Your labors there are appreciated, John. And I imagine it must be frustrating to have to continually repair the vandalism.

I know the subject of Wikipedia's article on Earthquake Prediction came up here quite some long time ago, and wondered whether you had any part in that entry. There do seem to still be some questionable statements in the article, and some murky writing! As an example of the latter, what does this mean (I hope it's not yours!)?: "people have tried to associate an impending earthquake with such potential precursors as [list of supposed precursory phenomena] - thereby hoping that the observed seismicity foreshadows its destruction by such observable phenomena."

As for the statements, can this possibly be true?: "Historically, 60% of major earthquakes (magnitude 7 or greater) occur during the 14% of the year when the tidal forces are near their maximum". I just realized, while writing this, that the entire section on "Tidal Forces" is apparent nonsense. Perhaps an example of the continuing "vandalism"?

The section on the 1975 Haicheng earthquake prediction entirely ignores recent research (and peer-reviewed literature) which makes the supposed prediction much less impressive.

And this: "According to recent research, electromagnetic sensors yield statistically valid results in predicting earthquakes — modern science's answer to centuries of human observation of animals.[8]" Have there been studies which support that stated statiscal validation?

And how can an article on Earthquake Prediction completely omit the view held by a very large number of seismologists (probably a substantial majority), that earthquakes are INHERENTLY unpredictable due to the chaotic nauture of their nucleation process?

Thanks, again, John for your continuing help in providing a professional's viewpoint here.

MW
93420