Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
*'''Strong comment'''. Elvey, this is not well considered. While an RfC might be useful, your formulation of an issue to comment on is very poor: it rambles, it doesn't support the statements included, it doesn't state the issue very clearly, confuses ''assertions'' with the statements supporting the assertions, and includes tangential issues. This will only invite a lot of broad-ranging and unfocused comments. If you will kindly do us all (including yourself) a favor by canceling this (remove the rfc tag) I will be happy to help you better formulate an RfC on this. Okay? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Strong comment'''. Elvey, this is not well considered. While an RfC might be useful, your formulation of an issue to comment on is very poor: it rambles, it doesn't support the statements included, it doesn't state the issue very clearly, confuses ''assertions'' with the statements supporting the assertions, and includes tangential issues. This will only invite a lot of broad-ranging and unfocused comments. If you will kindly do us all (including yourself) a favor by canceling this (remove the rfc tag) I will be happy to help you better formulate an RfC on this. Okay? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Even stronger comment''' (ta-daaa!) If Elvey points us to the compromise proposal that I seem to have missed then maybe there will be no need for this or any other RfC on the topic. Now ''that'' is logic. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:31, 12 August 2014 |
*'''Even stronger comment''' (ta-daaa!) If Elvey points us to the compromise proposal that I seem to have missed then maybe there will be no need for this or any other RfC on the topic. Now ''that'' is logic. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:31, 12 August 2014 ===Comments on RFC=== |
||
This is a poorly formed RFC. It isn't exactly clear what question the proposer is asking. Is it about the VAN method itself, or criticism of the VAN method, or "severe" criticism of the VAN method? How will the closer know how to close it in 30 days? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I am aware that J. Johnson likes strong language, like "severe" and "constant drumbeat", but that isn't the point. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
The originator of this RFC didn't even format it correctly, with a two-level heading, but used the first-level heading properly used only for the article title. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I would appreciate it if the originator would withdraw the RFC, but someone who hasn't been claiming ownership of the article (and who only avoided a topic-ban due to archival of a thread and to [[WP:GAME|gaming]] of the thread) should help formulate a proper RFC. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:46, 12 August 2014
Earthquakes B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
/Archive 1 contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised 20 June 2012) prior to restructuring.
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}} (t • e • c) 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Abundant discussion related to this development can also be found in /Archive 3. 64.134.48.248 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- And at JJ's own ANI plea. I see JJ has not been honoring the commitment to 'no reversions' recently; I see many reverts. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can't speak for what you see, but the reality is that I have made one reversion, of an anonymous editor's unexplained reversion of an edit I made. Your making that one reversion into "many" is an abuse of language, and a mark of your hostility towards me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- When do you claim your last two reverts were? I see you have not been honoring your commitment to 'no reversions'; I see you admit to one recent violation. By your account, how many others have occurred since this discussion started? since the commitment was made? --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not understanding the difference between "one" and "many" pretty much precludes any chance of a productive discussion. Alternately, a knowing misstatement would be in line with your general and persistent combative attitude. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Users are expected to respond to reasonable questions during discussions. (op. cit.) You responded to zero of the questions in my last post above. Because I deny that you have made more than one reversion, I asked you those questions. Answer or I will consider your claim abandoned. At least you admit to one recent violation. Do you intend to avoid further violations? --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- You can "consider" all you want, but "one" is inherently not "many". And I deny any "violation". BTW, have you stopped harassing other editors? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of contested removal of section with non-neutral heading beginning "NOTICE"
Johnson, please stop "archiving" this section. 64.134.151.82 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Referring to your edit summary: appropriate for what? Trying to smear me with an ANI complaint that FAILED? Or just general harassment?
- Joe seems to think that Help:Archiving a talk page has some kind of rule against archiving the previous section. Which it does not. At best it suggests when discussions should be archived. It does´not set any minimum requirements for archiving.
- On the other hand, please take note of the WP:Talk page guidelines, which are summarized in the nutshell as: "
Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.
" Also the recommended TPG Good practice: "Comment on content, not on the contributor
" (emphasis in the original), and TPG Behavior that is unacceptable: "No personal attacks
" (ditto). More explicitly we have the injunction to Keep headings neutral. Particularly:
* Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.
* Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks * and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, ....
- The previous section (titled "NOTICE...") violates WP:TPNO because its header addresses me specifically, is non-neutral, and (being a continuation of a previous attack on my by the same editors) constitutes WP:harassment. It serves no other purpose, contributes nothing towards improving the article, and in two months attracted no discussion. It properly ought to be expunged from both the current Talk page and its archive, and even the page history. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Prediction vs forecasting
The introduction makes a distinction between earthquake prediction and earthquske forecasting, and yet there is no separate wiki page for earthquake forecasting. Indeed, earthquake forecasting redirects to this prediction page. So it seems this is a loose end that might be reasonably tidied up. 166.147.88.26 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Good point. I suggest that the article be expanded to cover both topics, since they are closely related. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- If we accept that "forecasting" is a statistical statement of future occurrences, while "prediction" is about the occurrence of a specific earthquake, then the discussion in the present article concerning statistical significance is very appropriate for the evaluation of forecasting methods. More generally, the distinction between forecasting and prediction is slightly gray. 128.138.65.45 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I removed the statement about "naive" assumption of null hypothesis of randomness. In some cases, especially for the global occurrence of large earthquakes, a null hypothesis of randomness in time is actually appropriate. As always, the issue is whether or not the simple null hypothesis can be rejected, and for large earthquakes, like above M8, it is very difficult to reject randomness in time. It is only when you start getting into aftershocks that the randomness in time hypothesis really starts to be obviously violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.45 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- On a smaller topic it might be acceptable to cover several closely related topics. But this article has quite enough to cover as it is, and will only confuse people if it tries to cover other topics. So even though earthquake forecasting is closely related, with a lot of overlap, it is a different topic, with distinct differences. E.g.: Prediction is (as stated in the lead sentence) about determining the specific time, location, and magnitude of the next strong earthquake. Forecasting is the assessment for a broad region of the probability of any earthquake of a given magnitude in some extended period of time. These are quite different approaches, with vastly different public policy ramifications.
- That earthquake forecasting redirects to this article is only a stop-gap until someone writes that article. Which anyone may do. Trying to slap such material onto this article would confuse both topics, and create a difficult task when eventually it is realized that the topics have to be split and that material extracted. Better to develop that topic on its own page from the start, even if it is only a stub. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
tangent
I wonder whether or not the first sentence of the introduction, where "prediction" is defined, might be rewritten so that it is not a patch of two direct quotes. Perhaps it can be paraphrased and shortened. Quotes are fine, but I don't think they are quite appropriate for a first sentence. 75.151.82.138 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- The direct quotation of the first sentence is the standard ("textbook") and authoritative definition of earthquake prediction; to paraphrase it would be to alter it. The second quotation notes two important (but often unstated) qualifications — "next" (emphasis in the original) and "strong" — which are generally presumed. These two definitions complement each other, and both are needed to encompass the continuum of how this term is used. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- The two quotes that are put together in the first defining sentence are mostly redundant: (time, location, magnitude) = (parameters); (future) almost equals (next). The focus of the second phrase on "strong" is possibly misguided, even if it is strong earthquakes that cause the most damage. A set of earthquake predictions, be they for small ones or big ones, can, as the article notes, be assessed for statistical significance. 64.134.160.251 (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The quotes are not redundant. The first — the "classical" definition — is general, lacking any qualification or limitation other than "future". It is a point of fact that there is practically no interest whatsoever in "predicting" (in any sense) the great bulk of earthquakes that actually occur. The interest, especially of the public and of the public authorities, is overwhelmingly in 1) strong (i.e., damaging) earthquakes in a given region, and 2) the next such quake (not the second, third, or hundredth such quake), exactly as stated in the second quote. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's good as is-a patch of two direct quotes, appropriate for a first sentence, accurate, and not redundant.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Prediction of earthquakes is important for averting loss of human life and mitigating damage to infrastructure, etc. How large such hazardous earthquakes might be depends on a number of variables, including earthquake depth and the vulnerability and exposure of populations and infrastructure. In this sense, predicting smallish earthquakes, especially near the Earth's surface, can be considered important; they might cause enough shaking to damage buildings. For example, induced earthquakes of small magnitude in, say, Oklahoma, where buildings are not designed to withstand much shaking, are a concern. Earthquakes that are simply large enough to be felt can make people worry about what might happen in the future. Predicting such earthquakes, smallish, in some sense, would be useful.
Prediction is also important as a means of testing scientific theories. If someone could predict small earthquakes as well as large ones, in some statistically significant way, then this would represent an advance. In this sense, predicting small earthquakes is certainly interesting for scientists. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, "predicting small earthquakes is certainly interesting for scientists." And I have seen discussion as to whether success in predicting M 4 quakes might warrant confidence in a theory's ability to predict M ≥ 6 quakes. But as a matter of public policy, and in the popular conception, the interest in prediction is entirely in damaging earthquakes, and particularly of the next such quake. That is an extremely important qualification, and leaving it off would misinform the entire topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
First Sentences
Candidate first sentences: Earthquake prediction is a branch of the science of seismology concerned with the specification of the time, location, and magnitude of future earthquakes within stated confidence limits. Of particular importance is the prediction of hazardous earthquakes that are likely to cause damage to infrastructure or loss of life. [1,2] DoctorTerrella (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you rely on the original source — that is, unless you bring in some other source — then EP is not "a branch of the science of seismology [isn't that redundant?] concerned with the specification", etc., it is; "the specification of ...." I think it is useful to mention that it is a branch of seismology, but that is not part of its definition, and does not contribute to understanding what it is.
- Your second sentence makes a rather obvious observation (of course it is "of particular importance" to predict hazardous earthquakes) and is also redundant (likely to cause damage, etc., is the nature of "hazardous"), but fails to note that for public officials and the general public alike the notion of earthquake prediction is more narrowly seen as the prediction of "the next strong earthquake" (emphasis in the original).
- I suggest that there is no need to revise this portion of the lead. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Seismology is partly concerned with earthquakes and partly concerned with the propagation of waves through the Earth's interior. Earthquake prediction is a subset or "branch" of earthquake science and, therefore, earthquake prediction is a branch of seismology. This statement, that earthquake prediction is a branch of seismology, is something I actually removed from the interior of the EP page just this morning. By proposing that it be moved up to the front of the page, I was simply trying to retain the sentiment of a notion that was written by somebody else, not me. I though that it might have been you. But, either way, and more importantly, no, it is not redundant to say that earthquake prediction is a branch of seismology. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, the "public officials and general public" are concerned with the earthquakes that are "hazardous" and, by virtue of exposure and vulnerability, can cause damage and kill people -- that is, they are most concerned with earthquake "risk". Risk = Probability of Hazard X Vulnerability X Exposure. Okay, officials and the public have other interests in earthquakes, even popular interests, but risk is certainly an important concern. This is not simply the same as "strong" earthquakes that you mention. An earthquake can have a large magnitude, but be deep, and, therefore, not cause much surface shaking. Also, surface shaking can depend on the characteristics of the surface geology and our manipulation of the surface (landfills are, for example, prone to resonance with earthquakes). Exposure comes with the earthquake hypocenter being near a populated center, not in a deep far offshore subduction zone far from urban centers. Vulnerability comes if a population of people is living in buildings that tend to fall down for a given level of shaking. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please, I quite understand the differences between magnitude, intensity, vulnerability, and hazard, and how "strong" can be applied to all of those. And I would explain that. But note that a footnote explaining some of this was removed by Sitush with the comment: "
really, this is far too complex for the general reader
". So we have an issue of how much explanation to provide. Note also that we should not attempt to explain every thing in the lead sentence. That is supposed to be the briefest of summary, which is then explained and expanded upon in the rest of the article.
- Please, I quite understand the differences between magnitude, intensity, vulnerability, and hazard, and how "strong" can be applied to all of those. And I would explain that. But note that a footnote explaining some of this was removed by Sitush with the comment: "
- As to "a branch of seismology", I am fine with having it, and even in the lead paragraph. But not in the lead sentence, because it says nothing about what EP is. And the redundancy I referred to is in your "science of" — "-ology" implies that.
- In the meanwhile you have proceeded to make these changes (with the edit summary of "Early relief from over reliance on quotations.") That was inadvisable, and shows unfamiliarity with MOS:LEAD (nutshell: "
The lead should define the topic...."
), and even WP:CONSENSUS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile you have proceeded to make these changes (with the edit summary of "Early relief from over reliance on quotations.") That was inadvisable, and shows unfamiliarity with MOS:LEAD (nutshell: "
Faulty "word smithing" introduces bias
In this edit ("Word smithing a sentence") 166.147.88.22 changed "intense optimism amongst scientists" to "many geophysicists were optimistic". This is faulty on several counts: 1) "Intense optimism" is the precise term used by one of the sources. (I've added the missing citation.) 2) "Geophysicists" is not in the sources; the context is scientists. 3) "Many" is indefinite and weasely, diminishing what was a predominant opinion, and thus giving a biased impression the situation. This should be corrected. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There being no objections I have fixed the problems. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference between the edits is trivial, the main difference being that "intense optimism" is less appropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should seek to stick to facts when possible and avoid the kind of colorful adjectives that an advocacy group would use to try to persuade the reader to embrace a particular POV. When advocacy language is used, it should be attributed to a source. JJ, I think you have historically failed to understand this point -- you say you are being faithful to sources, but you are often putting the source's POV in Wikipedia's voice, essentially endorsing that POV. NPOV means we report on different points of view without taking sides. I see nothing "weaselly" or biased in the edit you "fixed." I also don't see much difference in your version, although I think "intense optimism" is unnecessary and "optimism" should suffice. Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)- As was the case in the past, J. Johnson appears to like dramatic language. Please remember that you, J. Johnson, only were not topic-banned because the WP:ANI thread was archived. Sometimes less dramatic language is more unencylopedic. Even if the source uses dramatic language, we don't have to use dramatic language. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- You have that backwards: the topic ban some sought did not fail because the discussion was archived. Rather, the discussion was archived because no admin was interested in a topic ban.
- As to the editing, "intense optimism" is hardly dramatic, and advocates nothing: it takes no sides, it presents fairly and without comment a factual description of the heightened expectations at that time. Nor was that the message of any advocacy group (unless you consider the entire mainstream geological establishment as an advocacy group). This fact is central to understanding both the enthusiasm of 1970s and even the nature and interpretation of the research, and the reaction since the 1990s. To reduce this to "many .. were optimistic" (editorial substitution of "geophysicists" having no support in the sources) diminishes the reader's understanding. It could be said that today "many" are optimistic about prediction, but that is in no way comparable to the "many" (seemingly everyone) who were optimistic in the 1970s. The essential fact of those times is not that there was optimism, but that it was intense. Underplaying this is non-neutral POV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor has switched "there was intense optimism among scientists" to "scientists were optimistic". Which is not quite what the main source says, but perhaps close enough, except for the omission of one word: "intense". I am going to correct that because, as I just explained, the characteristic of the 1970s was not simply "optimism", but the intensity of the optimism, and the omission is a subtle non-neutral POV. Joe and Robert say the word "intense" is unencyclopedic (what ever that means). Certainly not uncommon, as a search of article space finds 36 thousand hits. (Does anyone need examples?) If anyone feels "intense" (or "intensely") is too "dramatic" please explain. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a familiar pattern: we explain, you ignore the explanation, and then you demand that we explain. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor has switched "there was intense optimism among scientists" to "scientists were optimistic". Which is not quite what the main source says, but perhaps close enough, except for the omission of one word: "intense". I am going to correct that because, as I just explained, the characteristic of the 1970s was not simply "optimism", but the intensity of the optimism, and the omission is a subtle non-neutral POV. Joe and Robert say the word "intense" is unencyclopedic (what ever that means). Certainly not uncommon, as a search of article space finds 36 thousand hits. (Does anyone need examples?) If anyone feels "intense" (or "intensely") is too "dramatic" please explain. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- As was the case in the past, J. Johnson appears to like dramatic language. Please remember that you, J. Johnson, only were not topic-banned because the WP:ANI thread was archived. Sometimes less dramatic language is more unencylopedic. Even if the source uses dramatic language, we don't have to use dramatic language. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- What explanations? 166* made no explanation at all, just said he was "word smithing a sentence". You claim that '
"intense optimism" is less appropriate for an encyclopedia
' (i.e., "unencyclopedic"), apparently (to judge by your subsequent comments) because that term is non-factual (utterly and absolutely wrong, sir), and a "colorful adjective" (what??) such as an advocacy group would use. And Robert implies (though without actually saying so) that this phrase is too "dramatic". I see a bunch of hand-waving, I have yet to see any actual explanations.
- What explanations? 166* made no explanation at all, just said he was "word smithing a sentence". You claim that '
- Perhaps (?) the heart of your objection is where you complain that I am "often putting the source's POV in Wikipedia's voice, essentially endorsing that POV." You also interpret WP:NPOV as not taking sides. I think you really should study WP:NPOV past the nutshell summary. The essence is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So please explain to me: what significant view says that the optimism of the 1970s was not intense? What POV is being slighted? Who controverts that?
- Perhaps you would not object if "intense optimism" was directly and specifically cited to Geller et al. But note that WP:NPOV also says: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." (Emphasis added.) So why should an uncontested and uncontroversial (right?) factual assertion made by a reliable source not be "stated in Wikipedia's voice"?
- While you're at it perhaps you (or Robert?) would explain: how is "intense" (or "intensely") unencyclopedic when it appears in Wikipedia over thirty-six thousand times? Should all of those instances likewise be removed? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment above is not constructive, User:J. Johnson. Joe is correct: "This is a familiar pattern: we explain, you ignore the explanation, and then you demand that we explain." Explanation provided, yet you say "I see a bunch of hand-waving, I have yet to see any actual explanations." That is disrespectful and fallacious, and I've heard you make the same disrespectful and fallacious claim and called you on it long ago and yet still you do the same. It's disappointing that you keep at it. And I actually agree with your version. But your WP:OWN attitude is evident and hostile. And you have been going back on your commitment not to perform reverts to the article. And you've just posted defensively to ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=618622946#Egregious_section_heading_at_Talk:Earthquake_prediction
Archiving
I made an error in my edit summary. The correct link is Help:Archiving a talk page. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Struck edits by sockpuppet
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is it standard procedure to strike comments by editors still under sock puppet investigation? Are all of his comments on all talk pages being consistently struck? What about the continuity of the conversation in which the comments are imbedded? Might be best to leave it all alone? 109.174.139.132 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Doug's edit to this page seems constructive and good enough. [revised] --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, it's routine. The case was closed 5 days ago. Striking preserves the continuity. Any talk page posts not replied to are normally deleted. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. 85.133.27.61 (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Essay tag
While there are many citations in the article, it does read like an essay. That is partly due to the unencyclopaedic language that is used and also because of musings such as
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%?
We don't do this. My knowledge of the subject matter is not great but I'll be taking a hatchet to this article if it does not improve soon. For now, I've just tagged it in the hope of attracting people who are in fact familiar with the subject. It looks to me like the recent ANI complaint may have been justified and that more eyes are needed here. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sitush:Is it possible for you to work with and revise existing text rather than remove so much? 109.174.139.132 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, on closer inspection I think I agree with what you've done here. 109.174.139.132 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you say that, it's definitely an improvement. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Newer discusions
Some comments on recent edits
Some comments on some of Sitush's edits.
- Edit (various softening of VAN criticism: "
remove editorialising and trivial quote - I can't help but think this article has been written with the intent of attacking prediction
")
- VAN were, in fact, severely criticized. (E.g., M&G's "a probablity too large to be ascribed to chance." Although the severity of this may be too subtle for those outside the scientific community.) And de-italicisation goes too far where it alters direct quotations. Additional comment below.
- Edit (removing note on intensity, and part of the text describing deviations: "
not necessary; in particular, deviations are precisely how averages work
")
- The note on intensity was added at the suggestion of an expert reviewer as the general public generally does not understand the relation between magnitude and intensity.
- Edit (removing Noson et al. 1988 from the table's citation: "
this is overciting: the USGS is a perfectly authoritative source in its own right
")
- The USGS webpage might suffice generally as an "authoritative government source", but is not itself peer-reviewed (etc.), and so is not "perfectly acceptable" as an authoritative scientific source. Noson et al. is the authoritative source, and its removal creates another problem; see next comment.
- Edit (removing the USGS link that explained the magnitude classifications: "
... and I have no idea why this link is here, since it points to a glossary that mentions none of the stated terms
")
- The removed link originally linked into the topic ("Seismicity") where the terms and categories used in the table were defined. Now it redirects to the Glossary's TOC because of a site problem. Which is a good reason for having included the authoritative link (Noson et al. 1988), which was just removed by the preceeding edit. Now there is no verifiable source for the terms used in the table.
- Edit (removing "or roughly 150 per hour": "
d'uh - let's assume that our readership can do basic math(s)
")
- Can, but don't. By that reasoning we don't need to do all those metric conversions either.
- Edit (removing "There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions": "
I'm not quite sure why but this sentence grates with me: the reader can draw their own conclusion, for starters
")
- It grates on me, too, but then that is not what I wrote. I think it grates in part because it doesn't flow well into the following text. Some what less than stellar "word smithing".
- Sitush, thanks for the edits. Please respond to one of the above. E.g. please consider reverting the second one; {tq|deviations are precisely how averages work}} - Earthquakes don't occur at random, so expecting the outliers that you deleted to occur because of {tq|how averages work]] is nonsensical. We know earthquake locations aren't random. You seem to be assuming earthquake clumping is random in time; that is farfetched. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, re #1 - I suspect/recall that severely is justified. But your argument doesn't convince me (and others too, I bet) that it's not OR/editorializing. Perhaps there's an editorial about M&G's work that you can refer to that justifies putting back the severely ? Or are you saying that any competent reader of M&G's work would see it as severely criticizing. When I think of severely criticizing in a way that may be too subtle for those outside the scientific community, I think of the formal papers calling out Wakefield's vaccine fraud. I recall they were severely criticizing in a way that was too subtle for many outside the scientific community to see at first glance, but was there for anyone to see who took the time read it very carefully.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Other than that, I'm OK with the above edits. And the list of comments smacks of OWNership. The USGS is acceptable as a wikipedia source, per RS; whether it would be acceptable in a paper is not our concern. Still, I wonder if there isn't more benefit than harm in leaving it in.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- 2: Right. But note I wasn't trying to make an argument, just pointing out some things. As to whether VAN were severely criticized, there is a body of articles doing so. The strongest seems to be Jackson and Kagan's paper, "No more VAN, please!", with section headings of "No physics", "No science", "No prediction", and "No way". Various strong language (e.g.: "
Published work by Varotsos and colleagues lacks these requirements of good science
"), ending with: "The VAN hypothesis badly violates physical intuition, is too vague to test, and its proponents' claims of successful earthquake prediction are flagrantly exaggerated.
" Severe enough? If there are further questions about this I suggest the discussion be moved into its own section. - 3: Explaining how the removal of a perfectly acceptable citation directly contributes to a subsequent confusion "smacks of OWNership"? Your obsession with that term seems to exceed your understanding of it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You accuse me of being obsessessed with OWN. However, as noted at ANI by others, your characterization of my comments as attacks and obsession are unwarranted. Please
redactyour personal attacks ASAP. Consider this an official warning, J. Johnson (JJ). WP:NPA. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)- You're the one that raised "smacks of OWNership", and certainly not for the first time. You certainly have not explained how that arises from my entirely neutral explanation of how removal of a perfectly good citation led to some confusion. Nor how any of this constitutes a personal attack. Please note that (per WP:NPA "
Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.
" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're the one that raised "smacks of OWNership", and certainly not for the first time. You certainly have not explained how that arises from my entirely neutral explanation of how removal of a perfectly good citation led to some confusion. Nor how any of this constitutes a personal attack. Please note that (per WP:NPA "
- 2: Right. But note I wasn't trying to make an argument, just pointing out some things. As to whether VAN were severely criticized, there is a body of articles doing so. The strongest seems to be Jackson and Kagan's paper, "No more VAN, please!", with section headings of "No physics", "No science", "No prediction", and "No way". Various strong language (e.g.: "
minor fixes
Some minor fixes were made as per the "Bugs" section at http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Earthquake_prediction&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 75.151.82.138 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
General comment regarding perceived POV
On a more general note: this article was not written "with the intent of attacking prediction". It reflects (and I think fairly accurately) the prevailing sense of the seismological community regarding claims of prediction. The supposed bias (non-NPOV) some editors feel undoubtedly reflects the disparity between expert scientific opinion and the popular conception, the public seeing much more upbeat and optimistic views of prediction than of the actual history of failure. (E.g., "Haicheng".) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect the response will be "tough" but I'll leave that to others. I'm not in a great place at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why "tough"? If the mainstream point of view prevailing amongst seismologists since the 1990s is other than as reflected in the article it should be easy to find countervailing sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- My "tough" comment was in relation to the entirety of your original post, not just this subsection. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- My "original post" being, what, my comments on your edits? I don't see why any response should be "tough". E.g., that your de-italicization altered a direct quotation is a fact that can be verified against the source (Mulargia and Gasperini, 1991), and I would have expected you to be grateful for having it brought to your attention. (It would be simple enough for me to fix it myself, but that would over-excite Elvey.) And on the last edit I listed I agreed with you, so if anyone is "tough" about it we will likely be on the same side. However, all these comments would be more suitable at the top. I pulled this subsection out so we could discuss this particular issue of perceived non-NPOV without the confusion of other issues. Do you have any comment on that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a meta comment. You said that you were not going to frequent this talk page. That may have been a significant aspect of your last "escape" from some sort of admin action at WP:ANI. So why are you here now? When I have time, I'll be happy to go through the various comments on my edits but I'm not doing it with someone who has a history of being tendentious on the matter and who voluntarily agreed to withdraw: time is short enough without getting involved in that, sorry. If, in the interval, someone other than you wants to revert me then they are free to do so. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- What I previously said was that I was disengaging from a developing edit war. I am here now because I am more familiar with this topic than you and (it appears) the other editors actively engaged here, and because there are (in brief) some POV problems that threaten to undermine the article's objectivity. If I am wrong in what I take to be the mainstream scientific POV it should be easy to demonstrate that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good point, Sitush. Request withdrawn. I put back 'severe'; it's warranted, per, e.g. Jackson and Kagan's paper. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good. Glad to see there's at least something we can agree on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I reverted before seeing the above comments. But I'm not going to undo those reverts. The pair of you probably need to edit more widely and then you'd realise that we just don't do this sort of thing: we avoid emotives that really add nothing to what we say, we avoid trivia and we try as far as possible to speak with the voice of a general reader. This is a common problem with articles that are edited by aficionados and almost invariably it ends up getting cut. (You should see the crap that got removed from Bicycle helmets in Australia, for example, or the detail that got removed from Fanny Crosby and Jiddu Krishnamurti). If you want to write an academic paper, go write it somewhere else; if you want to push a pov, ditto. "Keep it simple, stupid" is the general rule here. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good. Glad to see there's at least something we can agree on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good point, Sitush. Request withdrawn. I put back 'severe'; it's warranted, per, e.g. Jackson and Kagan's paper. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sitush. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only POV I am pushing is that of mainstream seismology. As to whether the criticism of VAN was "severe": there are at least a dozen papers with criticism as severe as I have ever seen in the geosciences. To say simply that VAN were "criticized" makes it sound like ordinary, run-of-the-mill criticism, which it most certainly is not, and is "misleading as to the shape of the dispute." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Johnson, I think we all note your resistance to changing this word "severe" or, I suppose, related words like "severely" and other detailed word choices in this Wikipedia article. Perhaps you might consider whether or not the point you are wanting made might be just as effectively communicated with fewer qualifying adverbs. So, instead of "severely criticized" you might simply accept the, seemingly more modest, "criticized" and, then, allow specific evidence to back up the case that the VAN method hasn't worked. DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is not so much that I object to changing this or that word, it is matter of editors changing the POV to be more congenial to their personal sensibilities. In the case of VAN, the criticism is totally different in scope and kind than the usual run of criticism. This includes published statements that the VAN method is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound, that the "predictions" tend to follow rather than precede earthquakes, misrepresents the data, contains false claims, and is a waste of money. One noted authority says "most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked." To say only "severely criticised" is thus actually mild. To say anything less gives VAN more credibility than warranted by WP:WEIGHT, violating WP:NPOV, and misinforms the readers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, it was rejected and that is all we need to say. - 13:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please sign your post properly, 13:38. Please respect consensus and consider WP:BRD, Sitush. That means don't edit war; leave 'severely' in, as it's the established language, until there's a new consensus. Proposal: instead of severely, how 'bout we add some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate. Please quote from policy that shows "we don't use emotives"; JJ has quoted from UNDUE to support his position. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) (belated sig)
- Elvey, slow down! You forgot to sign this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, please sign your posts properly, whoever posted the one criticising 13:28. And who eve ryou are, you do not understand policy, not even WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a vote and we do not use subjective emotives unless citing a reliable source (ie: a quotation). I think you'll find I know far, far more about WP policy than you. But try WP:NPOV, (WP:PEA, WP:WEA for starters). - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please sign your post properly, 13:38. Please respect consensus and consider WP:BRD, Sitush. That means don't edit war; leave 'severely' in, as it's the established language, until there's a new consensus. Proposal: instead of severely, how 'bout we add some of the quotes that JJ posted above that convinced me that 'severely' is appropriate. Please quote from policy that shows "we don't use emotives"; JJ has quoted from UNDUE to support his position. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) (belated sig)
- No, it was rejected and that is all we need to say. - 13:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is not so much that I object to changing this or that word, it is matter of editors changing the POV to be more congenial to their personal sensibilities. In the case of VAN, the criticism is totally different in scope and kind than the usual run of criticism. This includes published statements that the VAN method is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound, that the "predictions" tend to follow rather than precede earthquakes, misrepresents the data, contains false claims, and is a waste of money. One noted authority says "most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked." To say only "severely criticised" is thus actually mild. To say anything less gives VAN more credibility than warranted by WP:WEIGHT, violating WP:NPOV, and misinforms the readers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
-
- What part of "Please quote from policy" do you not understand? " WP:NPOV, (WP:PEA, WP:WEA" are not quotes from policy. You refer me to WP:WEA. Quote something relevant to "severe" from WP:WEA and I'll back off completely from opposing "severe". Quotes begin and end with quote marks, !#%#!@%. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which of these policies mentions your "emotives"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm paraphrasing from PEA and WEA but if you can't see that the word "severely" is a subjective opinion then there is no hope for you here. If you can find a sentence in one of the several sources for that paragraph which explicitly says, for example, "we severely criticise VAN" then that's fine and, yes, that would be a justifiable use of a micro-quote because it is obviously contentious. If you can't, don't put words in the mouths of those who wrote the various sources. This is basic stuff and, while on paper some might think I've got a lot more experience than you, I'd expect you to know it by now given your own contributions here. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which of these policies mentions your "emotives"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- VAN method uses same phrasing. DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I wonder who added that. And I've just notice in this article we say "most touted, and most criticized" wrt that method. Really? Do the sources say that? - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm opening an RFC. I warned Sitush about his edit warring; his response was not helpful. My "Proposal" of a compromise solution has seen no response.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- What do you expect if you template someone with > 120,000 contributions? I'm one who find it bloody officious and irritating - see WP:DTTR. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Earthquake Prediction Reference
Should the section below be updated or modified to reflect or reference the external link: http://www.quakehunt.com? The website appears to track user submitted earthquake predictions.
" As many predictions are held confidentially, or published in obscure locations, and become notable only when they are claimed, there may be some selection bias in that hits get more attention than misses."
Thanks Simple77 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are referring to the article's References section? Strictly speaking, no, as that section is for references (sources) used in the article, and the QuakeHunt web page is neither used, nor should it be used (because it is not a reliable source). But possibly you mean to suggest adding that link to the "External links" section? I would again say no, as the article is not about popular efforts to predict quakes, but earthquake prediction as a scientific topic. It might be suitable for an article on, say, Popular attempts at predicting earthquakes, but that would be a different article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what the Wikipolicy is, but I would assume that it is frowned upon to simply add links to Wikipages without good reason. This policy, if it exists, would seek to avoid long lists of links just because they are related to the subject of the page. You can imagine where that might go after a while! DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:EL. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to reduce the list of "Notable Predictions"
I think it would help if this list was pared down a bit, concentrating, on real claims rather than simply confusion about possible claims.
For example:
1976: Southern California, USA (Whitcomb)[edit]
On 15 April 1976, Dr. James Whitcomb presented a scientific paper[146] that found, based on changes in Vp/Vs (seismic wave velocities), an area northeast of Los Angeles along the San Andreas fault was "a candidate for intensified geophysical monitoring". He presented this not as a prediction that an earthquake would happen, but as a test of whether an earthquake would happen, as might be predicted on the basis of Vp/Vs. This distinction was generally lost; he was and has been held to have predicted an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 within 12 months.
The area identified by Whitcomb was quite large, and overlapped the area of the Palmdale Bulge,[147] an apparent uplift (later discounted[148]), which was causing some concern as a possible precursor of large earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Both the uplift and the changes in seismic velocities were predicted by the then current dilatancy theory, although Whitcomb emphasized his "hypothesis test" was based solely on the seismic velocities, and that he regarded that theory unproven.[149]
Whitcomb subsequently withdrew the prediction, as continuing measurements no longer supported it. No earthquake of the specified magnitude occurred within the specified area or time.[150]
- Notes: (1) The first paragraph of this section on Southern California emphasizes that this is not an actual prediction, although some people might have perceived it to be. This latter point is not backed up with a citation, and, in any case, we might ask if we should be documenting perceptions of what a scientist said, rather than what he said. Furthermore, the scientific paper was really just an abstract, not always a reliable source for much of anything. (2) The second paragraph says that Whitcomb said he was just putting forward an hypothesis test. This would, probably, be testable via statistics, but Johnson has designed this Wikiarticle to exclude "forecasts" (see lead paragraph), even though there is a section in the article on statistical testing. (3) The third paragraph now says that Whitcomb made a "prediction", which contradicts the first paragraph.
- I suggest deleting this entire section o Whitcomb's prediction or whatever it was.
1978: Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, Japan[edit]
On 14 January 1978 a swarm of intense microearthquakes prompted the Japan Meteorological Agence (JMA) to issue a statement suggesting that precautions for the prevention of damage might be considered. This was not a prediction, but coincidentally it was made just 90 minutes before the M 7.0 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai earthquake.[154] This was subsequently, but incorrectly,[155] claimed as successful prediction by Hamada (1991), and again by Roeloffs & Langbein (1994).
- Notes: (1) The test says this was not a prediction per se, but rather a "precaution". That some scientists subsequently interpreted it to be a prediction doesn't seem especially important. Scientists sometimes make mistakes, yes. They are human.
- This is not very noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. I suggest this section on the Izu-Oshima-Kinkai "precaution" be deleted.
Really, we might just have a list of a few examples of predictions, rather than try to include outright misinterpretations.
DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Whitcombe can definitely be binned. We're even contradicting ourselves, as you point out, and there doesn't seem to be much support for it being intended as a prediction. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Over reliance on direct quotation
Much of the article relies on direct quotations. This might not be appropriate. Consider the following paragraph, for example, in the section on "Seismic gaps":
It has been asked: "How could such an obvious, intuitive model not be true?"[114] Possibly because some underlying assumptions are not correct. A close examination suggests that "there may be no information in seismic gaps about the time of occurrence or the magnitude of the next large event in the region";[115] statistical tests of the circum-Pacific forecasts shows that the seismic gap model "did not forecast large earthquakes well".[116] Another study concluded: "The hypothesis of increased of earthquake potential after a long quiet period can be rejected with a large confidence."[117]
- This is mostly just the stringing together of four separate quotes. These quotes are not poetry, just literal words from papers. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop. Not appropriate to argue the same point in multiple sections. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Elvey, perhaps you are mistaken? If so, please pardon my removal of the archive box you put in place. The content of this discussion section is NOT the same as the preceding section, it is not redundant as you seem to perceive it to be. The previous discussion section is specifically about the long list of Notable Predictions. I'm suggesting it be pared down, and I'm providing some points of discussion about content. This discussion section is about the over-all style of the entire article, which I think is overly reliant on direct quotations. A very different issue. So, I consider this worthy of discussion, and I'm proposing discussion prior to wading into the article to change things. Please consider this before closing the discussion. Thank you, and, sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)— DoctorTerrella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I agree that there seem to be many quotes that really don't need to be there. I'm fairly sure that I've removed some but there are many more. There is probably about 25-30% of this article that can go without affecting the coverage at all. That was what I meant a few days ago when I said that it seemed to be an attempt to press home a point of view. - Sitush (talk)
- "direct quotations" has just been argued over. This section, which starts off with
"Much of the article relies on direct quotations."
is a rehash with some new bits for color. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- "direct quotations" has just been argued over. This section, which starts off with
- This has already been discussed for this article? Where? Was a solution proposed? DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see, now, there was discussion 2 years ago about the same issue, over quotation. This discussion is in Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, interesting. I hadn't spotted that archive thread, which also contains exactly the same thoughts that I hold regarding the quote boxes and the mad explanation of prediction theory. I notice that JJ browbeat then. It won't be happening now. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
MOS:WORDSASWORDS
Sitush: I don't find that policy supports https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_prediction&diff=620486048&oldid=620485939, in particular, MOS:WORDSASWORDS saysUse italics when writing about words as words ... A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted.
. Please explain or revert.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't got a clue what you are getting at here. If you can't see good English when it is written, I cannot help you. What are the technical terms that you refer to? Prove that they are technical terms. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read MOS:WORDSASWORDS recently? --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. That is why I am asking you to prove that they are technical terms. As far as I can see, they are perfectly normal English usage and while they may be used in technical reports etc they do not appear to be being used in those in a manner that differs from the everyday usage. They are playing their "normal grammatical role" and you need to show that they are "technical terms" if you wish to italicise. I'd probably still oppose it - it looks bloody stupid and MOS is not a policy - but the ball is in your court. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read MOS:WORDSASWORDS recently? --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- For all that you keep citing WP:MOSITALICS as authority for removing italics, you do not seem very familiar with it. What Elvey points to is the bit that says words or terms should be italicized when talking about them rather than using them. (The use–mention distinction.) This includes the first use of terms (technical or otherwise). Note also where MOS:EMPHASIS says: "
Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence ....
" (bolding added). All of this in accord with standard style manuals. (E.g., see CMS-13, sections 6.53, 6.60, 6.61, and 6.66.)
- For all that you keep citing WP:MOSITALICS as authority for removing italics, you do not seem very familiar with it. What Elvey points to is the bit that says words or terms should be italicized when talking about them rather than using them. (The use–mention distinction.) This includes the first use of terms (technical or otherwise). Note also where MOS:EMPHASIS says: "
- Your concept of "good English" is idiosyncratic, and at variance with standard usage. You have already admitted that your "knowledge of the subject matter is not great" (above, 17:24 28 July); it appears that your understanding of style and the Wikpedia policies pertaining thereto are also "not great". On that ground it would seem advisable that you cease in your unilateral "taking a hatchet to this article." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, I've had years of experience of people here trying to browbeat by using TLDR rants. I don't bother reading them. I refer you to my earlier query re: technical terms. Care to try again? - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Appropriate handling of fringe topics, how to respect WP:NPOV
Is the language in the article, "severe criticism", as applied to VAN, editorializing or, appropriate, given the criticism in, e.g. Jackson and Kagan's paper includes, "No more VAN, please!", with section headings of "No physics", "No science", "No prediction", "No way", "Published work by Varotsos and colleagues lacks these requirements of good science
"), and finally, ending with: "The VAN hypothesis badly violates physical intuition, is too vague to test, and its proponents' claims of successful earthquake prediction are flagrantly exaggerated.
" Parties differ as to how to interpret and apply policies such as WP:NPOV.
- Discussions about this article are getting out of hand again, regarding "severe" and other topics. There have been a couple ANI notices, which are noted and linked to from this page. I warned Sitush about his edit warring; his response was not helpful. My "Proposal" of a compromise solution has seen no response. Tempers have flared, I'm at a loss as to what to do about that. I am stepping back and asking for help/comments. Bad attitudes seem to be contagious. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 04:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment What compromise proposal? I must have missed that. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Strong comment. Elvey, this is not well considered. While an RfC might be useful, your formulation of an issue to comment on is very poor: it rambles, it doesn't support the statements included, it doesn't state the issue very clearly, confuses assertions with the statements supporting the assertions, and includes tangential issues. This will only invite a lot of broad-ranging and unfocused comments. If you will kindly do us all (including yourself) a favor by canceling this (remove the rfc tag) I will be happy to help you better formulate an RfC on this. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Even stronger comment (ta-daaa!) If Elvey points us to the compromise proposal that I seem to have missed then maybe there will be no need for this or any other RfC on the topic. Now that is logic. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2014 ===Comments on RFC===
This is a poorly formed RFC. It isn't exactly clear what question the proposer is asking. Is it about the VAN method itself, or criticism of the VAN method, or "severe" criticism of the VAN method? How will the closer know how to close it in 30 days? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I am aware that J. Johnson likes strong language, like "severe" and "constant drumbeat", but that isn't the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The originator of this RFC didn't even format it correctly, with a two-level heading, but used the first-level heading properly used only for the article title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I would appreciate it if the originator would withdraw the RFC, but someone who hasn't been claiming ownership of the article (and who only avoided a topic-ban due to archival of a thread and to gaming of the thread) should help formulate a proper RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)