Editing Seismology (section)

===Earthquake prediction===
{{main|Earthquake prediction}}
Forecasting a probable timing, location, magnitude and other important features of a forthcoming seismic event is called [[earthquake prediction]]. Various attempts have been made by seismologists and others to create effective systems for precise earthquake predictions, including the [[VAN method]].  Most seismologists do not believe that a system to provide timely warnings for individual earthquakes has yet been developed, and many believe that such a system would be unlikely to give useful warning of impending seismic events. However, more general forecasts routinely predict [[seismic hazard]]. Such forecasts estimate the probability of an earthquake of a particular size affecting a particular location within a particular time-span, and they are routinely used in [[earthquake engineering]].

Public controversy over earthquake prediction erupted after Italian authorities [[indicted]] six seismologists and one government official for [[manslaughter]] in connection with [[2009 L'Aquila earthquake|a magnitude 6.3 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy on April 5, 2009]].<ref name="Hall 2011">{{harvnb|Hall|2011}}</ref> A report in [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] stated that the indictment was widely seen in Italy and abroad as being for failing to predict the earthquake and drew condemnation from the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] and the [[American Geophysical Union]].<ref name="Hall 2011"/> However, the magazine also indicated that the population of Aquila do not consider the failure to predict the earthquake to be the reason for the indictment, but rather the alleged failure of the scientists to evaluate and communicate risk.<ref name="Hall 2011"/> The indictment claims that, at a special meeting in [[L'Aquila]] the week before the earthquake occurred, scientists and officials were more interested in pacifying the population than providing adequate information about earthquake risk and preparedness.<ref name="Hall 2011"/>

In locations where a historical record exists it may be used to estimate the timing, location and magnitude of future seismic events. There are several interpretative factors to consider. The epicentres or foci and magnitudes of historical earthquakes are subject to interpretation meaning it is possible that 5–6 {{nat|Mw}} earthquakes described in the historical record could be larger events occurring elsewhere that were felt moderately in the populated areas that produced written records. Documentation in the historic period may be sparse or incomplete, and not give a full picture of the geographic scope of an earthquake, or the historical record may only have earthquake records spanning a few centuries, a very short time frame in a [[seismic cycle]].<ref name=historic>''Historical Seismology: Interdisciplinary Studies of Past and Recent Earthquakes''(2008) Springer Netherlands</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Thakur|first1=Prithvi|last2=Huang|first2=Yihe|title=Influence of Fault Zone Maturity on Fully Dynamic Earthquake Cycles|journal=Geophysical Research Letters|date=2021|volume=48|issue=17|doi=10.1029/2021GL094679|bibcode=2021GeoRL..4894679T|url=https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL094679|hdl=2027.42/170290|hdl-access=free}}</ref>