| Revision as of 02:15, 14 May 2014 editElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →NOTICE: ANI discussion re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson, commitment to not revert: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:33, 14 May 2014 edit undoJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits Archiving discussions up to advent of unrestricted editingNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ] contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised ) prior to restructuring. | ] contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised ) prior to restructuring. | ||
| == Current status == | |||
| The article is currently filled out to approximately what I had envisioned. A few more predictions could be included, but they are only marginally notable, and I don't see their absence as significant. A LOT of methods ''could'' be added, as there are scores of them, likely a couple of hundred, that have been looked at, but that would heavily unbalance the article. As to selected representative methods, there were a couple of others I was going to include, but I ran out of time (due to the distractions raised here). At any rate, I believe the article is currently in good shape. I am also requesting a seismologist to review the article to see if there are any problems in regard of the science. ~ ] (]) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| A seismologist has been reviewing this article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Who? You? | |||
| ::'''Please note''': one of the most basic bits of competency expected at Misplaced Pages is ''how to sign your edits''. This is done by adding the "four tildes" (e.g.: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''') at the end of each edit. This will be automatically replaced with your signature and a timestamp. Of course, it would be much easier to learn of such matters, as well as to engage in any discussion, if you would register for an account. Which you are strongly urged to do. As otherwise you come across as some drive-by spammer, an irresponsible punk who doesn't have a clue as to adult behavior. ~ ] (]) 21:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Special note to the would-be editor: the article has been "protected" (locked). This does ''not'' mean your contributions are unwanted; quite the contrary. It is intended to quash this edit warring. And perhaps to get your attention, and hopefully to get you to ''engage'' in the process here. I suspect you quite likely are a seismologist (AGU?), and therefore would dearly love to team up with you. But it should be a ''team'' effort, not just you treating this like your personal blog. And again I urge you to register for an account. You are also welcome to send me e-mail if you would like to discuss any of this off-line. ~ ] (]) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Tone? == | |||
| Regarding your recent edit removing the scope sentence from the end of the lede for "wrong tone": sorry, I don't how that sentence violated ], or was otherwise unhelpful. That research papers also include scoping statements seems irrelevant (so what?). They also use citations; should WP therefore dispense with citations? Per ] I will be reverting. ~ ] (]) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My main objection is the phrase "This article will examine." The remainder of the sentence, which is just a summary of the article's major parts, is fine and even desirable, but "This article will examine" should be changed to avoid the ] wording. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, so not a problem with "tone" (and we can dispense with that?), but possibly self-referential. I want to study that a bit before commenting. ~ ] (]) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry about that, I misspoke. I am indeed referring to it being self-referential. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 22:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am persuaded that the sentence is indeed self-referential, but on studying ] I now see that what is disallowed is not self-reference ''per se'', but only certain kinds. And I believe that scope statements (as we have here) are — or at least should be — allowed, but I would agree that the text is not clear. So I have asked for clarification. ~ ] (]) 22:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Doug: in you say this should be discussed at ]. That page does not cover this particular question, and I don't see that it has ever been discussed there. I queried at ] because that is the specific basis KoH cited for his objection. ~ ] (]) 20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Merely difficult? Or inherently impossible? == | |||
| Doug, your revisions to the last section distort what the sources say. The issue is NOT "''Problems'' with predicting earthquakes", but whether such predictions are even ''possible'' ("inherently impossible"). To reduce the topic to "problems with" implies possibility, which is to give only one side of a significant debate. | |||
| Your phrasing of "Earthquake prediction may have failed..." is ambiguous because the "may have" could apply to "failed" rather than the following "because", suggesting that prediction may have (generally) ''not'' failed. This is misleading. | |||
| I grant you that MOS says no questions in headers. I don't know if any exceptions are allowed; it does pose a challenge because the ''issue'' is inherently in the form of a question. How do you propose to handle that? ~ ] (]) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm happy to see the section heading reworded although I think being impossible is a type of problem. I don't see the word 'problems' as ruling out the possible impossibility of a task, if you follow me. Maybe 'Issues'? ] (]) 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I understand what you are saying, but respectfully disagree. "Problem" (as well as "issue") carries a connotation of solvability. Impossibility does not mean difficult. It means ''not a chance'', that there is simply ''no solution'' whatsoever. Sort of like the impossibility of perpetual motion: is that a small problem of getting rid of the last tiny bit of friction? Or is it a small problem that all of known physics is against you? Getting back to the issue at hand, ''some'' seismologists affirmatively state that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible. But the ''issue'' has been neutrally defined in the form of a question. And I have not (yet?) come up with a non-interrogative equivalent. ~ ] (]) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Doug: I have raised the issue at ], and so far the advice is leaning towards "no questions" being a general guideline that admits of exceptions. ~ ] (]) 19:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd like to see this section start off with examples of successful prediction (for example, the 1975 earthquake in China, and the updated VAN method, with their Springer book, among others) and a discussion of what the flaws are in each. For the 1975 quake, while there was a medium-range prediction, and a successful evacuation because of increased seismicity, there was no short-range prediction. The officials had to basically guess. For the updated VAN method, they are essentially issuing medium-range predictions based on SES, and then looking for short-range predictions. They've switched their short-range prediction protocol at least twice. If the real difficulty is in short-range prediction, then that provides a good seque for writing about earthquake mechanisms, and how the exact process of earthquake initiation is still unknown. A treatment like this would inspire readers to look for answers and be good for science. The focus on a lack of predictability is a bit like saying, "We'll never get to the moon" as far as I can tell. Is there a distinction between "we haven't done it yet," and "it's impossible to do?" Earthquake catalogs are always incomplete, because Gutenberg-Richter scaling implies an infinitely many very small seismic events will never be included. We only have a statistic of the data, and never the complete data population. Is the impossibility of prediction simply based on this? If so, that ought to be made explicit.] (]) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == See Also: 1975 Haicheng Earthquake == | |||
| The 1975 Haicheng earthquake is the only earthquake where an evacuation was successfully undertaken prior to an earthquake based on prediction/administrative decisions. Someone who is scanning through the article may not note that this earthquake stands out for this reason. Putting a link to the 1975 Haicheng Earthquake page in the "See Also" section serves two purposes: (1) It provides a more complete set of links for someone who hasn't read the article, but is looking for resources related to earthquake prediction, and (2) allows this earthquake to stand out. Please consider putting this link back into the "See Also" section. (I understand that the article would then link to the Haicheng page twice, and I think there is precedence for this based on other wikipedia pages.)] (]) 02:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] says "As a general rule the 'See also' section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body". I think that as this earthquake has its own section in the article, there's no reason to have it in the 'See also' section as well. I've also removed two other links to articles already linked in the body of this article. ] (]) 11:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes. The question is not ''whether'' there should be a link, but ''where'' it should be placed. Putting the link at the point where the topic is discussed seems more appropriate than splitting it off and putting it at the end, and this is consistent with other links in the article. | |||
| : Mike: I would beg to differ regarding NEPEC. It is mentioned, and wiki-linked, several times in the article, but does not have its own section or {{tl|further}} link. And as it relates to the topic as a whole, and is a quite reasonable direction for the interested reader to continue, I think it really ought to be at the end of the article. ~ ] (]) 17:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does say "as a general rule", so it's possible to make exceptions and I won't fight its reintroduction to the 'See also' section. ] (]) | |||
| :::A borderline case then. I am going to lean towards inclusion, for the reason stated. ~ ] (]) 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Gravitational effects/syzygy, etc. == | |||
| Daniel: I seriously question your addition of the "gravitational effects" (which is really just about "syzygy"). In the first place, there at least twenty phenomena that have been scientifically investigated, and the article just can't cover all of them. (It is quite large just as it is.) So it is necessary to restrict discussion to a few representative examples. And I think this particular phenomena is not scientifically significant. (A quick review of hits on Google Scholar seems to show it has been repeatedly disconfirmed.) It is notable only for what's his name pushing "syzygy" in pseudo-scientific fringe. So I am proposing it be removed. (I take a strong line here lest the article slip back into a collection of personal favorites.) | |||
| I also point out small blemish on the rest of your fine citation work: the accompanying reference is defective in the use of the {{para|author}} parameter. ~ ] (]) 21:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Maybe making a new page of these twenty-plus phenomena with a link would be in order? Regarding the citation -- can you give me more detail on how to fix the {{para|author}} parameter? Finally, the novelty in the method I've linked to is in using the second derivative of the earth's rotational momentum as the significant critical factor in forecasting -- and this hasn't been discredited -- at least not yet! Warm Regards.] (]) 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I just looked -- and you have taken the gravitational effects section out. I think it might be good to add it back, while emphasizing that syzygy is discredited generally, but other gravitational effects (such as the change to the change of the rotational momentum) are still being investigated, and haven't been discredited. This will allow the page to be more thorough, and, especially if it is emphasized that syzygy is discredited as a correlative framework for earthquakes, that will make the page more useful. Basically, the second derivative (the change to the change) in the rotational momentum looks at the wobble in the earth's axis.] (]) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>The problem with the 'author=' parameter was using it for the author's entire name. That's fine for organizational names and such, but with people we distinguish first and last names by using 'last1' and 'first1' (incrementing the number for additional authors).</small> | |||
| ::: About syzygy and such: as I said before, the article is already pretty big, and it is going to turn into a book if we try to cover every claimed precursor. So we cover only a few representative examples. As a representative example I take a strong line against syzygy because it is repeatedly disconfirmed, and has no scientific credibility. (I have a couple of references if you are interested.) It amounts to fringe science at best, and per the principle of ] must not be given undue consideration. | |||
| ::: It could be argued that syzygy should be addressed because it is notable in the popular media. I would counter-argue that this article is not about popular conceptions of e.q. prediction, just as it isn't about psychic predictions of e.q.s. | |||
| ::: Nonetheless, I am somewhat inclined towards the view that someone might be looking for information about syzygy effects on earthquakes, and (there not being a separate article on that) this would be a good place to look. In that regard I could see a ''very'' short section (to avoid undue emphasis) to the effect that syszygy is an intuitively attractive theory that has been disproven. Note that syzygy would get in only because there is strong chance of someone looking for it; I don't see that any other variants of gravitational forces qualify. ~ ] (]) 20:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == To .pdf or not to .pdf == | |||
| BullRangifer: first of all, please regard ] where, having made a change which I reverted, the proper response is to go to Discussion, not repeated reversion. | |||
| To the matter of whether a convenience link should go straight to the pdf document (as you seem to prefer): I suggest otherwise. The "complete" url (with the ".pdf" extension) goes straight to a download, which gives the user no information about the document or where it comes from. Leaving off the ".pdf" (here, and in many other cases) takes the reader to a page ''about'' the document, typically with information about the document, including an abstract, along with an option to download. This is more useful, and more convenient, than an automatic download. ~ ] (]) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm sorry about not responding sooner. I wasn't aware of this thread. Yes, BRD is best to follow, except in cases of a clear misunderstanding or when a situation is so obvious, minor, and uncontroversial that a thorough edit summary will do the job. I thought that was the case here. I had done the actual experiment of checking both URLs and had a concrete result, so I was not in doubt. | |||
| : What is there about my edit summary that you don't agree with? Here it is: "The actually do the same thing, but since it's a .pdf file, I completed the URL. Try both versions and you'll see." () Here are both URL versions: | |||
| :* http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/download/5350/5371 | |||
| :* http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/download/5350/5371.pdf | |||
| : Unlike your explanation above (a reason I find VERY compelling), the bare URL without the .pdf takes one nowhere, not even a blank page, but immediately downloads the .pdf file, which I find rather strange. What happens when you click both links above? Is there a difference? Maybe it's my browser (I primarly use Firefox). -- ] (]) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmmm. Yes, great rationale, too bad it doesn't work that way. Whoops, wait a minute.. ah, here we are. Try this url instead: | |||
| :* http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/5350 | |||
| ::Is that good for you? I point out that some exceptions seem warrantable. E.g., where the choice is either immediate download, or a long list where the desired item is not readily seen. ~ ] (]) 21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sweet! Great solution. Thanks for improving the article, and keep up the good work. -- ] (]) 01:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're welcome. Thanks for catching that bug. Undoubtedly not the last one. ~ ] (]) 20:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Seismo Info, Planetary alignments, Georesonance / hyperresonance theory == | |||
| {{archive top|Stale discussion of ] views for which no ] have been presented.}} | |||
| This article is way outdated because now we have seismic forecast it seems. A Bosnian deposed king (or something like that) Dr. Omerbashich who is a scientist found out how to predict earthquake: http://seismo.info. When ever earth aligns with two planets, or with a planet and the sun (or a comet) we get an earthquake of magnitude 6 or more. It is a part of much larger cosmological theory he develops. This his discovery: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00808674, and formulas are totally check, he expresses gravity via speed of light! He's made a countering claim to this year's Nobel prize for physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Nobel_Prize_controversies#Omerbashich_claim, and other laureates seem to be supporting him. How come there is no mention of this anywhere in physics sections? True though, he '''is''' accusing Jesuits of censoring his discovery: http://secret.theroyalsociety.eu Which makes sense to me since church did this repeatedly throughout history. By the way, that last link deserves its own Misplaced Pages article, perhaps someone more experienced could make an article based on it? The proof is totally out of this world. Correct too, see how Jesuits killed Kennedy and many others... Warning: bibleheads' crazy numerology ahead, and while duly ridiculed by Dr. Omerbashich, still... not for the faint of heart! ] (]) 16:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This Dr. Omerbashich guy seems like ] to me. Is there any coverage of this guy in reliable sources? All of the above links tie back to his own website. ] (]) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can't you do better than attacks, have you read ]? Perhaps you missed the important parts from my post too: there's this guy who expressed gravity using speed of light, and expanded on to earthquake prediction, also successfully as far as I can tell: http://seismo.info. His website (thanks ] for the link!) is packed with to references about his work. He's given too. His contains many links too, like this , and some articles on his royal status from Bosnian media as far as I can tell. And so on. Where ever I look this guy seems the real deal to me. The fact that you '''don't''' hear about his amazing discoveries on CNN speaks volumes imo, which is not making him any less notable but in fact '''more notable than expected'''. ] (]) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Fringe? Yep. and if course the 'king's site. ] (]) 16:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I posted about a guy who expressed gravity using speed of light and as byproduct possibly solved earthquake puzzle, and all you can contribute is a link to some frivolous alternative wiki? That's even lower than Misplaced Pages, and I read somewhere Misplaced Pages articles and blogs shouldn't be referenced. But since you mention Dr. Omerbashich's website, you failed to report also what Dr. Omerbashich has to say about that alternative wiki: . Let's try not to be biased. ] (]) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And a more serious article (which also notes his claim to be rightful king of Britain and heir to Arthur). ] (]) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it's "serious" as any blog can be considered serious. It reads like libel to me. Personally, I couldn't find '''any''' reference whatsoever where he claims to be a king of Britain. But even if he did, that's . You should reference real sources, as I said above blogs aren't considered reliable. Same question to you then as ]: can you discuss a discovery, not a person? And how about the Jesuit accusation? It seems rather substantiated to me. Apparently, Jesuits kill people whose b-dates' figures sum up to odd numbers: 3, 7, 9, 11... The famous found on http://secret.theroyalsociety.eu is absolutely chilling, I wasn't aware of it. Or do you have a blog link to mock JFK too? ] (]) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since we aren't going to add him to the article, there's no issue about the blogs. I'm not suggesting we use them. Not until you can find him being discussed in some detail in clearly reliable sources, and maybe not even then. ] (]) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In all honestly, I don't care what you think since you proved in the above that you are incapable of normal discussion (without ad hominem attacks and attempts to diverge to unreliable sources), so if I feel like editing an article I'll do it without asking biased editors like you for permission. ] (]) 20:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It appears to be a pretty clear case of fringe - if it isn't it will be covered in ]. ] (]) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| You just have to love how some people ''know'' that someone ''will not be added'', or that something is ''pretty clear'', and then, so "justified" (by their own measure), care not to elaborate. Dougweller and Mikenorton suffer from a disorder called argument of authority. Of course, that's not an argument at all because the ''someone'' has demonstrably been reported about by many sources, and ''something'' includes expressing gravity by using speed of light. The point is: what were the odds of two such authoritarian editors appearing in tune (one right after the other) on this little Talk snippet virtually simultaneously? Buddies, or the same person? I bet it's the latter. ] (]) 06:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Make that three of us. Which is to say that consensus is running against you, and it would be inadvisable to proceed in any manner that could get you blocked. | |||
| :That three of us (so far) arrive at the same conclusion is a manifestation not of a common brain, but of a common objective reality. More particularly, your claims fail what is sometimes called the "sniff test": they just don't "smell" right in the sense they conflict with ordinary, common sense experience. | |||
| ::Never heard of "democratic math" before. If argument of authority is '''all''' you have to say on some guy '''mathematically''' expressing gravity by using speed of light, then your numbers don't matter because you're denying the obvious. Church has numbers and a large following, but that doesn't qualify the pope for Nobel prize. ] (]) 21:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, it is not an ad hominem attack to raise a question of whether a claim is fringe. However, to say that certain editors "are incapable of normal discussion", or "suffer from a disorder..." — well, those statements sure look like personal attacks. ~ ] (]) 21:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course not. And why the three dots, can't you complete the copy-paste function? Anyways, (which you meant by the three dots) is not listed as an , but was meant ironically of course. If I would now call your claim a dirty trick, would that be a personal attack even though I have just demonstrated it was a dirty trick, the ''three dots'' aspect inclusive? ] (]) 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nonsense. ~ ] (]) 21:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nonsense is to call it nonsense when someone exposes your trick. ] (]) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Four of us. This guy's own websites are not a reliable source, and I highly doubt that any reliable source exist that show his theory is ].] (]) 22:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't say that I would use some website as a source, it seems this man is sufficiently published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Back to the point: equations are facts in their own right. They are exact, so it suffices to write them down as long as you properly cite '''their''' source. Look around Misplaced Pages, it's filled with equations cited by primary, not third-party sources. For example , , , and so on. Don't try confusion tricks, they're not working on math because math is an exact science. ] (]) 21:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So cite a few of this fellow's peer-reviewed scientific publications. ~ ] (]) 21:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The post you commented was about math equations, not interpretable research. You should really stop using dirty tricks, like in the above where you inserted three dots instead of the crux, or now pulling things out of context. If you don't know how or doesn't want to discuss, then please stay away. ] (]) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The three dots constitute what is called an ]; its use is conventional, and is hardly any kind of trick, "dirty" or otherwise. But now that you call my use of an ellipsis as a "dirty trick", I remind you of your own statement (above): "''If I would now call your claim a dirty trick, would that be a personal attack....''". Therefore, by your own logic, you have engaged in a personal attack. I will ask you nicely: please stop that. | |||
| :::::::Only Misplaced Pages regulations apply, so you're at a wrong address. ] (]) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"No personal attacks" ''is'' a "Misplaced Pages regulation". See ]. More likely ''you'' are at a wrong address. ~ ] (]) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Didn't you say in the above that it was an "attack" under "my" criteria? So now my criteria become Misplaced Pages criteria? Another dirty trick... ] (]) 00:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: My comment was ''not'' "about math equations", but your claim that "this man is sufficiently published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." If that is so, it should be a simple matter to cite a few. Please do so. ~ ] (]) 20:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I already explained to you, my intention was ''not'' to post the man's interpretable research but math equations, which are astonishing by the way. All equations are correct by definition and therefore are not subject to interpretation. It's called math! Mathematicians post equations and derivations regularly on informal forums and archives. Besides, equations are posted as stand-alone all over Misplaced Pages too, as I showed you on three random examples above. I don't know what sort of weird game is going on with this guy, but his equations are fascinating. He expressed gravity by using speed of light, and here we are. I call it a clear case of genius. How come he doesn't have his own page on Misplaced Pages? Better yet, how come he's not on every news channel and in every school textbook of physics?????? Are you or/and Misplaced Pages trying to suppress this? What's going on? Please do tell. There are still a few of us who are sane and can tell a genius when we see one. ] (]) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"All equations are correct by definition"? It appears that you mistake the ''assertion'' that two sets of terms are equal from the question of whether such an assertion is ''true''. E.g."4 = 2" and "2a = a" are both equations, but not true. And you totally fail to understand how it is that certain equations are determined to be "true", and not others. ~ ] (]) 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please don't pull things out of context. You know well I meant mathematical equations, published in some sort of normal venue where such results are published. As I already mentioned (why do I have to teach you so many basic things?), arxiv where he published his equations is perfectly fine with mathematicians and physicists nowadays. Only real scientists can publish there, you can't. Besides, his equations I want to put in the article can also be found in that I already listed, etc. So, you still have no comment on my view of this man as a genius? ] (]) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, Aminidi, if this guy is published in peer-reviewed journals, '''please post some links to those journals''', and then we can discuss. Also, I suggest you take a look at ]. Each Misplaced Pages article should stand on its own. The quality of the sources in other articles doesn't affect what sources are useable here. ] (]) 23:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see above where I said I was going to post equations, not interpretable research. All equations are correct by definition and therefore are not subject to interpretation. It's called math! Mathematicians post equations and derivations regularly on informal forums and archives. Besides, equations are posted as stand-alone all over Misplaced Pages too, as I showed you on three random examples above. ] (]) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You said this fellow "is sufficiently published in peer-reviewed scientific journals". So show us. ~ ] (]) 22:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nonsense. For the third (and last?) time: I already explained to you that mathematical equations need no sources. His equations can be found in the , that I already listed, etc. So, you still have no comment on my view of this man as a genius? ] (]) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Everything''' on Misplaced Pages should have sources. Mathematical equations are no exception: we need sources to show that those equations are accurate, and notable. ] (]) 00:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Did you catch the examples from Misplaced Pages that I quoted, of equations citing primary sources? Please pay attention in the future, as I can't be repeating myself all the time. So here we go again: - Look around Misplaced Pages, it's filled with equations cited by primary, not third-party sources. For example , , , and so on. ] (]) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Did '''you''' catch where I linked to ]? The fact that other Misplaced Pages articles use primary sources does not mean that primary sources are acceptable. Sure, those should probably be fixed, but we're only discussing this article here. Other articles don't matter. ] (]) 00:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Citing an entire rule without noting what '''exact''' (sub)section and point of it you allege has been violated is like citing nothing at all. Junk. Imagine a court where the judge sentences the defendant "based on the Constitution of the United States" without bothering to cite the chapter, section, subsection, etc. that make the defendant's deeds illegal. Some of us are legalistically literate, actually. ] (]) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You have been given the relevant section elsewhere. Self-published sources that are libelous are not acceptable. Consensus has been reached here. If you want a second opinion then try your luck at ] because arguing the same point over and over without convincing anyone is not working for you. ] ] 01:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Aminidi: as Howicus has told you, everything on Misplaced Pages is required to have sources, and reliable sources at that. This is a core policy, ]. Start reading it from the top: the "page in a nutshell" and first two pargraphs. Note: no exceptions for equations. | |||
| ::Since you will not support your claims, they are properly rejected. ~ ] (]) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| I think that we all need to realize that this is a collective effort! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I agree, working together! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::<small>Restored prior comment after by 166.147.88.40. Comment below. ~ ] (]) 23:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Can you read?''' What part of "''The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it''" do you not understand? If you want to open a new discussion click on the "New section" tab at the top of the page. And of course (as I said above) please sign your edits with the "four tildes" ('''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''). | |||
| :Sure, working ''together'' would be good. Is that within your competency? ~ ] (]) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Now this is an interesting situation. A comment by "64.134.228.0" is deleted by "166.147.88.40". Strictly speaking, we should not be deleting (or materially modifying) Talk page comments by other editors. So are these different editors? Or merely different instances of the wannabe editor from Wichita? This is one reason (of many) for having a registered account (hint, hint), in that it avoids several kinds of confusion. Even as "own comment", it is bad form to remove comments, as it confuses the record of the discussion. To retract a comment (of your own!) standard form is to <s>strike it out</s> using <s> and </s>. (Compare the displayed text with how this is done in the edit box by using the "Preview" function.) ~ ] (]) 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Fraser-Smith ULF material == | |||
| To the anonymous person who has repeatedly added the Fraser-Smith ULF material: You are "edit warring". Please take note of the Bold-Revert-Discuss policy at ]. You are allowed to "Boldly" insert material, but anyone else is also allowed to Revert such material. After that the proper action is NOT to re-insert the material, but to Discuss it. Which means on the Talk page (here), not in the edit summaries. So I am going revert again (back to the original); before you start another round please discuss the matter here. | |||
| To start the discussion I will point out that ''this'' topic — earthquake prediction — covers a **LOT** of ground; the article cannot cover every aspect, facet, and sub-topic of interest to some editor. If you feel that the topic of possible precursor electro-magnetic variations, or even just ULF variations, are so notable that they need fuller coverage, then you should write an article on just that topic. And I would encourage you to do so. | |||
| But ''this'' article (like all articles), in not being able to cover everything, needs to maintain proper balance in what it does cover. The rule here — ] — is that different views should be covered proportionately to their weight in ]. | |||
| So: I maintain that Fraser-Simon's single report of a possible ULF precursor to the Loma Prieta quake is ''not'' as notable as "VAN". And you maintain (in your last edit summary): "According to Google scholar, the VAN results have been cited maybe 100 times. The Fraser-Smith report is cited about 500 times." | |||
| For sure, on Google Scholar the terms "earthquake fraser-smith ulf" turn up "about" 606 hits. On the otherhand, "earthquake ses" (short for "seismic electric signal") turns up 28,700 hits. End of story? | |||
| Of course not. For starters, ''we do not rely on Google to assess scientific weight''. This is in part because the number of ''hits'' Google finds on the Web is very sensitive to the search terms used, does not correspond to the number of ''citations'', and has little (if any) relation to scientific weight. Furthermore, your "maybe 100" citations for VAN is dubious, as I have that many ''articles'' re VAN, and my collection is hardly complete. | |||
| More pertinently: the VAN claims (even though largely rejected) have been sufficiently notable (or notorious?) to be the main topic of a conference and special issues in two journals, and covered in various review articles. Similarly, a 1996 review (], cited in the article) of possible electromagnetic precursors gave VAN eight pages, and ULF only two. | |||
| One other thing: Your citations violate ]. | |||
| ::~ ] (]) 23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''WARNING''' (to the anonymous person editing this article): simply reverting edits without discussion (as you have done , , and ) is ], which is subject to sanctions. Also, the was a blatant ] for QuakeFinder (and nothing but), which with your other edits (above, in the Loma Prieta section, and at ]) demonstrates a uniform pattern (and sole interest) of ] that ] with the aims of Misplaced Pages. Please desist from this ill-advised editing. ~ ] (]) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Attention Wichita (64.134.151.235) == | |||
| '''Attention''', the IP 64.134.151.235 user from Wichita: what was it you said about "working together"? Are you unclear on the concept? If (as you have implied) you are a seismologist, you really should consider that acting like you have your head up your butt is not going help your professional reputation, and that your supposed anonymity is flimsier than you realize. | |||
| There are some issues with both the material you keep trying to add, and how you go about it. (See my prior comments of 13 Dec., above.) If you wish to add material, please discuss it, here. ~ ] (]) 22:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, Johnson, some of your comments are not appropriate. The QuakeFinder page, if one reads it, is certainly not especially endorsing of that company. I have suggested putting in citations to it for reasons of balance. There is, for example, a link in this article on earthquake prediction to QuakeSat (I didn't put it there). Well, QuakeSat is a QuakeFinder project. So why reference a project of a company, but not reference the company itself? Opting not to remove material, but simply add material, I put in a citation to QuakeFinder. You seem to be set on referencing the "VAN method". Fine. I have not tried to change that. But to consider the "SES method" synonymous with the VAN method is a stretch, and to Google search on SES is not meaningful. The VAN method encompasses statistics as well, and that aspect of the VAN method has been criticized. Furthermore, you seem to rely on the paper by Park in setting priorities. Of course, things have moved on since he wrote his paper (in 1996). So I would suggest that your counting of SES citations is, well, not the emphasis I would make. But, again, I have not removed any of the VAN material. More generally, this Wiki article, as it stands, gives quite a bit of weight to methods that most scientists don't regard as viable for predicting earthquakes -- animal behavior, for example (most regard this as ridiculous). On the other hand, the Fraser-Smith report of electromagnetic precursors is certainly more worthy of emphasis and mention here (not simple deletion, as you have apparently repeatedly done). Moving forward, and sincerely, "Wichita". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Glad to see you can interact here. | |||
| ::Before we can get into a running discussion, there are some little baby steps regarding Misplaced Pages process that you really need to learn. '''First''', it is really, truly, advantageous to register for an account. A lot of interaction (including valuable tips) just gets missed without an account. '''Second''', all your edits on a talk page should be ''signed''. This is done automatically for you if append the "four tildes" ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"). '''Third''', discussions are easier to read if each comment is sequentially indented. This is done by prefixing a proper number of colons (":"). I will add one to your comment, so you can see how this works. There are other conventions, standards, and principles you need to be aware of, but first show me that you can handle the second and third points here, and perhaps you will also consider the first point. ~ ] (]) 23:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Tone == | |||
| Much of this article reads, to me, like support for the view that earthquake prediction is impossible, with snarky put-downs of every reported attempt. It is one one thing to obectively describe how no prediction method has yet been shown to work, but quite another to show, ahem, bias. <br> I'm no expert in this area, nor do I have a pre-formed viewpoint, but I've just added two more upbeat sections, based on an Economist article, . One describes an actual physical phenomenon (magnetic), and the other a major research project that will look at animal movements before earthquakes. <br> | |||
| As these get edited into the body, I hope that, overall, we can make this piece a bit less POV. | |||
| 15:18, 19 February 2014 ] | |||
| : And I am going to suggest that you revert those two edits as having a "tone" that promotes ] material, and add nothing to the article but the kind of bias you inveigh against. | |||
| : You want to "{{tq|make this piece a bit less POV}}"? Perhaps you have forgotten that there is always a "point of view", and that the ] requirement is for a ''neutral'' POV, according to the weight of expert opinion. There is no requirement to be "upbeat", or to conform to your personal, unsupported opinion. | |||
| : Whether earthquake prediction in principle is ''possible'' or ''impossible'' is a scientific issue, which has been hotly debated in the scientific literature. This is referenced in the article, and no position is taken here. | |||
| : Whether any ''claimed'' prediction has been ''successful'' is quite another matter. That closer examination shows most ''claims'' of earthquake prediction to be unsuccessful, meaningless, or dubious, is not "bias" — it is '''reality''', as supported by ]. On the other hand, your addition of "more upbeat sections" ''is'' bias, and shows a POV that is ''not'' supported by reliable sources. (Certainly you understand that the ''Economist'' is not a reliable source in respect of the prospects of earthquake prediction? For that matter, neither is Dr. Freund, whose ] on this topic have been rejected by the rest of the expert community.) | |||
| : There are other problems with your additions, but their ] and ] POV are sufficient to remove them. Which I will do directly. ~ ] (]) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I just looked at the "Animal behavior" section, and largely agree with Onanoff, at least for this section. It has good information, but it also includes completely unsourced arguments advocating a particular point of view, including in two of the footnotes, in a tone I'd describe as didactic/argumentative rather than encyclopedic. (Example: "However, it is extremely important to note the time element: ''how much'' warning?") The section also seems imbalanced in the research it covers, for example citing a anecdotal primary source on one side of the argument () but not an equivalent on the other (e.g., ). It cites a pop media (ABC News) article on "sixth senses" to support a generalized statement about pop media, then disparages the paranormal-sounding "unknown power" from the article as a straw man, ignoring uncontroversial stimuli that have been proposed in scientific literature (e.g., ). (I'm not arguing with the statement about pop media – they ''do'' jump all over animal prediction stories, as is noted in scientific literature used for this article, but that scientific literature should be cited for the statement, rather than citing a pop media story as evidence of the claim). | |||
| :: The secondary sources in reputable scientific literature (e.g. ICEF 2011 and Geller 1997) seem clear on animal behavior, and are given some coverage in the section, but their analysis is given much less prominence than the undue weight given to the uncited arguments and reliance on primary sources. Added detail to give a history of theories/evidence of the issue that isn't in secondary sources seems fine, but it should be explained in a neutral tone, cite reliable sources, and if delving into primary sources should seek balanced coverage of the topic. | |||
| ::] (]) 14:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good comments. I may take a couple of days for a full consideration. ~ ] (]) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is somewhat difficult to respond to your criticisms because instead of laying them out individually you have arrayed them in a solid mass against the POV I adopted; some disentangling is necessary. As POV is also Onanoff's concern, let's start with that. I think we can all agree that Geller (1997) and the ICEF are the premier secondary sources, that (aside from Geller's extrapolation that "occurrence of individual earthquakes is unpredictable", which has been hotly contested) these indicate a well-balanced point-of-view of reliable (expert) sources, which this article should follow. Which I think this article does, both overall, and particularly regarding "Animal behavior". What I don't understand is how you reckon that the primary sources I have cited give undue weight to any contrary POV. (Examples?) | |||
| :::E.g., you complain that I have given ''undue weight'' (balance) to some sources, and that the ''analysis'' of Geller and the ICEF "is given much less prominence than the undue weight given to the uncited arguments and reliance on primary sources." Geller is given plenty of prominence in the article as a whole (cited some two dozen times); that he is cited only once in "Animal behavior" is because he did not particularly analyze the reports of animal behavior. I do not know how you could give him greater prominence. | |||
| :::The analysis of the ICEF regarding animal behavior is not only quoted, I used it as the summary to that section. In fact it was your edit that gave it less promience by taking it out of the blockquote I had used. (Which I am all in favor of restoring.) I point out that the other text you complained about is in a footnote, which is even less prominent. | |||
| :::What you seem to regard as undue weight is what I call explanation. The primary sources I cited (and explanations) in no way contradict Geller or the ICEF; they support otherwise bald statements. Nor is it a matter of weight to explain how the ICEF is ''not'' contradicted by a widely reported instance of behavior a major news organization suggested might be a "sixth sense". To ''not'' provide such an explanation would leave an impression of a counter-example, thus favoring a fringe view. | |||
| :::I did not cite authorities regarding p-waves as this is rather "sky is blue" stuff for seismologists. But as this is not so obvious generally I will dig up some support. I may try tweaking some of the other text. ~ ] (]) 00:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: On the blockquote, that's just ] guidance, which says to use them for longer quotes (40 words is suggested). At first it honestly looked like a formatting error to me, because it was so short it fit on one line in my browser. | |||
| :::: Regarding P waves, I'm not disputing their explanation (a non-RS is similar, and ICEF 2011 said anecdotal evidence of reactions a few seconds early are "most probably triggered by the weak shaking of the first-arriving P wave"), but their applicability to a specific incident still needs a source. Examples that would be ] without a source: | |||
| ::::* "Thus the signs of alarm reported in the animals at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., some five to ten seconds prior to the shaking from the M 5.8 2011 Virginia earthquake, was undoubtably prompted by the p-waves. This was not so much a prediction as a warning of shaking from an earthquake that has already happened." | |||
| ::::* "It was also reported that the red lemurs 'called out 15 minutes before the quake', which would be well before the arrival of the p waves. Lacking any other details it is impossible to say whether the lemur activity was in any way connected with the quake, or was merely a chance activity that was given significance for happening just before the quake, a failing typical of such reports." | |||
| :::: To clarify what I meant by ICEF and Geller getting "less prominence than the undue weight given to the uncited arguments and reliance on primary sources" in the animal behavior section, I meant ICEF's & Geller's conclusions are summarized, but almost half of the Misplaced Pages section (counting the footnote arguments) focuses on what seems like original research concerning a zoo's 2011 press release that was issued after both Geller 1997 & ICEF 2011. The Misplaced Pages section also covers the 1981 USGS rodent report and the 2005 ant study, which weren't mentioned or directly referenced by ICEF or Geller. Geller provided significant analysis of the 1975 Haicheng incident (covered separately in this Misplaced Pages article), and I could see summarizing that in this section, or animal studies from older review articles that ICEF and Geller cite. Bottom line: I'd suggest relying on secondary sources, since they exist for the section's topic. But failing that, if the section includes primary sources that lack secondary source coverage, it should include primary sources on both sides of the issue, without personal analysis of those sources. | |||
| :::: I've only skimmed the rest of the article, and will comment only on the issue of tone. ] provides latitude, as there are stylistic differences in writing, but this article seems more like it's trying to be a persuasive essay, arguing a thesis about the difficulty/impossibility of prediction, rather than simply providing factual coverage of the topic. It does a good job covering facts, but uses persuasive flourishes as well, which seems to me unnecessary and inappropriate. Example are quote boxes are scattered throughout, often without context, in a style that resembles advertorials or sales brochures, or illustration, which seems to cite no source, or rhetorical arguments like "If scientists and the civil authorities knew that (for instance) in some area there was an 80% chance of a large (M > 6) earthquake in a matter of a day or two, they would see a clear benefit in issuing an alarm. But is it worth the cost of civil and economic disruption and possible panic, and the corrosive effect a false alarm has on future alarms, if the chance is only 5%?". | |||
| ::::] (]) 12:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Some quick comments. First, I think you have misunderstood ]. In saying to use blockquotes for longer quotations it does not preclude their use for shorter quotations. And the point of setting it off is so that it is more prominent. | |||
| ::::: The point of the "quote boxes are scattered throughout" is to provide a sense of what scientists have thought about the prospects of prediction, and particularly to show the optimism (even euphoria) of the 70s, and how it has subsequently evolved. This provides some context to the various predictions. The pair of quotes at "Precursors" illustrates the contrasting views on the prospects of precursors. | |||
| ::::: The "Alarm dilemma" ("Bar") chart is pretty standard Stats 101, so I didn't see any need to document it, and I am somewhat mystified you should question it. But I think I can find the source. | |||
| ::::: More later. ~ ] (]) 00:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The MOS doesn't preclude many things, but my interpretation seems straightforward. | |||
| :::::: I see the intent of the quote boxes. They're like pull quotes, without pulling quotes from the article. I'd integrate them into the body of the article, explaining their relevance and describing the authors. Emphasizing or decorating them in addition to that is a controversial but well-established style choice on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| {{centered pull quote | ... decorating them ... is ... well-established ... }} | |||
| :::::: Emotional moods of scientists seems ancillary to the article's subject. Perhaps cover feelings in a paragraph or two in a "History" section, and reword to cover facts elsewhere? | |||
| :::::: I'm familiar with the idioms "raising/lowering the bar", but not the literal term ''The Bar''. If it was based on a source, citing it is standard. | |||
| :::::: ] (]) 07:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I must beg to differ with you regarding MOS:Blockquote: I think your interpretation of is incorrect, that MOS does not require a minimum length. Would you care to propose how we might resolve this? | |||
| ::: The optimism of the 70s is just one part of the history of earthquake prediction (which really requires its own article). It is ''not'' "ancillary" here because it strongly colors the perception (scientific and popular) of whether prediction is likely, or even possible. While that could be covered in a separate section, I think it is better to have these indications parallel the predictions whose successes and failures often modified them, and vice-versa. | |||
| ::: I felt that short, memorable quotes, in boxes, also make up, in part, the lack of illustrations. (One can illustrate the ''results'' of an earthquake, but how do we illustrate a ''prediction''?) A stronger reason for putting the quotes in boxes is that they are not directly part of the text they "decorate". Putting them into the text would confuse the text, and suggest direct connection. | |||
| ::: My source for "The Bar" chart apparently was among some accidentally deleted files , so it may take some time to recover that. The difficulty is that the concept is usually presented in terms of hypothesis testing (typically with the overlapping proability distributions), intensely dense, and rarely with specific application to prediction, let alone earthquake prediction. But I don't quite understand your objection. Like, if I wanted to illustrate how very little mass can generate a lot of energy per E = mc<sup>2</sup>, how much documentation of that formula would you require? Well, I will take a look around to see if I can rediscover my source, so perhaps not an issue. | |||
| ::::~ ] (]) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The sources I've added for the charts should suffice (right?). I am thinking of rewriting "Animal behavior"; that will take a week or two to wrap my head around it. ~ ] (]) 21:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: MOS says to use double quotes for short quotes, and block quotes for long quotes. The straightforward interpretation is that they recommend doing that. Your interpretation that it doesn't prohibit block quotes for short quotes is perverse. I honestly don't care what you want to do, your insistence on trifling arguments like this obstructs co-operative editing, and this is only for something absolutely trivial. People have been complaining about the tone, quotes, and animal behavior section since 2012, and you've been unaccepting of the feedback. A few words may be changed, but it's like pulling teeth. I'm not going to continue arguing about it. ] (]) 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Re: the chart, the cited chart is a normal two by two matrix. The addition of ''The Bar'' that moves up and down the Y axis is the weird part. But again, I'm done with this. ] (]) 22:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Co-operative editing does require some shared understanding of the relevant standards, and of resolution of conflicts. I had hoped that because the MOS is (as I believe) so clear on this point re block quotes that it would be easy for us to resolve this particular conflict. Though this instance is trifling, you did think it was important enough to "correct". And whether that is saved or reverted, I think it is important that we concur. Note that though I think your intepretation is mistaken, instead of arguing my position I ''asked'' how ''you'' would prefer to proceed. Running away is a poor option, as it shows that you won't engage co-operatively. (Or can't, though I doubt that.) But if you ''really'' don't care, fine, I won't drag you back. | |||
| :::::: You complain I have been "unaccepting of feedback", but your reference to 2012 wasn't about feedback; that was an attempt to include some really bad material (the dog study). As to the ''The Bar'': introductory stats texts usually consider this only in the context of design of experiments, where the concern is the rejection Type II error. Regarding predictions you should consult ... oh, I forgot, you're done with this. ~ ] (]) 23:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Browning section == | |||
| I removed the Browning section, since his research was fringe. We don't need to summary every fringe development in this subject. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->] (])Spatial | |||
| : It is somewhat problematical to say that Browning's "research" was fringe, as (as far as I can tell) he didn't ''have'' any research. But although his greatly ballyhooed prediction was not ''scientifically'' notable, it is still highly notable in the public's awareness, so it is covered. (Keep in mind that, technically, he was a scientist, which gave him some credibility.) So I have restored it. If you have any objections discuss them here. | |||
| : I actually undid all of your changes. For all that some of your minor edits might even have some merit to them, I am not going to go picking through them when you keep making very questionable edits without any prior discussion. And I point out that you are coming across as a rank amateur. ~ ] (]) 20:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Quote boxes? == | |||
| These seem inappropriate for an article that is supposed to be somewhat objective. The quotes add disproportionate focus to their "quotable" content, which are given without context and seem to be rather arbitrarily chosen by whoever put them in in the first place. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->] (])Spatial | |||
| :What do you mean by "disproportionate focus" and "without context"? Unfortunately you don't know the bases for assessing these kinds of matters. And as you haven't learned even how to "sign" your comments I feel it would be a waste of time trying to explain any of this. If you make slap-dash edits you will be reverted. ~ ] (]) 21:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: The issue has been raised in ] and two sections above in ]. ] and ] object to the number of quotes, but don't specifically mention the boxes. In each case, the sole defender of the quotes has been JJ, the creator of the quote boxes. | |||
| :: ]'s mention of "without context" was raised by Ego White Tray in ], and by me above (perhaps 58 read it there). To elaborate, it's not always clear why they're there, who the authors are, or what relevance they have to the sections they're in. "'Blahblah' –John Smith, 1975" vs. "John Smith, lead investigator of the study, said at the time 'Blahblah'." | |||
| :: "Putting them into the text would confuse the text, and suggest direct connection." They are confusing either way, and more confusing as quote boxes. If a quote can't be worked in to the section's text in a sensible way, consider that it may not be appropriate for the section. If there is no direct connection, at least the indirect connection should be clarified. | |||
| :: ], while not a MOS guideline or policy, seems sensible. Pull quotes simply repeat text already included in the article body. Part of the rationale behind that approach is for accessibility; screen-reading software to assist people with impaired or no sight can have difficulty with floating elements, and even the spoken readings of articles recorded for people are made more confusing. Pull quotes can simply be ignored in these cases. In addition to accessibility for people with disabilities, such boxes also pose challenges when rendered on browsers that are text-only, or use small screens like smart phones. | |||
| ::] (]) 21:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I got rid of the quote boxes. For now, this entire article is a mess. We need to concentrate on essential material, not peripheral decoration in the form of quote boxes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->] (])Spatial | |||
| ::: Agyle: The archived discussion you reference was in regard of tagging with {{tl|Over-quotation}}, asserting that the article contained "too many or too-lengthy quotations". As I noted in a , the real complaint was ''not'' "too many" (only 13) nor "too-lengthy" (longest was 20 words), but ''too boring''. That editor editor's opinion was that "{{tq|Quote boxes are for featured quotes, quotes that are famous, or exciting, or controversial}}" (10 Nov 2012) — a standard I have yet to find. | |||
| ::: Your focus on pull-quotes is entirely irrelevant, as these quotes are not pulled from the text. That is why I put them into boxes, to avoid suggesting a direct connection. Their purpose is to augment the material. In particular, they show (as I have said before) how scientific opinion was evolving. | |||
| ::: Your complaint that "{{tq|it's not always clear ... who the authors are}}" is ludicrous: each quote is attributed in the box, and is cited to a source. | |||
| ::: If you have any real complaints about these quotes (or is it just the quote ''boxes''?), beyond merely ] or ], it would facilitate the discussion to clearly and precisely state those complaints. | |||
| ::: A mess? If you think so, open another discussion. But don't forget that your unsupported opinion is rather worthless. Perhaps you would prefer to go back to ? ~ ] (]) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Attention "Wichita" (58.*): Thank you, but (in general) you should ''not'' be editing other people's comments. One of many Misplaced Pages principles, standards, and conventions of which you are ignorant, and all the more reason you should be treading very carefully. ~ ] (]) 23:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Comprehensive list of complaints === | |||
| Agyle: if you are truly done with all this, fine, I am not going to chase you. But lest these fumes of complaint re-ignite at some future time as unfinished business I have gone over the current and archived discussions to extract the following comprehensive list of complaints about the use of quote boxes in this article. Some of these I deem as resolved, others are not resolvable because they are only general complaints lacking any addressable points. Some might have some validity, but it seems to me that none present a case for taking action. | |||
| :1) Over-quotation: too many quote boxes. | |||
| :: No showing that 14 quote boxes in a large article is too many. | |||
| :2) Over-quotation: too lengthy quotations. | |||
| :: Longest boxed quotation is 20 words, hardly lengthy. | |||
| :3) Boxed quotes must be unforgettable and interesting, reserved for featured quotes. | |||
| :: Who says? No such requirement. | |||
| :4) "Bureaucratic language ... shouldn't be in a quote box." | |||
| :: A made-up characterization and requirement, entirely irrelevant. | |||
| :5) The quotes are boring, must be famous, or exciting, or controversial. | |||
| :: Who says? At any rate, Richter's quote qualified, and it was deleted. | |||
| :6) These quotes don't connect to the particular quakes being discussed. | |||
| :: The sections don't discuss quakes, they discuss ''predictions''. The quotes are not intended to be particular. They are intended to show the gradual shifting background of scientific opinion in light of the generally disappointing results. As I have previously explained. | |||
| :7) They add "disproportionate focus" to the "quotable" content. | |||
| :: Huh? Does that anywhere lead to a NPOV problem? Where? | |||
| :8) Given without context. | |||
| :: a) Does this anywhere lead to a NPOV problem? | |||
| :: b) Give an example of what kind of context you think is required. | |||
| :9) Arbitrarily chosen. | |||
| :: What is that supposed to mean? | |||
| :10) Sole defender has been JJ. | |||
| :: Is this seriously a point against using quote boxes? | |||
| :11) Not always clear why they're there. | |||
| :: "Not always" like on some mornings it is clear, other mornings not? | |||
| :12) Not clear who the authors are. | |||
| :: All quotes are attributed, so that must be a personal problem. | |||
| :13) Not clear what relevance they have to the sections they're in. | |||
| :: If you can't see how the possibility of chance success is relevant to "Significance", or two quotes on precursors are relevant to "Precursors", or the success at Blue Mountain Lake led to optimistic claims, or that the L'Aquila failure may reveal why the ICEF's statement is so cautious, then I don't know how to explain it to you. | |||
| :14) They're confusing. | |||
| :: Oh? How so? | |||
| :15) May not be appropriate for the section. | |||
| :: ''May'' not be? Please show specific, definite instances. | |||
| :16) Difficult for screen-reading software. | |||
| :: See next. | |||
| :17) Pose challenges for text-only browsers or small screens like smart phones. | |||
| :: As do all images, which are encouraged. At any rate, there is no WP requirement that all articles must meet the lowest common denominator of a smart phone. And as was said regarding pull quotes: they can simply be ignored. | |||
| :18) "strange and essentially uninformative". (edit summary) | |||
| :: I don't know how "strange" figures, but it certainly seems ''in''formative to show (e.g.) that it has been over 35 years since eminent seismologists were saying that earthquake prediction "appears to be on the verge of practical reality", and "may be possible within 10 years". Similarly for the other quotes (which were deleted en masse). | |||
| :19) Question of "whether or not the quote boxes actually ADD anything of real substance". <small></small> | |||
| I am not impressed with the caliber of these objections. They are generally just general objections, vague and lacking specificity, lacking any stated standard of reference other than the objector's personal interpretation and sense of "right" ("bureaucratic language"!), or they misapply a standard. No one has yet to point to any instance of a quote in a quote box being incorrect, unattributed, uncited, fringe, unduly weighted, too lengthy, or even unencyclopedic. The common complaint is only ], which is insufficient grounds for deletion. If someone wants to explore ''why'' they don't like these quotes, fine, but accept the problem for what is: personal. | |||
| :So I gather most comments concerning the quote boxes is for their elimination? Mostly just J. Johnson wants them? Other opinions out there? Spatial ] (]) 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can "gather" what you will, but the basis of doing things around here is not the volume of whining but ''merit''. And as far as I have seen these complaints are entirely meritless. ~ ] (]) 21:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the question is whether or not the quote boxes actually ADD anything of real substance to the article. Spatial ] (]) 22:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is fine with me if you want that to be ''the'' question. But then allow that the previous 18 complaints are settled, and we are not going to continue playing "whack-a-mole". ~ ] (]) 22:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm not the one putting together comprehensive lists. Johnson, since you seem to be the main proponent of quote boxes, and in order to obtain constructive progress, maybe you can provide us with a comprehensive set of reasons for having them? Spatial ] (]) 23:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Reasons for the quote boxes === | |||
| I put together the comprehensive list of complaints so we don't keep going around and around playing whack-a-mole raising dead or unspecified issues. (And I am adding the issue you just raised.) As to reasons for a) having the quotes themselves, and b) having them in quote boxes, I offer the following (as I have previously explained): | |||
| :1) to attract and engage the interest of readers (similar to pull-quotes). | |||
| :2) to provide visual decoration in lieu of images. | |||
| :3) to provide a sense of the evolving context of scientific opinion regarding prediction. | |||
| :4) to set off this general background material from the specific predictions. | |||
| As you are inexperienced here I suspect it is necessary to point out that this is '''not''' a matter of "only four reasons for, and 19 against". If there was even a ''single'' good reason "against" the quote boxes would be out. But it looks to me that all of the complaints are invalid (as explained just above), and really arise only from personal dislike of the quotes and/or boxes. ~ ] (]) 23:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Should every WP page that (1) needs to attract attention, (2) would benefit from visual decoration, (3) discusses an evolving subject, (4) has specific points (I guess), have quote boxes? ] (]) 19:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should ''every'' WP page have quote boxes? What kind of ridiculous question is that? We are not talking about ''every'' WP page, only this one. And I don't claim that ''this'' article ''should'' have quote boxes. But that does '''not''' mean that the article ''should not'' have the boxes, as if only two extreme alternatives are allowed. I am saying that there ''are reasons for having'' the quote boxes (and boxed quotes), and that they add to the article. That you (or any others) simply don't like them (and lack any valid basis) does not justify their removal. ~ ] (]) 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just asking. Are you the only one who wants the boxes? ] (]) 21:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What of it? As I am "the only one" who wanted to entirely revamp this article would you roll it back to ? ~ ] (]) 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I suggest that we need to minimize the present article down to what is actually needed. So, for example, is all the discussion of failed attempts at earthquake prediction - those attempts that do not seem to have a valid scientific basis -- necessary, or is the volume of material devoted to those methods really necessary as compared to other methods that actual scientists are pursuing? For example, there has been some attempt to have introduced to this article material covering satellite projects devoted to earthquake prediction (some of those satellites are already in orbit). But this doesn't seem to satisfy Johnson, who, keeps deleting it. On the other hand, we have material on Browning, lots of material on using animals, etc. To most scientists, these methods have no scientific basis. Yes, we can cover some crack-pot ideas, but this needs to be put into a balance with methods that scientists are actually trying to use, evidence that some scientists actually consider valid, etc. To make headway, we can possibly get rid of material that doesn't much contribute, so, for example, we might get rid of quote boxes, we might reduce coverage of crack-pot methods. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| What a load of bullshit. You start with an unwarranted presumption, "{{tq|that we need to minimize the present article down to what is actually needed}}", for which you have no basis (''why'' is there any such need?). This arises not from honest discovery of some problem, but solely to support your pre-determined desire to dump the quote boxes. | |||
| Then you veer right off the topic of quote boxes as such to question whether "{{tq|all the discussion of failed attempts at earthquake prediction}}" is really necessary. While, strictly speaking, that is off-topic, yet I think it is quite revealing as to your personal sentiments and POV: you just don't like all this discussion of ''failed'' attempts at prediction. You would rather the article concentrated on "other methods that actual scientists are pursuing". | |||
| In regards of the ''predictions'' that are included in the article please recall the explicitly stated ''criteria for inclusion'': "{{tq|These are predictions, or claims of predictions, that are notable either scientifically or because of public notoriety, and ''claim a scientific or quasi-scientific basis, or invoke the authority of a scientist''.}}" You object specifically to Browning, but he did have a PhD in zoology, thus qualifying as a scientist. You could quibble that Giuliani (whom you did not mention) is not a scientist, but he did claim a basis (radon) that a number scientists have studied. And all the other predictions are by scientists (well, Haicheng is questionable), and have a scientific basis. | |||
| So just which "crack-pot" ''methods'' would you exclude? Animal behavior? (And where were you when I fended off repeated attempts to include the Coren dog studies?) Animal behavior is the most well-known ("popular") putative seismic precursor. Ignoring it, and in particular ignoring why scientists reject it, would appear as a serious omission of our coverage. As to any other "crack-pot methods": which ones would those be? | |||
| You want to cover "{{tq|evidence that some scientists actually consider valid}}", but fail to consider that all these ''failed'' predictions are valid evidence. You want to ignore these, perhaps to concentrate on positive, up-lifting, even ebullient ''expectations'' of future success. This article describes earthquake prediction as a general failure because that is the reality. A contrary point-of-view would violate ]. Which I think takes us back to the quote boxes: is it the ''quotes'' you don't like? Or just the ''boxes''? ~ ] (]) 20:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits == | |||
| "58.*": Regarding these edits you keep making at ]: some of them change the sense, and therefore are ''not'' minor. As an example, let us discuss the difference between "notable" (original) and "extreme" shaking in the second paragraph. Please note that that paragraph (like the accompanying table) is about the ''range'' of ''noticeable'' earthquakes, not just the extreme events. ''Of course'' an M 8 earthquake will cause extreming shaking (that's obvious, it's what characterizes an M 8 quake!). But the ''point'' of the paragraph is to show that there is a broad spectrum of shaking, that (as stated in the prior paragraph) it is not as simple as "the ground shakes, or it doesn't." Do you understand this? ~ ] (]) 23:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As the sentence in the previous version was written, the proximity of the word "notable" with magnitude 8 made it sound like magnitude 8 earthquakes were, well, just "notable". But "major" was, in the same sentence, associated with earthquakes with magnitude greater than 7. This is not parallel construction, certainly, and, indeed, it is not consistent with the terminology used in the table that is also part of the this section. Instead of just "notable" I used "extreme"; if we were to follow the table, we might use "great" instead of "extreme", but either way "notable" is not good word choice. | |||
| :More generally, you do have a tendency (here, and in other articles) to simply remove the constructive attempts at fixing language in articles for which you seem to feel ownership. You toss up the "rules" of Misplaced Pages in reverting what are clearly simple attempts to fix things. This is provocative, unnecessarily provocative. You might simply work with what has been offered rather than insisting on long and tedious dialog on constant reference to rules, mixed in with descriptions of the other person and their contributions that are quite a bit less than friendly. Let us all realize, in the end, all of contributions to Misplaced Pages will be eventually lost to future revisions and contributions from others. We don't need to jealously guard what we've done, here, so much as recognize that it is part of an evolutionary process. Spatial ] (]) 00:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And, also, if the rest of us can't make small contributions (fixing sentences, adding reasonable content) without having those contributions repetitively removed and covered in confronting comments from those who protect individual articles, then there is little incentive to make more substantial contributions. We can't contemplate putting lots of work on an article, if our modest contributions aren't even going to be accepted. Overly protective guardians of wiki articles need to recognize that they end up stifling constructive progress. | |||
| :Okay, bye. Spatial. ] (]) 01:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: You say that I am '{{tq|toss up the "rules" of Misplaced Pages in reverting what are clearly simple attempts to fix things.}}' As a matter of fact, yes, we do have rules here, as well as other standards and conventions with which you are obviously unfamiliar (despite my attempts to instruct you). And a key part of ''working together'' is that you are expected to abide by these rules. (Like ]: after '''B'''oldly editing and getting '''R'''everted, you are expected to '''D'''iscuss. But as you have never seemed much interested in "D" I wonder if this is a waste of time.) | |||
| :: What you also fail to understand is that your so-called "minor" edits are '''not minor''', let alone constructive, when they change the sense of the material. If you don't agree, or just don't see it, then the "rule" is not to just keep stuffing them back in (that is what's provocative), but to ''discuss it''. Like you started to do in your first paragraph. And then I would respond, trying to sort out our different views. But from the rest of your comments it looks like you just want to whine and leave. So do you want to try working out this little problem? Or you just going to leave? The first would be preferable (initially I did have hopes of ''working together''), but if you are not up to that the latter is acceptable. ~ ] (]) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As "58.156.153.194" (aka "Spatial") seems to have declined discussion, I restored the original text, somewhat revised to make it clearer. But like a magic mushroom the corrupted edit has reappeared in , without any comment (here, or in the edit summary) as to merit. I am tempted to jerk that out in order to have a clean version for making other changes. But lest I get sucked into an edit war I wonder if someone else would revert that last edit. ~ ] (]) 18:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Forget about it! ] (]) 02:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The questioned text having been last restored from ], you are likely the editor who restored it. As you don't wish to discuss the matter I will proceed without you. I again remind you of ], and that continued reversion without discussion is edit warring. Not a good idea. ~ ] (]) 21:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If Johnson will not permit reasonable and small changes to text, then there is little reason to think that anyone will try to make significant changes to the article. Personality ] (]) 01:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "Personality 24.9.99.196": you seem to be the same person as 166.147.88.46 (same text, same issue, both from Colorado), who already said "Forget about it!". So do you want a serious discussion? Or not? More particularly, do want to discuss me? Or the questioned text? | |||
| :::: Note that I have no objections to "reasonable and small changes to the text". But as I have said in my previous comment (were you even paying attention?), these edits are '''not minor'''. They change the sense of the text, as I explained the top. So far the only objection to the original text is an alleged confusion of terms, and non-parallel construction "not consistent with the terminology used in the table". Do you want to continue with that? Or do you have different objections? ~ ] (]) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <hr> | |||
| <s>]</s> ] the contested edits with a note that "Fixes have been discussed". Oh? I tried to explain the rationale for the original text on the '''22nd''', "Spatial. 58.156.153.194" complained of non-parallel construction on the '''23rd''' but then quit the discussion without providing any specifics, other comments not of the text followed. On the 31st I asked "Personality 24.9.99.196" (don't know if that was "Spatial" or not) if he wanted to continue with the previous objection, or a different objection, but there has been '''no response'''. So I beg to differ, Joe: there has been '''no discussion''' of the original text since the 22nd, and '''no discussion''' whatsoever of the replacement text. (Else: please point to it.) | |||
| As I have described above, there are particular reasons for the original text, and particular faults with the replacement. As there has been no further discussion, I will restore the original. ~ ] (]) 19:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's possible that excessive zeal is causing you to edit in haste, because if you would be so kind as to follow the link you posted, you will see that the edit you dislike was made by an IP editor, not by me. ] (]) 03:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, that was the edit by 24.9.99.196 (the "Wichita" sockpuppet?) that preceded yours; I apologize for error. Your shtick is the editorializing tag and adding the satellite text. But you are incorrect to attribute the error to "excessive zeal"; it is entirely an "off-by-one" error in grabbing the datum and less than zealous proof-reading. ~ ] (]) 21:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Adding "editorial" tag == | |||
| It may be the case that earthquake prediction is so difficult that it may never happen. However, this article is written in such a way that it appears to be rather frantically arguing against the possibility of prediction, just in case there may a lonely reader out there who thinks it might be possible. Methinks it doth protest too much, and a simple, factual account of what it known about prediction would be more appropriate (and possibly, more persuasive.) ] (]) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"Frantically arguing against the possibility"? Wow, and where do you get that? Can you cite ''any particulars'' where the text is non-factual or biased, or goes beyond any source, or uses misleading language to push a non-neutral POV? Or is the standard of comparison solely your own POV, shaped by the hopeful reports in the popular media? In short, '''where is the editorializing?''' | |||
| :Out of curiosity I did search for the specific adverbs noted at ]. I do say that "Useful prediction ... is generally notable for its absence", which is fully supported by the text. (Or can you point to a prediction notable for its success?) Of the other six instances of any of those adverbs (or similar forms) two were in quotations, and one is in the contested text that you restored. So where's the beef? | |||
| :If want to propose "a simple, more factual account" — like, what parts of the current text are ''not'' factual? — fine, make a proposal. Or at least specify what you think the problems are, rather than making broad, unfounded charges. Until you can substantiate the tag I am removing it. ~ ] (]) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You this text: ''Because earthquakes represent a significant hazard, there is significant motivation to predict their occurrence. Unfortunately, there have also been many exaggerated claims of success'', and replaced it with this: ''With such a constant drumbeat of earthquakes various kinds of chicanery can be used to deceptively claim "predictions" that appear more successful than is truly the case.'' Need I say more? ] (]) 03:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, you do need to say more. What is the ]? Are there any "implications not supported by the sources"? As I have previously asked: where is the text is non-factual or biased, or goes beyond any source, or uses misleading language to push a non-neutral POV? Note that the source I cited (Mabey, 2001) for the original ("With...") does ''not'' support the revision ("Because ..."). Please point explicitly to the editorializing. ~ ] (]) 18:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Johnson, it should be clear. Examine the word choice in the two versions. "Chicanery", for example. Not especially neutral, don't you think? We don't need laborious continued discussion about these sorts of things. You are overly protective of this page. ] (]) 03:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is that basis of your complaint, the word "chicanery"? Tell me, did you bother to look at the source? Or even just look at the reference? Then you might have seen that the source is ''titled'' "The Charlatan Game". (]: "{{tq|a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.}}") "Chicanery" is hardly an implication "not supported by the sources", the source being quite ''explicit'' about this. If your complaint is solely that "chicanery ≠ charlatan", well, I thought they were close enough. But if that is core of the problem then I suppose we could replace "chicanery" with "charlatan games". Would that be satisfactory? Or do you want to get into ] and ]? ~ ] (]) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Johnson, this doesn't seem relevant. We can all cite sources that do not represent a neutral point of view! ] (]) 00:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::NPOV and WEIGHT are probably relevant. Generally, you want to avoid cherry-picking sources to reinforce a particular point of view. My guess would be that the mainstream scientific publications probably don't use histrionic terms like "chicanery", or put scare quotes around the word "predictions", and neither should Misplaced Pages. The input we are getting from the Request for Comment below should guide us in resolving this dispute. ] (]) 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, Joe, I agree with your moderate statements on the issue of relevance. ] (]) 02:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Is the complaint re "chicanery" — the ''only'' definite point that has been raised — no longer relevant because I have shown how it is supported by the source cited? (Which does ''not'' support your revision.) Now Joe implies that I picked that particular cherry, the imputation being that it is at variance with a bunch of other sources. If so, then there should be no difficulty whatsoever pointing to such sources. So show us sources that deny there is a constant "drumbeat" of earthquakes, or that deny that provides opportunity for deceptive practices. | |||
| ::::::: You say that "chicanery" (not, btw, "scare-quotes", but a standard convention indicating reference to a word itself, not what it points to) is histrionic, and probably not used in mainstream scientific publications. Well, this isn't a scientific publication, but that particular word could be replaced with "deceptive practices". My objection to the actual edit is that it goes beyond that, for reasons I will summarize at the RfC (below). | |||
| ::::::: Now you want to invoke ] and ]? Fine. Please show what you think the ''neutral'' POV is, and how the original sentence violates it. And again: where is that ''weight'' of cherries you impute? ~ ] (]) 21:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I think that at this point it would be helpful to have input from more editors. ] (]) 04:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Chinese satellite redux? == | |||
| JoeB: Regarding about a satellite China plans to launch in 2016: Is this the same "China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite (CSES) is planned for launch in 2014"? Mention of this (and the French Demeter satellite) was because they were only ''prospective'', reflecting a ''hope'' of finding some kind of precursor in the future. These mentions, as well as your recent addition, add nothing about earthquake prediction itself, and are no more than '''press releases'''. As Misplaced Pages is neither a ] nor a propaganda bureau, your edit is unacceptable, and will be removed directly. ~ ] (]) 19:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It can be reasonably suggested that most (if not all) of the precursory "signals" discussed in this section are "prospective". Therefore, the content about satellites is restored. If parts of the earthquake prediction community are motivated enough to launch satellites (at significant cost), then they at least deserve a mention in this article. ] (]) 21:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You seem confused between ''prediction'' of an event, which in the case earthquakes is hardly useful if it is not prospective, and writing ''future history'' — like the ''future launch'' of a satellite. The very first point made at ] is that: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." At any event, the ''speculative'' launch of this satellite (what happened to the 2014 launch?) is only in ''anticipation'' of finding — or not — possible electro-magnetic precursors. As there are no results yet — hey, the baby is not even in orbit yet! — this ''anticipation'' has nothing to contribute to any topic here. ~ ] (]) 22:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Some scrutiny of this article's edit history, and this talk page, leads me to think that there may be ] issues here. ] (]) 16:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the history shows that some editors don't understand how certain WP principles trump personal sentiments. That you raise such an issue instead of addressing the specific merits for adding satellites does suggest that you don't have any. ~ ] (]) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That anyone is "motivated enough to launch satellites" is insufficient ]. The Chinese satellite isn't even launched yet, thus violating ]. And I haven't seen any mention that the French satellite has predicted, or even postdicted, any earthquakes, or shown any kind of correlation. It's all ''anticipation'' at best, which does not rise above a mere press release. I will be reverting the current satellite text. Any objection should be discussed, not edit-warred. ~ ] (]) 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:OWN == | |||
| J. Johnson do you own this page? WP:OWN ] (]) 00:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope. But even if I did, would that exempt you from the prohibition against edit-warring? Or is raising a question like this your concept of discussing the merits (or lack) of the contested text? ~ ] (]) 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for comment == | |||
| There has been a dispute at ] over what some editors regard as the use of editorializing or advocacy-oriented language. Please offer your opinion as to which of these two disputed formulations is more neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia: | |||
| '''A.''' ''Because earthquakes represent a significant hazard, there is significant motivation to predict their occurrence. Unfortunately, there have also been many exaggerated claims of success.'' | |||
| '''B.''' ''With such a constant drumbeat of earthquakes various kinds of chicanery can be used to deceptively claim "predictions" that appear more successful than is truly the case.'' | |||
| ] (]) 04:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Can we ask these same editors to provide summary evaluation of the entire article? ] (]) 04:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. Before you all lynch the original text ("B") allow me to prepare a brief on its behalf. ~ ] (]) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why not just work with the external consensus? ] (]) 00:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why don't you get an account, learn about Misplaced Pages principles and standards, and ''engage in actual discussion of the merits of the issue'' instead of whining that you don't get your way? Why should a decent article be subjected to the ill-considered whims and sensibilities of anonymous passers-by? Or cut-down to reflect popular enthusiasms and misconceptions? ~ ] (]) 21:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|Why don't you get an account.}} IP user is as entitled to use and edit Misplaced Pages as you are. Please see ]. ] (]) 16:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we should work in response to this RfC and, indeed, an additional RfC for the entire article. ] (]) 22:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"Work" as in free-wheeling, no rules editing without discussion or any regard for standards or even sense? Why don't we just revert the entire article back to the piece of crap it was before I rewrote it? ~ ] (]) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::JJ, please take a moment to review ] and ]. ] (]) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Oh, is someone feeling insulted? Or are you just waving generally at WP:TPG? I particularly like the bits at ] about ''communicating'' (with which the main IP here seldom bothers) and ''stay on topic'' (like keeping the RfC on the disputed formulation?). I am also fond of ''discuss edits'' (I did mention that), but I allow that my notion of discussing the ''merits'' of edits, instead of merely whining about them, doesn't seem to be covered. ~ ] (]) 22:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't think either one is ideal, but the first is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia given the two options above. Why not just keep it simple, ''There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions.'' ] ] 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support Aircorn's alternative''' {{tq|There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions.}} Because I prefer A but it doesn't need to be stated that earthquakes are hazardous - it's obvious. ] (]) 11:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Agree with user Aircorn. Neither recommendation is really suitable. His recommended replacement is better. ] (]) 16:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support Aircorn's alternative''' ] (]) 00:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I too support Aircorn's alternative. ] (]) 01:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Simply because you ]? That is inadequate. As you are new here I will point out that ], meaning that consensus is not based on a nose count, but on discussion. To which you have made no contribution. | |||
| : I point out that the RfC is presented as ''which'' of two formulations. If Joe wanted to request ''alternative'' formulations I could provide several. Though it is hard to say what would be satisfactory lacking any specificity as to what is objectionable. ~ ] (]) 18:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This page is full of discussion! As for the RfC and which of the two formulations are most supported, it seems to be A (or, at least, not B). In addition to this, people participating in the RfC are also apparently looking to make forward progress. Opinion seems to support Aircorn's alternative. Even the author of A supports Aircorn's alternative. ] (]) 18:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would also like to say that summarizing comments, as we are doing here, in a Request for Comment is useful. Hopefully it will lead to some amount of consensus. ] (]) 20:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Such discussion as this page is full of tends to be various people belly-aching that they ] (or something), and then I have play Twenty Questions to get them to say where it hurts. And then when I do address something we get to play Whack-a-Mole as a different objection is raised. What we need is a definite, specific statement of what the objections/issues are. Then we would have a basis for a proper discussion. ~ ] (]) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Johnson, can you accept Aircorn's alternative? ] (]) 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's better than "A", but only because that is so putrid, and it's still lame. I could undoubtedly come up with alternatives that don't offend the structure of the text, but (as I keep saying) it is premature to "fix" a problem without identifying what the supposed problem is. (Like pinning the tail on the donkey, eh?) I remind everyone that mere "like" (and its inverse, "don't like") are feeble arguments, that you need to figure out ''why'' and ''what''. Tell me where it hurts. ~ ] (]) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. I think people here have explained themselves quite thoroughly. Please have a look at ]. ] (]) 22:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think not. The others have provided '''zero explanation''' (can you cite any contra-examples?), and you still haven't settled on any definite objection (other than ]). I believe I have listened to you, but your general failure to respond to my requests for clarification suggests that you aren't listening to ''me''. So tell me: what is the ''real'' problem about "B" that bothers you? ~ ] (]) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Request for Mediation? It seems amazing that we are arguing about a sentence, but right now I perceive that this page on earthquake prediction is obstructed from more substantial editing and input. I would think the material accumulated on this talk page would be sufficient for an outside mediator to make a decision. ] (]) 01:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: No, we are not "arguing about a sentence", ''you'' are whining about not getting to do things your way without all that troublesome discussion and all those silly, obstructing Misplaced Pages rules. I would be happy to argue about the sentence (as Joe has done), but you don't seem to have anything to contribute. | |||
| ::::::::: As rational discussion here is starved for any substance, I think it is time to examine where all this dislike comes from. To that end see the new section I have just started. ~ ] (]) 20:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with the prevailing opinion here that Aircorn's alternative is the best of the three options. I also think it's obvious that the various !votes are expressing policy-relevant opinions on ] rather than just irrelevant ]s. Finally, I'd like to encourage people interested in this RfC to respond to others; ] is the reason I'm commenting here.] (]) 14:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are trying to express their opinions in terms of policy, but without a factual basis it is still opinion and "like". I could come up with some alternatives, but I would like to see "where it hurts" (see new section, below) instead of proceeding blindly. ~ ] (]) 19:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Aircorn's alternative''' as first choice and '''Support A''' as second choice. I find option B to be unsuitable for an encyclopaedia for several reasons: | |||
| ** the phrase "to deceptively claim" is an unusual word ordering and so difficult to parse. | |||
| ** "chicanery" is a ], loaded word that could be considered ] and is better avoided. | |||
| ** "predictions" is enclosed in ] which are to be avoided. | |||
| ** "constant drumbeat of earthquakes" is very poetic but it is not ] | |||
| :Option B is not ] because it contains the above elements to be avoided; for this reason and because it also contains the unencyclopedic language and structure noted above, it is not a good choice for an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 03:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <hr> | |||
| '''Argument for "B"''' | |||
| :"B" is the original text, "A" is an edit made by an IP without any prior discussion or notice. Here Joe complains of "the use of editorializing or advocacy-oriented language"; there is no explanation of how any of the language in "B" is editorializing or advocacy. In a previous discussion (above, at ]) he points to the word "chicanery", and says: "{{tq|Not especially neutral, don't you think?}}" As he has failed to provide any other particulars, I will address the use of "chicanery". | |||
| :] prohibits going beyond the sources, of the use of certain language (generally adverbs) that make "implications not supported by the sources". As I have previously pointed out, the source cited for "B" is an article titled "The Charlatan Game". To say that "chicanery can be used to deceptively claim" predictions does not imply anything beyond what that source states explicitly. As to any question of neutrality: to assert that the chicanery described here is possible, or even that it is done, is hardly advocacy of a particular viewpoint when there are no contrary points of view. | |||
| :The objection to "A" is that it is entirely out of place. ''Of course'' "earthquakes represent a significant hazard", and there have been "many exaggerated claims of success". But that is not the point. (Nor, I might add, is this supported by the citation retained.) The context here is the "]" of both "earthquakes" and "predictions". It is a very important point for assessing the validity of any earthquake prediction (or prediction scheme) to understand that there ''is'' a "constant drumbeat of earthquakes" (as illustrated by the table and in the previous paragraph) that provides ample opportunity for trivial successes. The original text ("B") segues into ''how'' this opportunity can be used deceptively. The revision ("A": "there have been many exaggerated claims of success") is an obvious factoid of little interest and no clue to understanding; it is off-topic for this section. | |||
| ::~ ] (]) 21:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you are missing the point of the discussion. The issue is not a question of fidelity to one specific source that you have personally selected. The issue is about using good judgment in the selection of sources, and then using those sources appropriately. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. If it were your personal blog, I would encourage you to select the most polemical sources and use the most flamboyant language. But, of course, it's not your blog. ] (]) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|an edit made by an IP without any prior discussion or notice.}} <--- that's fine. User is allowed to do that. Makes no difference whether they're registered or not - the issue should be the text of the article, not the status of the user. ] (]) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I mentioned that the original edit was by an IP to allow for possible good faith ignorance of a newbie. But I beg to differ that lack of registration does make a difference in this case, because 1) with a different IP address nearly every week it is hard to tell if there is one or multiple editors to deal with, and 2) it is difficult to have a focused communication with that editor. | |||
| :::: I took the point of this discussion to be collecting opinions on (your words, Joe) "{{tq|which of these two disputed formulations is more neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia}}". You did not identify any particular issues so I necessarily relied on your prior comment (above) on using the word "chicanery". There you implied (among other things) that I was "cherry-picking sources", which implies I took one source contrary to a great ] of other sources. And there I have asked: where are all these other sources that ''deny'' there is a drumbeat of earthquakes? Or ''deny'' that provides opportunity for deceptive practices? I have also offered that if "chicanery" is simply too awful it could be replaced with "deceptive practices". I still await any reply. | |||
| :::: Now ''you'' are changing the apparent point of the discussion to say the issue is not ''fidelity'' to the source — well, that was the discussion above, which I gather you now concede — but that I have selected the most polemical source. Okay, is that now the point of discussion? (And this is no longer about the ''formulation'', but the ''source''?) Fine. Your position seems to be that Mabey is ''polemical'' — i.e., "a strong written or spoken attack against someone else's opinions, beliefs, practices, etc." Please explain, what (or whose) opinons, beliefs, or practices are being attacked? As I have asked before, are you, or anyone else, ''denying'' the drumbeat of earthquakes and opportunities for deception? | |||
| :::: Again, please explain to me: what do you take to be the weighty, mainstream neutral POV you feel has been slighted? ~ ] (]) 22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::JJ, as this discussion gets longer and longer, it is becoming more difficult for me to believe that you actually don't understand what is a very simple point. An encyclopedia does not engage in ]; it reports the issues as objectively as possible. To impute a malicious intent to any party in a controversy (in this case, people who claim that earthquake prediction is possible), is inappropriate. Unless you can produce some evidence that someone intentionally committed fraud, you can't claim to be reading his mind. Therefore, the use of terms like "chicanery" or "deceptive practices" ought to be obviously inappropriate, even to a beginning editor. If a particular commentator, such as Mabey, is sufficiently notable that the article ought to call attention to his views, then an attributed quote might be appropriate. I really don't know whether Mabey is such a commentator. The problem is that you chose to present Mabey's formulation ''in Misplaced Pages's voice'' -- no quotation marks, unattributed, simply presented as fact. I must say that it shocks me that you don't see a problem with that. ] (]) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The discussion is long because I have to keep playing Twenty Questions to find out what you mean. It is a definite problem where you think the issue is so simple that you need not bother to identify specific issues, but can just wave your hand in the general direction of what you think is a problem, and that anyone not a complete dullard will instantly divine the matter and fall into complete agreement with you. But could you just possibly allow that there is room for a different interpretation? And that greater specificity up front could get us to the heart of the matter more directly? | |||
| :::::: So after all this fore-play of "editorializing" and "cherry-picking" (which I believe I have adequately rebutted), and "NPOV/Weight" (which you have not substantiated), now you want to settle down on ''advocacy'', and "''imput of malicious intent to any party in a controversy''". Okay, and in that case I say your argument is fundamentally flawed because ''at no point'' does the text — not in the sentence under discussion, nor anywhere else — impute "malicious intent to any party". The text states only that various, ah, ''practices'' '''can''' be used to deceptively claim successes. There is ''nothing'' in this section imputing such practices to any persons (aside from Richter's quote). The imputation of malicious intent to "{{tq|people who claim that earthquake prediction is possible}}" is entirely and solely ''yours'', and arises only on ''your'' postulate that such people are actually engaged in deceptive practices. That is entirely ''your'' imputation; it is not at all what the article says. (Nor, I might add, did Mabey impute "malicious intent to any party in a controversy".) In brief, this "very simple point" you are so certain about simply arises from your misunderstanding. (And would have been clarified sooner if you have been more specific at the start.) | |||
| :::::: I would consider revising the text to be clearer on this (but not "A", which is objectionable) but that would be premature until we are settled on the point of objection being this, and not some other point. So please tell us: is "malicious imputation" the essence of your objection to "B"? Or do you have additional objections? Do we need to consider if "B" is otherwise contrary to the mainstream scientific POV? ~ ] (]) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At this point, you're just filibustering. Please note that every respondent to the Request for Comment rejected your preferred formulation. If you honestly don't understand why, I suggest you re-read this section. I see no need to belabor the point. I'll add my support to Aircorn's alternative wording. ] (]) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::An experienced editor such as yourself shouldn't have to be reminded that ], and that ]. And the comments of the three outside editors would carry more weight if they had actually discussed the issue(s?) on its merits, or had waited for such discussion as we've had before rendering judgment. So now that I have shown your latest and greatest objection is actually your own imputation your response is to accuse me of fillibustering? Is that the best you can do? ''I'' am trying to have a discussion, but every time I address one of your ill-specified objections you just raise another objection. That none of your objections has withstood scrutiny strongly suggests you have no case. Nonetheless, I would try to fix what ever pains you so much, if only you would settle on whatever that is. ~ ] (]) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Aircorn's alternative. Why? Because it conveys the same information in less space, with simpler language. "constant drumbeat" and "chicanery" are unnecessarily poetic. We're an encyclopedia. Hyperbole and metaphor should be beyond us. --] (]) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::In no way is "constant drumbeat" an extravagant statement, and "chicanery" is precise. Nor do I concur with this notion that an encyclopedia should be boring. Nonetheless, I recognize it is a widely shared view here, and on that ''explicitly cited basis'' I accept your objection. And if it is accepted all around that ''that'' is the principal objection then I don't mind using Aircorn's formulation as base for any further improvements. (''My'' objection all along, besides the generalized hand-waving, has been the putridness of "A".) Is that an acceptable result of the Rfc? And on that basis can the editorializing tag be removed? ~ ] (]) 18:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Johnson, after all of this laborious discussion, this is what it comes down to? Is this what it takes to make progress on this page? ] (]) 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why do you care? You didn't contribute anything. ~ ] (]) 21:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We have articles about mass murderers, porn stars, and ]s. Real life is interesting enough when described in simple factual language; we don't need embellishment to avoid being boring. --] (]) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Constant drumbeat" is so an extravagant statement, and is unencyclopedic. While "chicanery" is precise, in referring to dishonesty, "dishonesty" is a more common use of language (if sourced properly). '''A''' is far better as encyclopedic text than '''B'''. Aircorn's text is even better. As per GRuban, <del>A</del>B is unnecessarily poetic. ] (]) 20:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Interpreting McClenon's comments, I think he means "B is unnecessarily poetic." Of course, he might confirm (or not confirm) this. ] (]) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Typo corrected. ] (]) 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Now that this page is back to being open for dynamic editing, and after all the discussion concerning a sentence in the Definition and Validity section, I inserted Aircorn's suggested text. I also removed the citation to an article that Johnson noted would be inconsistent with Aircorn's text. Maybe, now, we can (ALL of us) have good and friendly work on the rest of this important article, recognizing that changes to this article will continue to happen over time, just as for every other Misplaced Pages article. :-) ] (]) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' It would be kindest to ignore J. Johnson's intriguing contributions because either he is serious or he is joking, neither of which could reasonably or charitably be regarded as either an explanation for his content nor an excuse for his conduct. Some of us have work to do, and feeding egos is not in any job description that I for one assented to. That settled, in response to the Rfc I prefer the former option, though I have no quarrel with Aircorn's "There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions". As a point of mild preference, I would rather say | |||
| :''To date, many claims of successful earthquake prediction have been exaggerated...'', | |||
| but I am not prepared to waste anyone's time debating so non-essential a point. ] (]) 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Stupid question''' - where's the text intended to go, the "Definition and validity" section ? The RfC doesn't say. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 09:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Discussion ended and the change was made , but it seems no one thought to close the Rfc. Okay, it's done. ~ ] (]) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Why such dislike? == | |||
| <s>It seems time to ask why a few editors have so much dislike of the current form of this article or various parts of it. I point out that mere ], whether expressed as "]" (]) or ], is '''not''' an acceptable argument. (A related essay, ], says such arguments "are sufficiently feeble that they should be given no weight whatsoever." The nutshell says: "{{tq|Expressing a like or dislike for the issue in question is not a helpful or useful argument in a discussion.}}") Discussions ''should'' be based on clear, solid arguments. However, the persistent failure to present any valid arguments, or even to present any argument or discussion at all, leads me to believe rational discussion is (as it largely has been) futile. Such ''complaints'' as have been presented have been so weak, and so readily abandoned for yet other weak arguments, that it is evident they are based less on evidence of particular problems than on some deeper cause. To resolve such complaints it appears necessary to address the roots of such dislike.</s> | |||
| <s>So I ask: can ''anyone'' having any objection to any part or aspect of this article explain just ''why'' they have such a sentiment? Note: I am ''not'' asking why anything should be altered, deleted, or added — as explained above, those issues should be based on solid arguments, which have been lacking — I am asking for the ''source'' of their feeling of something wrong. E.g., someone wanted some "more upbeat" material. Quite aside from whether that would be appropriate, I would ask: is that the basic problem, that the article is insufficiently upbeat? I am not asking for any argument, I am asking for an honest statement of the root of this dislike. ~ ] (]) 20:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::Struck, as I am no longer interested in the question. ~ ] (]) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As the subsequent comments were all off topic I have split them off into their own section. This thread is presumably dead for lack of interest from anyone, now including the originator. ~ ] (]) 21:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Johnson, the subsequent comments are not off topic: they include responses from editors who apparently see things very differently from the way you see things. As for dislike: you say editors' comments are weak and feeble, well, people don't like that, you ask why editors have specific objections, they tell you, but you keep asking for more and more detail. So, after a while, there is an accumulation of emotion, yes. ] (]) 12:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The biggest issue that I see is that much of the article seems very casual, as though someone transcribed a spoken lecture. The article contains contractions and sentence fragments and adopts a casual tone, all of which is fine for speaking but not for encyclopaedias. Misplaced Pages's ] is more formal than that which is used in this article. A second issue is that there are way too many ] words used and not enough wikilinks. ] (]) 03:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it reasonable or possible to invite commentary (RfC or otherwise) for this entire article on earthquake prediction? Experienced editors without much investment in this article might provide useful feedback on content, tone, balance, etc. ] (]) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. Or at least not unreasonable. However, what I am hoping for here is just a frank, first-level approximation of like/dislike, without attempting to rationalize it. People often have difficulty with the latter part, or just don't take sufficient care, making a hash out of even valid objections. ~ ] (]) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Johnson, many suggested changes (and additions) have been made by at least a few different editors over the past year or so. My perception is that you have strenuously resisted almost all of them, and have, instead, engaged them with laborious discussion. Sometimes you have even engaged editors in laborious discussion about what seem like rather obvious shortcomings in this article (see the above RfC). So, in my opinion, there is a problem, here, with the way things have unfolded. Therefore, I am trying to suggest a productive way forward: getting input from editors who don't have so much invested in the present page on earthquake prediction. ] (]) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking as an uninvolved (before the RfC) editor: | |||
| *I like the article. It's informative, detailed and mostly seems to be well-sourced. | |||
| *I think it needs some copy-editing - like all other writing. No-one writes totally perfect prose (either within wikipedia or without), copy-editing is always beneficial. | |||
| *I don't see any sign of this purported overall-dislike from other editors. To claim that anyone wanting to make a change has a deep-seated dislike - a secret agenda of some kind - seems like a ] to me. | |||
| :'''Summary: no-one's writing is perfect; it's normal for other editors to change it; that doesn't indicate a deep-seated dislike.''' | |||
| :] (]) 18:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am striking my question because I no longer care (and no one really addressed it anyway). As to some kind of "dislike", there is nothing ''psycho''analytic about it at all. Plain consideration of comments, such as of "put-downs of every reported attempt" (of prediction) and a supposed need for "more upbeat" material, and most recently Joe's that I wish to "{{tq|polemically discredit and ridicule proponents of earthquake prediction}}", reveals the underlying point-of-view: that I have ''discredited the proponents'' of earthquake prediction, and that this demonstrates a biased, non-neutral POV. It is not any kind of "secret agenda", just a widespread dislike of the results presented (and never mind the sources). ~ ] (]) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not the Misplaced Pages editor's job to "discredit the proponents." If they're wrong, they're wrong, and this will be found in reliable secondary sources. The urge to add a little extra dollop of propaganda, just to make sure people get the point, is an urge that should be resisted. ] (]) 22:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::B. musculus please note: the objection is '''not the writing''' (the nominal subject of the RfC), nor its "tone", but that I ''polemically put-down'' a certain point of view applicable to "every reported attempt" and all "proponents" as a class. That certainly indicates a "dislike" (to put it mildly) with the POV expressed in the article, and that it keeps surfacing without Joe able to acknowledge it, or even to state what his notion of a neutral POV, suggests it is deep-seated. ~ ] (]) 20:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Should the readers be told how results can be skewed? == | |||
| {{u|Balaenoptera musculus}}: just a comment. The reason for the section you deleted (about post-, pan-, and multi-dictions) was to describe ''how'' incomplete specification of a prediction can lead to exaggerated claims of success. Leaving that out leaves the reader quite unlikely to recognize how insufficient specification (whether deliberate or not) can skew the result. ~ ] (]) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I note that the section in question was unsourced. See ]. ] (]) 03:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ], thanks for raising it here. Of course we can put it back (or a shorter version of the same thing?) if that's the way consensus flows. For the info of other editors, the para I removed was (removed section in bold): | |||
| :{{tq|There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions. '''E.g., predictions can be made that leave one or more parameters of location, time, and magnitude unspecified. These are subsequently adjusted to include what ever earthquakes as do occur. These would more properly be called "''post''dictions". Alternately, "''pan''dictions" can be made, with such broad parameters as will most likely match some earthquake, some time, some where. These are indeed predictions, but trivial, meaningless for any purpose of fore-telling, and quite useless for making timely preparations for "the next big one". Or multiple predictions – "''multi''dictions" – can be made, each of which, alone, seems statistically unlikely. "Success" derives from revealing, after the event, only those that prove successful.''' To be meaningful, an earthquake prediction must be properly qualified. This includes unambiguous specification of time, location, and magnitude.<ref>See {{Harvnb|Jackson|1996a}}, p. 3772, for an example.</ref> These should be stated either as ranges ("windows", error bounds), or with a weighting function, or with some definitive inclusion rule provided, so that there is no issue as to whether any particular event is, or is not, included in the prediction, so a prediction cannot be retrospectively expanded to include an earthquake it would have otherwise missed, or contracted to appear more significant than it really was. To show that a prediction is not post-selected ("cherry-picked") from a number of generally unsuccessful and unrevealed multi-dictions, it must be published in a manner that reveals all attempts at prediction, failures as well as successes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1976}}, p. 2070; {{Harvnb|PEP|1976}}, p. 6.</ref>}} | |||
| :Reasons I removed it: | |||
| * 'made-up' words (postdictions, pandictions etc) - I think we don't need to start defining our own terms. Realise this is maybe meant to be funny, doesn't tickle my funny bone. Open to views from other editors as appropriateness of humour is obviously a pretty subjective judgement. | |||
| * seemed to me to be labouring the point that omitting any of the parameters time, location and magnitude implies not a proper prediction. | |||
| :My view = it's true but we don't need to cover it at such length. For example where we say {{tq|E.g., predictions can be made that leave one or more parameters of location, time, and magnitude unspecified. These are subsequently adjusted to include what ever earthquakes as do occur.}} that seems to me to duplicate {{tq|To be meaningful, an earthquake prediction must be properly qualified. This includes unambiguous specification of time, location, and magnitude.}}. | |||
| :Views from other editors? | |||
| :] (]) 18:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that any non-standard terms, such as multi-diction and pan-diction, should be omitted from the article unless they are quotes from reliable sources. ] is not a made-up term, but it should also only be used if it is properly attributed to a reliable source. Any discussion of how results can be skewed should be attributed to ]; if it is not properly attributed, it is ]. ] (]) 18:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you ], I stand corrected on ]. ] (]) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As you can see, it is a commonly used term by skeptics in criticism of claims of prophecies, etc., and so can reasonably be used with earthquake prediction, but only if it is attributed to an author. Otherwise it is original research. ] (]) 19:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>The vocabulary-impaired should note that</s> ] and ] even have their own Misplaced Pages articles. The use of these terms was meant as explanation (not humor), and it is hardly belaboring the point when the conditions described by these terms are the principal basis on which nearly every claim of a successful earthquake prediction has failed. ''This is the most important point of the whole topic'' (let alone the article). To reduce it to "an earthquake prediction must be properly qualified, including unambiguous specification of time, location, and magnitude" makes it an ancillary detail, readily overlooked, and most likely leaving the reader under-equipped to understand ''why'' various claims of success are rejected. And vulnerable to charlatans who exploit such incomplete understanding, but I thought that was rather ]. ~ ] (]) 20:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I judge that the term {{tq|vocabulary-impaired}} was intended to refer to me, and I find it insulting. Please stop. ] (]) 20:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My apologies. Perhaps I overreacted to what I perceived as an insult to my vocabulary. ~ ] (]) 20:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your vocabulary was being fairly criticized, because you used a combination of real words in the philosophy of science and invented words. Retrodiction, the use of legitimate predictive techniques with respect to past events, doesn't appear to be relevant to the subject. Many claimed earthquake predictions are actually postdictions, because they involve one or more of the errors described in the article, but we should only label them as such if we are quoting. To apply that label without attribution would be ]. ] (]) 02:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == NOTICE: ANI discussion re. ], ] and User:J. Johnson, commitment to not revert == | == NOTICE: ANI discussion re. ], ] and User:J. Johnson, commitment to not revert == | ||
Revision as of 20:33, 14 May 2014
 | Earthquakes B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
/Archive 1 contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised 20 June 2012) prior to restructuring.
NOTICE: ANI discussion re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson, commitment to not revert
There was a discussion on AN/I[, Disruptive editing by User:J. Johnson of this article.
A topic ban was proposed, and there were 4 !votes in support and 1 in opposition of a topic ban. The oppose vote was prompted by a commitment by User:J. Johnson to be "resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly ... no reversions."--{{U|Elvey}} 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Categories: