion as to whether VAN budget ought to be cut in favor of more spending on traffic safety. This, I feel, is a disproportionate ('POV') and gratuitous attack on VAN, beating the dead frog so to speak. JerryRussell (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is warranted to discuss whether any lives were saved, as Varotsos and other VAN proponents have repeatedly asserted that. Varotsos has gone further, asking "How many more people will have to die before this method is recognized as being correct?" (Nature, 22 June 1995), and accused Greek seismologists of "'playing with people's lives' by denying the scientific validity of his method" (ibid).

The last comment in the text is actually relevant to all efforts at predicting earthquakes, in providing perspective on whether it is really worthwhile. Even Uyeda has said that "the most effective and highest priority countermeasure against loss of human life is to strengthen houses" – not to predict when houses might collapse. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The user's disruptive behavior has been spotted before and he was voted for a topic ban. He still acts as the owner of the article and does tendentious editing, in fact nothing is let written by any other editor in VAN method. I'll give a final (I hope) reply tomorrow in order to let the discussion close. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have made some edits to the VAN section without JJ objecting (I'll admit they were fairly minor and occurred more than a month ago, but I did make them). Elriana (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

IP202's "nothing is let written by any other editor" is more accurately the question here of whether his edits violate the Wikipedia standards of neutrality, balance (weight), promotion of fringe material, and possibly self-promotion (conflict of interest). That he wants to change the subject, and attack me personally, is understandable, as he doesn't seem to have much of a case on the substantive issues. The situation here is not of someone having a valid complaint, as having a cause, and looking for whatever complaint might further the cause. He is not here for the encyclopedia.

That I happen to be the most substantial contributor to this article is because no other editor has had as much interest, time, or energy to dive into the hundreds of articles relevant to this technical and often contested topic. Or to put up with the aggravation of those who try to boost their pet theories. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, did IP202 mean the VAN section of this article, or the VAN method article? Because I've edited that to improve the equations. --tronvillain (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

He means this article. Though he doesn't seem too particular where he finds his complaints. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-Participation

I do not intend to participate in this RFC other than to state that it is a mess. Having closed RFCs in the past, I can say that this RFC cannot possibly be closed with anything resembling any consensus. It isn't clear whether it is asking any questions or just engaging in a verbal exercise. If there really is a question to be addressed, a new, neutrally worded RFC is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that a possible outcome: no closure at all, or a 'no consensus' close to the RFC, after all this discussion? Sigh... I was at least hoping that a close might decide whether 'natural time' and the VAN prediction of 2008 can be mentioned in the article. As far as I can see, JJ is the only editor who is strongly opposed. JerryRussell (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This RFC will almost certainly be closed either as "no closure" or as "no consensus". If one editor opposes including the 'natural time' discussion and the VAN prediction, but multiple editors support that language, they can insert the language within reason. Edit-warring is undesirable, and if an effort to insert the disputed language results in edit-warring, a neutrally worded RFC would be the best way to resolve the issue. In the meantime, the existing RFC almost certainly will either be "closed" as no closure or as "no consensus", because I can't see how to parse a consensus from it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have multiple editors that cannot discuss this topic without devolving into insults, accusations and insinuations. JJ and the some of the anonymous IP editors (who would help me greatly by registering for user name(s), since I cannot keep track of which is who or who said what when it's all numbers) seem to have significant biases and very black-and-white views of the topic. I am disappointed in this state of affairs, especially since I feel that there is a great deal of middle ground that could be found. As a last attempt at useful discussion, I would suggest that JerryRussell and/or tronvillain (and/or some other third party who sees merit to the arguments both for and against the inclusion of VAN) propose a draft text for the section in question. Then some other, less contentious editors might be willing to weigh in with comments. I say this because part of the trouble is that the only people suggesting actual edits throughout this affair have been those whose views seem to be on either end of the spectrum. Elriana (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and JJ isn't the only one opposed to the inclusion of 'natural time'. (Rest of comment moved to end of Natural time section at others' request, 1 August 2016 Elriana (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course "there really is a question to be addressed": do the disputed edits referenced at the top of this discussion (at #Re 195.134.89.153's VAN edits) demonstrate "problems of neutrality, WP:weight, and possibly a conflict of interest"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 2 August 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.

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.

The neutrality tag: update and prognosis

The anonymous IP 77.69.86.91 tagged the VAN predictions section with "neutrality", but never opened any discussion on any particular points. However, given the overall trend and character of all the edits s/he has attempted, as well as the various comments made above, I am confident that any fair-minded, reasonable editor, especially anyone who actually plunges into the source documents, will find that the issues of non-neutrality (i.e., bias) run entirely the other way. So given the lack of any relevant discussion supporting this tag I will be removing it soon.

Note that having been dragged back into this topic I am proceeding to re-write it (in spurts) to show the readers more of why VAN is dismissed by most seismologists. Before anyone complains about balancing "negatives" with "positives", or not letting VAN spin all the criticism: sorry, that's not the way it works. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There being no discussion on this tag, and as I have completely re-written that section with expanded coverage and extensive citation, I am removing the tag. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been no discussion because the article has been written slandering VAN method, wiping out one side. After discussion we will edit the article to restore it. For now tagging only is restored.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The original tag was added with "reason=published answers were removed" (a rather dubious kind of reason). For the new tag you have a different reason: "slandering VAN, wiping out any positive view on the method". Well, if you think any of the text slanders anyone please point to it, and explain how it is a slander. As to "any positive view": so? There is no "right" of having a "positive view". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week since this section was re-tagged, and still no explanation of the alleged issue has been forthcoming, neither on the original "reason" of "published answers were removed", nor on the latest allegation of slander. I quote from the template documenation:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. [emphasis added]

Lacking any explanation of this tag, and given IP202's comment of 9:41, 23 July to "let the defamation issue aside", I see the tag as being abandoned, and am removing it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Slandering of VAN has been pointed from other editors, too.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

While J. Johnson (JJ)'s tone in these discussions is sometimes a bit aggressive, both JJ and the other editors who support a skeptical view of VAN have done a great deal of reading and work hard to cite their assertions. Accusing anyone of slander is a serious matter and contributes nothing but a dismissive and contentious tone to this discussion. If someone tags an article, they need to explain as clearly and concisely as possible why they have done so. The existing talk page is insufficient, since it does not tell anyone why *this* tag or what needs to be done to resolve the conflict. Lacking any explanation or continued discussion from those opposed to J. Johnson (JJ)'s view of the topic, there might as well not be a tag in the first place. (umm, second place? since this is the re-tag we're discussing?). Elriana (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. No one has pointed to any alleged slander. IP202 is tagging without any attempt to explain (let alone justify) his action. Restoring the tag (again without any explanation) in face of explicit showing of why it can be removed is tantamount to edit warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Per Robert McClenon's remarks above, it looks like we may be on our own to reach a consensus and avoid edit warring here.

I think IP202 may be correct, that the article as it stands could be construed as defamation of VAN. This is something we should be very careful about, because living persons are involved. The article reads as though VAN was put on trial and found wanting in 1996, and nothing has happened since then. This is false, in contrast to the fact that actually, as we've learned, the controversy rages on. For us to determine that VAN's efforts since that time are insignificant, is a form of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR which is not supported by the literature. Also, notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMPORARY -- which means that if VAN's activities prior to 1996 were notable, we probably should not completely deny coverage of their later activities, especially if to do so could be construed as defamation. JerryRussell (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC) JerryRussell (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Definition of libel: "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation." JerryRussell (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Libel" and "slander" are different forms of defamation, which under English common law depends on the key element of a false statement. And there has been no showing of actual false statements in support of this claim that VAN has been slandered. Not anywhere on this page, and most certainly not here by IP202 in supoort of adding the POV tag.

Jerry, you seem to be making a novel argument that it would be slanderous to omit any "coverage of their later activities". Allow me to point out that, first, there is no issue here, and certainly no "determination", that "VAN's efforts since [1996] are insignificant" [emphasis added], unless "insignificant" is equated to non-notability of "natural time". (Which seems fairly established, at least within seismology.) Second, defamation does not arise from the omission of statements, unless the omission amounts to a falsification of a published statement. (Which is actually what IP202 has done.) That VAN's reputation is slightly less burnished because we don't offer up every little claim they make does not constitute defamation.

The bottom line remains: there has been no showing here of any false or slanderous statement, and certainly not by the tagger. As I have asked before: where's the beef? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JJ, I'm sad to say I have some recent experience with the US legal system (as a litigant) and I believe a creative lawyer could run with my theory, and cost Wikipedia a lot of money. However, I admit that this is a pretty minor concern in my mind: I seriously doubt that IP202 or any other VAN advocate would hire such a lawyer.

Nevertheless, Wiki policies are designed to prevent such concerns. By scrupulously following GNG, SYNTH, NOR and DUE, I believe we can come up with a neutral presentation.

I hope you and IP202 will take a look at my proposal, here. Although I fear I'll make you both equally unhappy.

Here it is, JJ: libel by omission is a real thing, according to the US 4th circuit court.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-law-summer-2011/libel-omission-creating-false-i

Jerry, give that report a closer read. Although the lead does say that "The Fourth recently upheld a libel by omission claim", the text says only that the Circuit overturned the lower court's summary dismissal of a case based on "libel by omission", holding that could be question of fact for a jury. Also, please note that I have not claimed that "libel by omission" is not a "real thing", but before yet another discussion dives down a gopher hole of legalistic reasoning let me reiterate the principal point here: there has been no showing here by the tagger of any explanation of the tag, and certainly not any false or slanderous statements. Nor, I would, of any omission of a material fact that implies any false statement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Jerry has removed the tag. (Thank you!) Hopefully there will be no more unsupported tagging, and perhaps this discussion can be laid to rest. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Sources"?

Why does this article have such an insanely long "sources" section. Any used as references should be in the references section. What are the rest for? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The article has a long history of materials being introduced by advocates and then deleted as undue weight, fringe etc. With the article being in WP:CITESHORT format, perhaps the short-form references have been deleted along with the texts, while the long-form source citations are left behind? I wonder if anyone has a robot that can or does check for this problem? JerryRussell (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess. It looks almost as if it was written with the "Sources" as the reference section, and then citations to individual pages (often with quotes) in the "References" [originally "Notes"] section, followed by some mixing between the two. --tronvillain (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

William, when you changed "Notes" (which contains the {reflist}) to "References" were you perhaps meaning to undo my change of "References" (containing the all the full citations) to "Sources"? As a general comment, I am inclined to suppress the use of the term "References" as being an ambiguous (ammultigous??) term that covers too many sins, tending to cause confusion. "Sources" and "Notes" are more nearly non-overlapping subsets of what "References" covers.

Which takes us to tronvillain's comment: "as if it was written with the "Sources" as the reference section, and then citations [strictly speaking, the short citations, or short cites] ... in the "References" section". Well, yes. But keep in mind that 1) I and William have managed to switch the label "References" from one section to the other, and 2) your comment presupposes that a certain section is "the reference section". Other editors have a different take on this, which gets back to why I am inclined to prefer "Sources" and "Notes".

Looking at it again, it makes more sense, especially the ability to cite different pages in the same source. --tronvillain (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If it starts making too much sense let us know and we can switch the names around a couple more times. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As to why to why there are so many sources listed: surely because the topic is broad and complex, and takes a lot of sources to cover. Right? And of course, when there is a challenge to something (as we have just seen) more sources get added.

As to what is an appropriate length: I reckon that a fairly tightly written article will have approximately one citation per sentence. As full citations tend to be about the same length as the average sentence, it is reasonable for the "Sources" ("References"?) section to be as long as the article text. Here (to judge by the slider bar) the text has about half the space of the article, and "Sources" and "Notes" together the other half. So even with some number of orphans I think the length is reasonable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: would you mind if I reverted your changes re "Notes" and "References"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Aceves article

Could this be a relevant source, and independent review of the early VAN results? The authors, Aceves et al, are from UC Riverside. The paper itself is behind a paywall, I can't access it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GL01478/abstract

A statistical test of the VAN method compares its prediction rate (number of successful predictions divided by the total number of predictions issued) between 1987 and 1989 to that from randomly sampling the earthquake catalog. Unlike previous tests, this one samples distributions derived from the historic spatial and magnitude distribution between 1960 and 1985. The VAN method yields a prediction rate of 67.9% at a time delay of 22 days, which is achievable in less than 0.06% (P-value ≤ 0.06%) of the realizations in randomly sampling the full NEIC catalog (37.2% mean prediction rate). VAN's prediction rate drops to 66.7% with aftershocks removed from the catalog and prediction list, which is still significant at a p-value of less than 0.1%. With an alternate aftershock model, the prediction rate drops to 48.0%. This latter value is significant only for P-values less than 7.96%. We conclude from these tests that the VAN method is formally significant at a time lag of 22 days.

JerryRussell (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be a relevant source, but it does not seem to be an "independent review" in any sense - it essentially just compares the reported VAN predictions to random sampling. From their conclusion: "The VAN method has resulted in a significantly higher prediction rate than randomly sampling a PDF map generated from a 25 year history of earthquakes." Other criticisms of the early VAN method would seem to still apply. --tronvillain (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

By "independent" I mean there's no evidence that the UCR group works together with the Greek group, much less any financial COI. By "review" I mean determining what the VAN predictions were, and comparing them to random sampling. I'm not sure what other criticisms of the VAN method are important, aside from the claim that it doesn't work. JerryRussell (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, determining what the VAN predictions were claimed to be at least. --tronvillain (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

See the list at Talk:VAN method#Summary of criticism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good old "GRL 23", by which I mean Geophysical Research Letters, volume 23. More particularly, issue 11 of 27 May 1996. If you check the contents you will find forty or fifty articles all about VAN. This came about when Varotsos submitted an article to GRL, and Geller, then an editor there, suggested that instead of the usual process of sending it out to a few reviewers, they share it with a larger group. Multiple rounds of reviews, replies, rebuttals, and even re-rebuttals ensued, all of which were published in this volume. Unfortunately, this is all paywalled, but still reachable if you have access to a good university library. Many of these articles are freely accessible elsewhere, and I have added links to the citations when I can find them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So by Wiki rules, would you say that this is an independent source from VAN? Since Geller was the editor, I would think that any dependency would run the other way.

My University of Oregon alumni library card has expired, I guess I'll need to get down there soon and see if I can get it renewed. JerryRussell (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be grasping "independent" too tightly. Keep in mind that the issue above (at #Item a: Is Uyeda truly independent) is not whether Uyeda can be cited, but whether, in citing Uyeda, his point of view can be characterized as independent. I think that is a definite, solid "no". With Aceves et al., however, the issue is not whether they are independent or not (though Park seems somehwat entranced by any kind of seismoelectromagnetic phenomena), but the validity of their work.

Varotsos and Lazaridou (in their "Reply") stress that Aceves et al. were pretty much in agreement with Hamada even though they used a different procedure. However, both of those studes (like others) start with acceptance of VAN's claimed successes. That is, given 19 successes out of whatever base they used, would that be significiant? Of course, but only if the premise is true. Which (as I have mentioned before) is doubtful. So it is not really meaningful to say x number of studies have result 'a', and y studes have result 'b', you have consider why they differ. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The abstract above says they evaluated the prediction success rate at an interval of 22 days. Wasn't that the complaint of most of the other studies: that VAN failed to specify a time window, or that the earthquake occurred outside the time window? Subsequent to this series of evaluations in ~1996, VAN seems to have changed their tune, and decided that the SES signal was best at ~20 days. This may be pathological revisionism, but at least a consistent picture seems to be emerging. JerryRussell (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is hardly the only complaint, but failing to specify a time window in the predictions is perhaps the most common one. The slightly different issue is what time period to use in evaluating the predictions, and especially for determining the window for how many quakes should happen by chance. VAN says this is covered in their publications, but it has changed. In 1984 it was "6 - 115 hours". Then in 1991 they added GVEF and then "SES activity", which have different time periods. These can be 11 days, 22 days, or a month. Or two. Plus some other adjustments. Up till around 1995 they had the calendar so plastered with predictions that any self-respecting quake that wanted to avoid them would have a hard time squeezing in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-write article basics according to current bibliography

Please have a look at this 2015 book. It will help us update the article and avoid current confusion and misleads. --46.198.213.62 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting resource. However, it basically confirms JJ's argument that optimism regarding earthquake prediction by electromagnetic precursors should be treated here as a WP:FRINGE view. For example, page 6:

"In fact, there was not a single successful prediction by EQ prediction projects in any countries, so that the whole prediction community became pessimistic (eg. Evernden, 1982). This pessimism has persisted until now, except among nonmainstream researchers like us."

And, page 9:

"Regrettably, the general situation has remained essentially the same or even worse since the 2011 megaquake (e.g. Geller, 2011). Seismologists lost confidence in general, so that their "Impossibility Myth" has become more prevalent. They... even talk about disbanding the Working Group for EQ Prediction of the Seismological Society of Japan."

JerryRussell (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite as far as to call the electromagnetic precursor research WP:FRINGE, but the authors certainly admit that the idea is not mainstream. Proponents would call it 'promising', but that seems problematic after 30 years of promises. I would prefer the term 'speculative', with results that have show just enough promise every few years to warrant further iterations of the method. Given that, any rewrite of the entire article based on this book and the related publications would be very foolish.

In addition, I do not support a full rewrite at all. The outline of the article as it stands, and the lead and classification and evaluation sections (the first two sections after the lead) do a good job of defining the issues and the state of the science. In particular, the emphasis on how one defines a 'good' predictor, importance of statistics, and the problem with false alarms is very important. The two sections where VAN is mentioned (electromagnetic variations under Precursors, and 1983-1995: Greece under Notable Predictions) seem to be the contentious sections. Since VAN is *not* a mainstream scientific method, for all its claims of individual successes, it really should be confined to these two sections. Elriana (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, I consider 'speculative' science an essential part of research. Success or failure is much less important than pursuing all viable ideas. Since there are still scientists and funders investing in the latest iteration of VAN, and results still appearing in peer-reviewed journals, it is still a valid avenue of scientific pursuit in the field of earthquake prediction. However, some proponents seem to think it should be presented as an unmitigated success, which is not defensible at this stage. It is possible to be skeptical of the usefulness of SES signals as earthquake predictors, and still acknowledge the role of these theories in the history of earthquake prediction and their ongoing influence in the most speculative and forward-thinking portions of the field. Past interactions between the VAN researchers and the government, press, and public of Greece demonstrate the difficulties of making any new method of earthquake prediction useful to society as a whole. From the perspective of the scientists, the public wants absolute certainty and explicit predictions, which is impossible at this stage. From the perspective of the public, the scientists are stirring up panic based on something that is, statistically speaking, little better than a guess. From the perspective of other scientists, the public is now less willing to trust any new prediction because previous researchers didn't know how to manage their interactions with said public. It's an important story to tell.Elriana (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Practically, re-writing meant two things. First, adding the classification, which I have already done but should be enriched, at least for purpose of each type. For these and for correcting the 2009 source I used to fill in numbers, the 2015 source should be better.

Second, but especially important, there is the heart of the problem for people devoted to short term earthquake prediction, which I also added in the introduction quite discreetly, that seismologists in general do not care for precursor phenomena and short term earthquake prediction, and this line of denial, of not funding other measurements than seismological ones, is being supported officially and criticized. This has been is addressed by Uyeda, Hamada and Kamogawa since their 2009 review, even from the abstract, and the exact same words given above by Jerry have been published in the 2013 review from Uyeda "On Earthquake Prediction in Japan" for Japan Academy.

These sources are fair with themselves, they do not support earthquake prediction exists, as they do not yet get the results they themselves would like in short term earthquake prediction, and they apply critique to themselves. This honesty allows to use them as reliable sources, even if they are themselves between the workers that lead earthquake prediction research. --IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

1) "Fair with themselves" actually raises the issue that they are not independent, unbiased parties. That's a problem when we want a neutral POV. We can't know if they are 'honest' because they themselves are too involved to be fully objective. No matter how admirable their self-critique, it is still a source that can be questioned. So be prepared to find other sources to back it up.

2) Most of the seismologists I know have considered short-term precursors, most notably, the emissions of radon, changes in the ionosphere, and hydrologic system changes are all known, non-seismic occurrences that have been associated with earthquakes. Mostly they get funding for other studies because they can't demonstrate that further study of these precursors has a good chance of positive results. But some work on these as possible predictors is still ongoing. To ignore ongoing Vp/Vs and ionspheric signals work is just as unfair as ignoring the efforts of SES scientists would be.

3) Seismologists don't generally fund these measurements because seismologists aren't the ones who should be making them. For example, atmospheric scientists should be involved in measurements of the ionosphere. And people with experience in radiochemistry and the geochemical processes that typically release radon must be involved in those measurements. Saying, "this line of denial, of not funding other measurements than seismological ones, is being supported officially" actually hurts your case. You are trying to say that some arbitrary official policy prevents the furthering of this science because somehow _all_ seismologists are inherently stuck in a narrow view of this science. What you have really demonstrated is that mainstream scientists have found no merit in this approach, including the entirety of the field that is _most interested_ in the problem.

4) The classification section is useful because it points out the difference between long-term predictions (I would still rather refer to this as 'forecasting', since it's all probabilities and time ranges) and short-term predictions. However, I do not think a significant expansion of this section is a great idea, as it muddles the point.

Elriana (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In the preface of 2015 article the introduction says that earthquake prediction nowadays has to do with self-organization and that any precursor phenomena are needed, not just electromagnetics. But all short term earthquake prediction is considered fringe. If the article had the title "Earthquake prediction research", instead of "Earthquake prediction", I guess we would have better content in the article due to less conflict.

Precursor phenomena cannot be studied, and thus accepted, from old fashioned traditional seismologists using only seismometers, indeed. Collaboration is needed with specialists of all fields, even doctors, as earthquake has been shown to correlate with a heart arrest in its early preparing stages or with an epileptic seizure at its final stages. Studying the 2013 source we read "substantial progress has been made in real short-term prediction by scientists of diverse disciplines". We do not have to accept that "substantial progress has been made" and put it as a fact in the article, but we can be helped to see a bigger picture.

Earthquake prediction efforts are not funded directly / officially / systematically (meaning the state, not seismologists), and indirect funding occurs as you say, or funding from private sector, according to the sources. In Greece seismologists do help. Nomicos (N of VAN) has been collecting MHz RF preseismic data for his own research and he is offered the seismological stations and network to host his acquisition equipment and transfer data to his lab.

No significant expansion is needed for classification, just filling in the purposes and correct the numbers.--IP202-46.198.213.62 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)