Talk:Raffaele Bendandi

May 11, 2011 Earthquake Prediction

I would just like to point out that Bendandi predicted a large earthquake in Rome on May 11, 2011, and although it did not occur in Italy, a magnitude 5.3 earthquake did hit eastern Spain that day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13368599). Seems worthy of mentioning, especially since Spain and Italy are near each other geographically, and the location of the earthquake (Lorca, Murcia) was in eastern Spain while Rome is in western Italy. So, it seems like Bendandi was perhaps not entirely off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.86.161 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See Earthquake#Size and frequency of occurrence - "It is estimated that around 500,000 earthquakes occur each year, detectable with current instrumentation. About 100,000 of these can be felt." That is, about 250-300 earthquakes that can be felt each day. And anyway, Bendandi apparently did not predict an earthquake in Rome on 11 May - "the custodians of Bendandi's papers... have... issued a statement saying there is no mention of a 11 May earthquake in them." [1]. The false idea that he made such a prediction developed as an internet meme. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited article also says that earthquakes of such as magnitude as the one in Spain occur in the UK every 10 years, how often do they hit Spain? His supporters may have denied that he did predict an earthquake yesterday but only after one didn't occur, so how reliable are their claims? I think the article could also have some sort of assessment of veracity of his claims by listing any successful predictions and any unsuccessful ones. If he's only predicted three in the past hundred years it's fairly impressive, but if he predicted one a week then there's nothing special about him. Will Bradshaw (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement that he did not forecast an earthquake on 11 May was made before the day itself - and not by his "supporters" but by his archivists. What happened in Spain on that day, or on any other day, is utterly irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the reference, you're right, the statement was made before the 11th, but that's not how the article reads, so I'll reword that. I still think the point stands that we should have a list of predictions and whether they were successful or not. The article mentions two predictions, both of which were successful, which would suggest that he was quite good at predicting them and could possibly add some weight to his methods. However, if he also made 500 unsuccessful predictions then clearly he just got lucky a couple of times. It wouldn't constitute WP:OR if each claim and confirmation/refutation was cited and no conclusion stated. Will Bradshaw (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is more information at this source (already cited in the article, but not fully summarised). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Vuoden 1915 ennustus kävi toteen – 1300 km päässä (The 1915 forecast came true-1300 km away from) is a hoax. Andres Rojas (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

More links

All in Italian, unfortunately, but.... The dossier of information provided by the Italian Civil Protection Department about the 11 May scare is here, and there is an interesting (even if you don't speak Italian, like me) video about Bendandi's work and methods here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this video (3 parts) the origin of the scare? Does anyone here speak Italian? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

in the dossier video they say that there is no proof of bandandi even stating the day 11 may 2011 in his archives, and they explain comparing the past earthquakes in italy and trying to use his method that there is no relation to consider his work to be science, and if you want to read a personal statement of mine, the "scare" of that prediction was born on facebook links ;) that is very popular in italy and italians believe a lot of stuff (if you get what i mean) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Lorca earthquake

Some editors have objected to inclusion of a reference to the 2011 Lorca earthquake. I will respond to some of the objections made:

1. What happened in Spain on that day, or on any other day, is utterly irrelevant.

   What we may think of the causal relationship is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say on the issue. If reliable sources have linked the two events, then this association may be notable.

2. About 250-300 earthquakes that can be felt each day.

   Yes, many earthquakes can be felt. Few are however notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The 2011 Lorca earthquake is definitely notable.

The Lorca earthquake may have a low magnitude, but it was the most devastating earthquake in Spain for over 50 years. This may be the result of the extremely shallow focal depth. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You have now (since I made the comments you mention) provided one reliable source - the Telegraph report - which reports the purported connection, together with a statement from the INGV that there is no such link. That ref should stay in, with the INGV statement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The first ref you want to keep in is irrelevant - it simply reports two different events in one article, without attempting to establish any connection between them. The third ref (setting aside the comment from another editor stating that it is a hoax) is in Finnish, which is not a language that many readers of English Wikipedia would understand - and, if Google Translate is any guide, it says much less than the Telegraph article anyway. The second Telegraph ref should stay in (see above), but the others add precisely nothing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You have made 10 reverts to this article in the past 24 hours. I suggest you take a break from this article and come back to this talk page the day after tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have reverted vandalism from various IPs, I have added referenced content to the article, and I have engaged in positive discussions, with you and others, on this talk page. What more do you expect? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm finished for the day, but will just point out that, per multiple discussions elsewhere, the Daily Mail is definitely not regarded as a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment of "22:33, 11 May 2011" was semi-disingenuous (as pointed out above). However dubious the prediction in many respects, the correlation (however factitious) between semi-panic in Rome and the most severe earthquake in 50 years in Spain is worthy of being mentioned, and was mentioned in many news accounts... AnonMoos (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that several sources have now been found which do that, and I agree that they should be mentioned in the article. However, the two sources I referred to last night are not good sources. The first simply refers to the two events, without suggesting any causal link or correlation between them, and the second is in a language few here would be able to read. Since Petri Krohn objects to their removal, I won't try to remove them again, but they seem to me to be unnecessary and, in one case, not supportive of the argument being made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Ah, sorry, you referred to my edit of "22:33, 11 May 2011", not "22:33, 12 May 2011". Confusing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It proves nothing by the strict application of the scientific method, and no-one has claimed that it did prove anything by the strict application of the scientific method (as far as I'm aware). However, a lot of similar "prophecies" result in absolutely nothing relevant happening on or close to the chosen date, while this one resulted in a horseshoes-and-handgrenades semi-near-miss, so by the track records of previous dubious unscientific predictions, this actually turned out to be quite a good dubious unscientific prediction, and I don't see why we can't say so... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the custodians of his records have made clear that he did not predict any earthquake on 11 May 2011, in Rome or anywhere else. The fact that some people believed he did, and took action on that basis, is certainly worthy of record here, but all the evidence is that he did not make any such prediction - so any claims of "correlation", let alone causality, are unjustified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's another semi-disingenuous remark. Whether or not the prediction originated with Bendandi or not, my comments of "08:11, 13 May 2011" still apply... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is that "semi-disingenuous"? It would be interesting to find out where the "dubious unscientific prediction" of a quake in Rome - or the assertion that such a prediction had been made - did originate from, as we don't seem to know that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: "Internet chat rooms", apparently - [2]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry to disturb, i do speak italian, and the scare of this metro legend was born on facebook links that in italy are very popular, so popular that half of rome knew about this "prediction" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Grazie. If you know of any links that refer specifically to Facebook, or other sites, as helping to spread this rumour, please post the links here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

i did a very short search on google trying to find out the original source of this, ill explain the most interesting website i found, it seems like anonymous people, on 20 january, did spread papers in ciampino city on walls saying a terrible earthquake was going to happen and this was predicted by Bendandi, and those papers were suggesting citizens to sleep outside from 2 to 3 days before that day, the papers comprised the sign of the italian civil protection, and this was spread thorough social networks. http://www.queryonline.it/2011/04/08/terremoto-a-roma-teorie-e-terrorismi/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Great link, thank you. I used Google Translate, and it seems to be saying that the rumour started on 20 January when leaflets purporting to come from the Civil Defence, but not in fact from them, were distributed in the city of Ciampino saying that Bendandi had forecast a quake on 11 May. Later rumours specified that it would be in Rome, and that there would be a further quake on 5-6 April 2012 - but, again, without any foundation. There is more information here, confirming the story and saying that, according to the notice, people were recommended to sleep outside for 2-3 nights. The speculation is that it was a ruse devised by criminal gangs to get people to leave their houses unguarded. Is that a fair interpretation of those sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

yes thats right, also note ciampino is province of rome, i noticed it also says the rumors were circulating on the internet even 2 years before the flyers, so the original source seems to be unknown in the article. And at the end the article editor does not say that it was organized by criminal gangs but just raises the point so that the users could think about this option as hypothetical reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection Policy

There would be that to semi-protect the article? Andres Rojas (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That would only discourage unregistered IP users, of course. It may be a partial solution, though I would prefer to expand the article from reliable sources to address all the possible issues, and hope that there are no earthquakes anywhere else in the next few weeks that would tempt any more people to say that he was "nearly right". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)