Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes

Requested move 6 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per WP:SNOW, as this RM has an extremely low chance of succeeding. Opposers mostly brought up the fact that this has also affected Syria, and while the nominator did suggest the alternate option 2023 Gaziantep–Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, consensus has emerged that this is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, there is precedent of earthquakes affecting multiple countries to be called 2017 Iran–Iraq earthquake and 2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes. If anyone would like to start a discussion about a different title, feel free to start another RM, but I would recommend waiting some time due to the high amount of editing. Remember, There is no deadline, these discussions don't have to take place now. Thanks. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → 2023 Gaziantep earthquake – To fit with other earthquake articles on Wikipedia, the title should be the epicenter, not where damage is. (see Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Title 2 for previous discussion) Betseg (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• I forgot to change this, but now after the second earthquake, I suggest renaming the article to 2023 Gaziantep–Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Betseg (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per the aforementioned reason. Ayıntaplı (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My support was before the second earthquake, the epicenter of which was further north in Kahramanmaraş, so this move would not be representative of the disaster. Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm trying to figure out if there is indeed a pattern here, because for example 2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes mentions both countries where the damage occurred, whereas if it were to be named after the epicenter it should have been 2020 Khoy earthquake. On the other hand, Betseg suggests here that "Syria" could be included in the title only if there has been excessive damage. I would have no problem naming it after the epicenter, but I think people who have worked on naming such pages need to chime in to draw a clear picture of what our guidelines say. Keivan.f^Talk 06:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative — 2023 Nurdağı earthquake, as Nurdağı is the true epicenter. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, the epicenter is near a village in the Şehitkamil district of the province of Gaziantep. There seems to be a lack of consensus on the epicenter, but in either case it is in the same district but either midway between Nurdağı and Gaziantep or closer to Gaziantep. Ayıntaplı (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - The impact in Syria appears to be greater than in Turkey, the current title makes sense. The naming of earthquake articles is pretty varied and there are plenty of examples of earthquakes spanning borders such as the 1906 Ecuador–Colombia earthquake and the 1958 Ecuador–Colombia earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as per @Betseg's comment. The article name should only include the epicenter, not the different countries or the entire country as these countries were not affected by the earthquake entirely with all of their cities. We should also note that the common naming for the earthquake can be decided more definitely after more news and articles are published. Regards,

Harald the Bard (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: As can be seen from news and articles, another earthquake hit the area and many cities near Kahramanmaraş (Hatay, Gaziantep, etc.) are affected. Many countries near the Southeast Region of Turkey (Syria, Lebanon, Armenia, etc.) are also affected. If the article name should include country names, then it should include other countries too, or it should include all the cities hit by the earthquake. Including only the epicenter would be a safe solution before a common name can actually appear in media and reports. It is just so early to name the article properly. My condolences to all my brethren in Turkey, I can't help myself to say something about it. Harald the Bard (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Ayıntaplı's comment. BobNesh (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - effects of this earthquake are beyond Gaziantep Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per @Mikenorton DarmaniLink (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know really, like how the 2022 Michoacán earthquake is named that despite severe damage also occuring in Colima and Jalisco, I think it should be moved, but as the epicentre's in Turkey and Syria is actually more devastated, It could either be called "2023 southern Turkey earthquake" or simply keep it as the Turkey and Syria earthquake

Quake1234 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Support as per the aforementioned reason RedBreaddd (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Dora the Axe-plorer NikolaiVektovich (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, although the epicentre was in Gaziantep, its impact goes way beyond that. Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• 48hr moratorium Right now most of the headlines read something like, Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria (Turkey is first in all of the instances I've noticed). If you get a TL;DR you'd know the name "Gaziantep". But, I don't think the name is well known yet, maybe soon. Right now 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake is a good placeholder name. Let us wait until media coverage settles on something. This is a bit premature to decide on a permanent name for this article. For the sake of editing convenience, let's not keep moving the page back and forth and revisit the name in 2 days. --nafSadh ^{did say} 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The epicenter info is to be touched upon in the article but, the title doesn't necessarily have to named after the epicentre. Especially, considering the widespread devastation in both Syria and Türkiye. The current title is apt and to the purpose.

StarkReport (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - the article name should be descriptive, general, easy to understand, easy to search.

For the rest of the world, this earthquake is Turkey earthquake or Syrian earthquake, or simply Turkey & Syria earthquake. It's not Gaziantep, or Nordegi earthquake. For example the article "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake", its not rename to 2004 Aceh earthquake, although 200k or more casualties in Aceh. Keep think global, as this wikipedia is for international community. @NnAs (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Same reasoning behind other articles such as the 2017 Iran–Iraq earthquake, the title doesn't necessarily have to specify the epicentre. Maple Doctor (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - this has been extremely devastating far beyond that particular area, not to mention beyond Turkey (Syria is hit very hard). FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative - I would suggest naming "2023 Turkey earthquake" both because the epicentre is in Turkey and also the only countries affected by the earthquake are not Turkey and Syria. The very epicentre is far from the border between Turkey and Syria, therefore, the logic in 2017 Iran–Iraq earthquake and 2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes does not apply here.--Narsilien (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support – per reason. Mehedi Abedin 08:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are notable sources using both Turkey and Syria in their headlines to refer to the incident: Guardian - Turkey and Syria earthquake: more than 500 dead after 7.8-magnitude quake – latest updates, CNN - More than 500 dead as 7.8-magnitude earthquake hits southern Turkey and Syria, Reuters - Major earthquake strikes Turkey, Syria; hundreds dead, many trapped. I would also say that 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake covers When, Where, and What and is thus acceptable under WP:NCE. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per reason stated by Super Goku V. Kolhisli (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – The magnitude of this earthquake was not limited to Gaziantep Lazizbek95 (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - the reasoning set out by Super Goku V is persuasive. Pedro :  Chat  11:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support—Changing it back to 2023 Gaziantep earthquake would clearly be in line with the titles of articles of other earthquakes. Other affected countries include Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Georgia, and Armenia, but they aren't (and shouldn't be) included in the title. The epicentre was at/near Gaziantep, so the article should be named as such. Compusolus (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The epicenter of the earthquake is in Turkey. Earthquakes are named after where their epicenter is, not after which countries they had an effect on. It should be named the 2023 Turkey Earthquake RedBreaddd (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - the earthquake hit Turkey, Egypt, and the Levantine region. There’s no reason to change it’s name Syphenta (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support — The place where the earthquake happend should be in the article title, the earthquake was affected in many countries. However, all of them should not be written in the article name like a list. Werg57 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - an hour ago I probably would have supported it. However, with an earthquake nearly as strong, that close in both time and place, suggests that the primary incident (the earthquakes) isn't over yet. And being that close to the Syrian border, it's quite likely that some of the individual quakes will be across the border. Animal lover |666| 11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Animal lover above Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose to the name change due to its range exceeding the Gaziantep region and many earthquake are still coming as waves ..So till all these events are yet to be finish,then only it is appropriate to name it..Now it will leads to unneccessary confliction a and confusions.. Spbvj (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As previous mentioned by other contributors, that the effects of this earthquake are beyond Gaziantep and I would oppose changing the name. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a bit mixed on this one. Normal convention is the locality of the epicenter as the place name in an earthquake article - other "X-Y" country articles are all either literally on a border, offshore, or a group of earthquakes straddling a border (which I don't think this one has yet?), so they don't really provide precedent here. On the other hand, the media coverage tends to use either Turkey or some form of Turkey-Syria (with only the Guardian using "Syria and Turkey" in that order as far as I can see) so WP:COMMONNAME may apply there despite the massive loss of precision. In any case, we can wait for a bit to see if nature clarifies itself, which is kind of morbid, but ehh. ansh.666 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, I did briefly check the USGS map, and it does have one earthquake on the southern side of the border, but obviously that's original research and I can't really know if it's related or not just from looking at a map. ansh.666 17:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per @Jurisdicta's comment. Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 18:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, both countries were equally effected so the title should reflect this. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Both countries were heavily impacted. The current title is appropriate.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Does not "Turkey–Syria earthquakes" semantically mean that earthquakes took place both in Turkey and Syria? However, earthquakes happened in Turkey only. The casualties and death toll in both countries are still rising and we do not know which country is more affected by the quakes. The impact of the earthquakes on Syria is huge and it is the greatest disaster in Syria's history as far as I could follow. Yet, the title "Turkey–Syria" is misleading in my opinion. In terms of the coverage of the areas affected by the earthquake, if we would mention the places affected in the title, all other places should be included if we follow this line of argument. The article should be renamed and I do not support moving the article to "Gaziantep earthquake" because another earthquake happened in Kahramanmaraş too. In Turkish Wikipedia, the article is titled as "2023 Gaziantep–Kahramanmaraş earthquakes". Maybe, this titling could be better. Or another option can be considered. Nonetheless, "Turkey–Syria earthquakes" is semantically problematic I believe.--Narsilien (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Narsilien, regardless of the locations of the epicenters, it is a fact that the earthquakes struck both Turkey and Syria. My question is: why should the title be changed to the epicenter's location? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Nythar, I admit that the earthquakes affected both Turkey and Syria. If it is not clear enough, I can stress it here as well. The reason why the title should be changed to the epicenters' (indeed, because there is not only one earthquake but two earthquakes with two epicenters, both are in Turkey and lots of aftershocks affecting 10 cities all across southeastern Anatolia) location is this article is about the earthquakes themselves. The places and countries affected by the earthquake can be stated and relevant information can be given under a subheading. As the common naming standard in English Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias, the location's name is mentioned in the title. For example, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami mentions Tohoku, and does not state the Pacific Ocean though the epicenter is in the ocean. The closest identifiable location was preferred here. Another example is 2011 Van earthquakes, which again happened in Turkey and was named after the city of Van. The earthquakes in Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş happened on the East Anatolian Fault and this fault line is in Turkey in its totality. Syria is not the only place affected by the earthquake. Therefore, my suggestion is that the title should indicate the epicenters, per the most common naming conventions in English Wikipedia. I hope this clarified.--Narsilien (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Narsilien, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami took place as a result of an earthquake off the coast of Sumatra. For some reason, the article is not titled "2004 Sumatra earthquake". There are also many earthquake articles with titles that include the entire country, including the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the April 2015 Nepal earthquake, and the June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, even though it struck only the southeast, and Afghanistan is a large country. I think the only unprecedented thing here is the inclusion of two countries (Turkey and Syria) in the title. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Nythar, I think there is an inconsistency concerning the naming the article titles. Since Haiti and Nepal are relatively small countries, naming the article with these countries is understandable. If we follow the general coverage in media, titling the article "2023 Turkey earthquake" is plausible. For adding Syria to the article as well, as I stated above, since naming the article with two countries apply to the cases took place right on the border or a series of earthquakes happened in both countries - and for Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, this is not the case - I do not think that it is logical because the earthquake did not happen in Syria; I mean, all the epicenters are in Turkey. Yes, Syria was also affected very badly. But if we take the influence into account, then we should rename 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake as "İzmir earthquake" because as the introduction of the article states, " Although Samos was closest to the epicentre, it was the Turkish city İzmir, 70 km (43 mi) northeast that was heavily affected—more than 700 residential and commercial structures were seriously damaged or destroyed. One hundred and seventeen people died in İzmir Province while an additional 1,034 were injured." Thence, for today's example, we may follow the "2022 Afghanistan earthquake" example.--Narsilien (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This article focuses on the series of earthquakes that have affected both Turkey and Syria. Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If the title changes, people are going to forget about Syria's impact, and a third of all casualties have occurred in that country.--Quake1234 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and Question - as per @Dora the Axe-plorer, not to mention that the death toll in Syria has reached over a thousand. Additionally, should the name for Turkey be Türkiye instead? Since it was implied as the new international name for the country if I recall correctly. --Moctiwiki (Moctalk to me) 00:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Right now Turkey is used as the name for the country in Wikipedia. See talk page there. -- nafSadh ^{did say} 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose From what I have seen from RS this earthquake has been about both Turkey and Syria. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now (except support adding the plural "s"). Give time for a common name to emerge. A year from now this may be a quite clear decision. VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose For two reasons, really. Firstly, there is no consensus about the epicenter. Even if there was consensus for the epicenter of the first earthquake, the aftershocks have been so significant that I'd rather support moving this to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes (plural) than to vote in favour of the proposed move. Secondly, many strong earthquakes have articles that don't follow the suggested pattern (2010 Haiti, 2015 Nepal, 2021 Haiti, June 2022 Afghanistan), so I don't even see a reason why this move should be considered. WP:COMMONNAME could be brought up, but I don't find that convincing here either. Conclusion, leave it as it is move to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes instead. Renerpho (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per VQuakr, if a common name emerges, moving the article should be reconsidered. Renerpho (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose If the title changes, people will be confused about which country had the most casualties. It is also about 2 countries. NotSquare (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the earthquake had an epicenter on Turkish soil, however the impact has been great on the two countries, and the present title is the most descriptive of the situation. Both countries have been affected in a great extent and the proposed title would give the impression that it was centered around Gaziantep (even as far as Adana there are reports of damage).NikosLikomitros (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strongest earthquake in recorded history in Turkey?

According to List of earthquakes in Turkey, the 1668 North Anatolia earthquake was 8 on an (unspecified) scale, and according to 1668 North Anatolia earthquake it was 7.8 - 8.0 M_s. Also, according to the list, the 557 Constantinople earthquake was X (intense). Does this invalidate the statement in the lead,

With a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent) and a magnitude of 7.8 Mww, it is tied with the 1939 Erzincan earthquake as the strongest earthquake to hit Turkey in recorded history.

? Nø (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have a Richter scale for these earlier earthquakes, it and the 1939 earthquake are the strongest recorded. We can add a statement about other earthquakes which are believed to be at least as strong, but they are not "recorded" in the same way Animal lover |666| 11:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it actually means instrumentally recorded, as there were no seismometers in 1668. C messier (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You are probably right; the intention is to say it is the strongest scientifically recorded. However, saying it is the strongest "in recorded history" is false. I'll amend (unless it's already been done.) Nø (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Mercalli intensity is a subjective scale. For instance, 1939 Erzincan earthquake has abolished every building but one in the city during night with very cold weather resulting in 40k+ deaths. These realities are what makes it XII (Extreme). This earthquake, on the other hand, was under-reported as 7.4 yesterday morning and there was not enough media coverage of some parts (which we get bad news about constantly now). I think it is possible the Mercalli intensity will be higher if it was re-evaluated now or couple of days later. Can we say it is the strongest earthquake in recorded history in Turkey? I believe so, but we should wait for the definitive number of casualties, injuries, and property damage. Yanekyuk (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A strong example to the lack of translation from Mercalli intensity to Richter doesn't work: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was intensity VIII in closer places such as Los Gatos, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville but intensity IX in parts of the more distant San Francisco. Animal lover |666| 12:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

At the very least these are the strongest in the history of the Turkish Republic. Borgenland (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Protection for preventing vandalism

This is to inform administrators to take some important protection levels for preventing ip vandalismin high level... Spbvj (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

request it on WP:RPPI if you want. If you think protection is appropriate, then you can make a request. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Some one should take responsible to update in a specific time order (eg:for every one hour or two.)Or bot should be embed to prevent vandalism.. Spbvj (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think this is necessary yet as the amount of vandalizism is low and it is being quickly reverted Chidgk1 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

How many times did you revert ... It is better to prevent vandalism than correcting it for 'n' no.of times... Only for suggestion..No offense!! Spbvj (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be protection. For now, autoconfirmed would probably be the best. Idontknowlol7 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftershock epicenters ?

Can the table of aftershocks have their epicenters added to the chart? Especially the 7.5 -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would mind if you did that. Yanekyuk (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

7.8 Mainshock

The Tohoku University seismologist that was interviewed has a wiki article, but it is in Japanese, can anyone link the Japanese language wiki page to get to the page about Shinji Toda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.117.146 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

7.5

According to the BBC the 7.5 isn't an aftershock, it's a separate new earthquake near Ekinozu, outside of the Gaziantep region -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait a few days until the seties of earthquakes is over, then it will be easier to figure out what's what. Experts are undoubtedly doing their best, but it's too early to be sure Animal lover |666| 12:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It's on a different but connected fault as far as I can tell. Probable a case of triggering as a result of coulomb stress transfer, but that speculation will have to wait for sources to support it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see the BBC is not claiming that it isn't an aftershock, just quoting unnamed officials who say so.

This NBC article quotes a seismologist saying that it is an aftershock, and gives reasoning. That seems more authoritative to me. Armouredduck (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as "reasoning". I am not sure it can be count as the same fault "line", while it is only okay to say it is part or the same fault "system". People should take a look at the definitive map of fault lines on Turkey using this link. To me, it seems more reasonable that the first earthquake caused an aftershock of 6.7 magnitude and also another earthquake on a very close but different line of 7.5 magnitude which itself caused another two aftershocks of 6.0 magnitude. In other source that claims the 7.5 earthquake is an aftershock, it is said that it is usual for aftershocks to be at least 1.0 lower than the mainshock. It may be required in a future time to actually give credit to a Turkish institution's publication rather than very hastily prepared pieces of reports that only seems authoritative. Yanekyuk (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Location articles

Please remember to update the history sections of the location articles on any major damages suffered, as that would be significant occurrences in the history of those locations -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Parts of The Article Should be Rewritten

After the separate earthquake happened, some edits were made; however, parts of the article should be modified and restructured to make it less confusing. Some parts mention the two earthquakes whereas others only contain info about the first, which makes it confusing and somewhat misleading. Mathdotrandom (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Make the change you want to see. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: What I meant was how the article was written before the second earthquake; the article was structured to include info about a single earthquake and the aftershocks that would follow it. The addition of the second earthquake made the article more difficult to follow with its current structure. The article should be restructured; I wasn't just talking about simple edits that would fix the confusing parts. Mathdotrandom (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Category

Category:Buildings damaged by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami exists; should we make something similar for this event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD C messier (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. Get started on the article, add some damaged buildings and some sources to support it and it might take off. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Palestine Should Be Mentioned

Shouldn't Palestinian or, at least, Palestinian territories be mentioned? Especially since Palestine is recognised by some affected countries. FunLater (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

find a reliable source that states that palestine was affected and it can be added

It is obvious given every single nation around it was affected by the shocks but its the nature of wikipedia DarmaniLink (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not obvious. Find an article from a reliable source. And no, not every nation around Palestine was affected. As for the nature of Wikipedia, I don't think the site has a bias against Palestinians (unless they are conservative Republican Palestinians). Not Illogical (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Palestine is far enough from the epicenter that it's plausable there was no damage. While reliable sources do say it was felt farther from the epicenter than Palestine, this is not universal; I didn't feel it in Jerusalem, which would be equivalent to parts of Palestine in this context. Find a reliable source, and we can add the information. Animal lover |666| 07:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

i wasnt trying to imply that there was a bias against palestinians, sorry. I meant that a reliable source was needed being the nature of wikipedia (wasnt trying to say this is a bad thing either). I thought that because shocks were felt past palestine, that it was obvious that palestine might have also felt some shocks. Turns out that wasn't the case. Well, we have the WP:NOR policy for a reason. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

When I raised this concern, Palestine wasn't mentioned as an affected place. Later, I found a source that mentions it and added Palestine alongside the source [161 Al-Manar]. Both are still in the article. FunLater (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Seperate wikipages should be created -suggestion

Based on epicentres it should be named and these two earthquakes are should be linked to this main page...Only suggestion to prevent confusion... Spbvj (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on upcoming earthquakes it is useful to differentiate from one to another earthquake waves..Or otherwise subheadings are useful in describing each earthquake to prevent many pages creating related to same topics.. Spbvj (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It is too early to tell if these two earthquakes will be mentioned together in future sources or seperately. I reluctantly predict that they will be mentioned together as a double earthquake or swarm; they are in the same tectonic region and only hours apart and thus it will be really difficult to differenciate the effects of each one (something like the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes). C messier (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"It is too early to tell if these two earthquakes will be mentioned together in future sources or seperately." It really isn't. Two articles would be ridiculous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There may be a difference between the geology incidence and the resulting humanitarian catastrophy here. I very much doubt that e.g. numbers of dead, injured and homeless as result of the quakes will be split between the two incidents in the sources. Thus, keep together as one article. Nø (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In all of media these two "major" earthquakes are covered together, so this is one disaster event, not two. Until there is a consensus in the media to cover them separately (which is unlikely), we should stick to one article. -- nafSadh ^{did say} 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

For geologists, these may be seperate events. However, for the public at large, they are one. Many of the dead and much of the destruction can't be attributed to one earthquake or the other. Animal lover |666| 12:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

False precision

Please avoid false precision such as "1,797 dead, 6,893 injured", which I have just replaced in the infobox with "over 1,700 dead, over 6,800 injured". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sadly User:Quake1234 keeps restoring a falsely-precise figure, without taking up my invitation to discuss here, apparently in the mistaken belief that being a able to cite a single, dated source is somehow adequate in a tragic case of this scale. They claim that "an exact number is used in the sources", when, in fact, sources differ; and are changing rapidly. Furthermore, their own citation has the title ""Death toll exceeds 1,700 as second quake strikes Turkey", and in its body says (emphasis mine) "At least 1,700 people are believed to have died after two earthquakes struck Turkey and Syria. The confirmed death toll from this morning's earthquake in Turkey has now risen to 1,014, the head of the country's Disaster and Emergency Management Authority has said. The death toll in Syria now stands at 783,". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Quake1234: Using such a value is a violation of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Specifically, the MOS states that "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context". That means that while the precise value is appropriate to the context, it is not stable and thus shouldn't be used here. Noah^Talk 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

An exact number, when reported to represent something real, may be used. However, while there are almost certainly people who died and their deaths are still unknown, even exact numbers reported don't represent anything real; it's merely a snapshot of what's known. Even if we had some magical ability to get the current number of known dead at any given time, by the time we publish it the numbers will have gone up. We should only use rounded numbers for that reason until the rescue attempts are over. And this should apply to all earthquakes, everywhere in the world. Animal lover |666| 13:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I could say i am sorry hundreds of times to you. I would normally not be up with using rounded numbers, but since you said you're using them temporarily, I guess I could forgive you Quake1234 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You've done a great job on this article. It was just this one thing that we have complete uncertainty on and anything we write should reflect that until any reasonable uncertainty can be eliminated DarmaniLink (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 per @Animal lover 666

We should be using rounded numbers until the dust settles otherwise we'll just end up in an edit scramble every time a higher number comes out and only update every 100 "milestone" from there. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

We're back to:

• Over 1,498 dead with over 8,533 injured in Turkey
• Over 810 dead with over 2,000 injured in Syria
• Total: Over 2,308 dead with over 10,533 injured

This looks stupid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Round to the nearest 100 until the dust settles. Anyone disagree? I'm gonna make that change and if you disagree and think it should be done any other way, lets discuss it DarmaniLink (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Correction, round down to the previous 100. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: someone should edit {{rounddown}} to enable decimal separator which currently used here in the infobox. Hddty (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought about it but once all the final counts are known and settled I would like to have precise numbers and would rather not risk this becoming a permanent solution any more than it already is.

I didn't know this existed or i would have used it at the start which would have been better than mentally rounding everything down so we could remove the final tallies.

@Quake1234 If you want to add precise numbers every time new ones come out and {rounddown|number|-2} on all of them, then remove the templates after a few days, you got the green light. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

We're back to false precision, again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a rounddown with auto formatting so all you have to do is drop the number in and wikipedia does the rest of the magic. If anyone tries to change it again, please change it back and tell them to go to the talk page to make their case for keeping the precision while tolls are rising. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: To attempt to address one of your earlier concerns about this becoming a permanent solution, I have added Template:Update after at the end in this edit. Update after is a template for when it is likely that an update will be required in the future, but that such an update is not needed at this time. It is set to trigger in two weeks so that it can be determined if we should switch back to precise counts. Additionally, I have added in the reason to instead add two weeks to the Update after template if it is not yet a good idea to switch back. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks man, all these cool toys wikipedia has i never knew existed. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

These "cool toys" have not resolved the issue that the lede currently ends with the implausible claim that "7,108 were killed in Turkey and 2,547 in Syria". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Per USA Today, "Turkey's disaster management agency said the country's death toll passed 12,000 early Thursday. The Turkish news agency Andalou reported that 12,391 people were killed and 62,914 others were injured. The Syrian Health Ministry placed the toll in government-held areas at more than 1,200, and at least 1,400 people have died in the rebel-held northwest, according to the White Helmets volunteer agency." CNN uses similar quotes. This leads me to believe that we should attribute the deaths more to the agency and ministry reports if there are concerns about the figures. Would that work for you? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's less awful than the bare figures I quoted, but I don't see the need to quote precise figures, when we know that they are inevitably, and sadly, going to change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As you may know, many editors despise the list-formated "Reactions" section, especially the flag icons. It should be converted into prose--not a bulleted list. Direct quotes from pandering politicians are unencyclopedic and sourcing must be better than Twitter--which is primary. This article should also give more WP:WEIGHT to actual help provided by other countries, such as search teams, than to political mouthings. Abductive (reasoning) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD DarmaniLink (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The flag salad reaction, esp condolences, is larger that the other sections that actually matter. Removing would be great. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already trimmed all the routine condolences; leaving just the offers of aid. Once we know what aid is actually sent, we can update and rewrite accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 for this, lets only have actual aid that was sent and any canned condolences omitted until we can rewrite it into a proper section DarmaniLink (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Third earthquake

According to this, there have been a third earthquake. Is this an aftershock or a separate one? --Universal Life (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The 7.5 appears to have ruptured a different fault; this 6.0 earthquake is an aftershock of that. It's covered in the #Aftershocks section. I suggest renaming that to "Earthquake sequence" instead to cover all events. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

EW

This is editwarring by User:Quake1234. Even the es says this: "most IBs have this ..." is not a base for correct physical notation. (First revert did not even es at all). Article now needlessly inconsistent state. The {{M}}/doc was not even checked. DePiep (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you talk like a robot or something? Quake1234 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The strict format for magnitudes is e.g. M_w  7.5, but it's not used that strictly in my experience. It's not something to edit war over and Quake 1234, don't snipe at another editor who's making a fair point. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Mikenorton, then please change as proposed. At least it follows the "strict" (i.e., correct) format, it makes the article consistent, it follows {{M}} documentation, and it acknowledges that hthe editor has presented like no arguments. DePiep (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

i went ahead and did it DarmaniLink (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftershock table

The aftershock table is already too long. I suggest that we trim it to include only M5+ shocks. Mikenorton (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Portal:Kurdistan

Should we add Portal:Kurdistan to here? The hardest hit regions were southeastern Turkey and northwestern Syria, which have a Kurdish majority. 208.127.190.114 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not what we should be discussing, but no. This was not the practice in past articles of earthquakes that were clearly within the Kurdish-majority region, such as Talk:2011 Van earthquakes. Plus, the region is not simply "Kurdish-majority," and south-central Turkey and northwestern Syria aren't even so, with many other ethnicities dominating much of it, especially the closer vicinity of the epicenter. We may discuss this later, though, but I am totally against this during these troublesome times. Kurdish victims aren't thinking about Kurdistan, let alone millions of non-Kurds. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop referencing the Dutch "planetary alignment" guy in this article.

He is not a "researcher", and he's most certainly not a scientist. 107.15.254.76 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be mentioned as a trivial info. We can also add critical sources for balance. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It may not be mentioned as a trivial info, see WP:FRINGE. Betseg (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Earthquake or Earthquakes?

This article specifically mentions both earthquakes that occurred but currently the name of the article uses singular currently, is there a reason for the change? Side note: Should the Earthquake Sequence box be made collapsible? CaptainGalaxy 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be plural, IMO. But in the RM above, I've suggested a moratorium on move for now. Whether we settle on Turkey-Syria or Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş, we should use plural.

RE: Sequence box -- yes we should make it collapsible. -- nafSadh ^{did say} 00:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be plural. Two earthquakes hit the area. Bedivere (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Facts 149.20.252.132 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nafsadh: Just a heads-up, there is a new request to change it to earthquakes. Renerpho (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is currently no consensus for the move and is likely not to emerge from the present discussion. There were some early support votes that changed into opposes and the last votes were also opposes. That does not mean a new discussion on it can be started once more arguments were collected. There were also compelling support arguments, but not enough for a consensus to move. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes – Two earthquakes hit the region. There is no consensus on the status of the 7.5 magnitude earthquake as an aftershock or a full on second earthquake. Per aftershock's definition, it is still considered an earthquake, so the plural form wouldn't be problematic either way it is considered an aftershock or another full on earthquake. But the suggestion of a single earthquake would be for the latter view. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The article was already moved after the second earthquake hit, it shouldn't have been moved back. Betseg (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I moved it to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes btw Tbf69 19:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as it is plural earthquakes and this article is about 2 technically different but close earthquakes. Oppose as there was only one mainshock

DarmaniLink (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect it was two separate earthquakes as they are on different fault lines. Aftershock is a term used to refer to earthquakes in the same fault line 192.184.221.66 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral for procedural reasons. (Was going to ask for a procedural close, but there is already a vote to move.) Regardless of the outcome, I propose a 7 day moratorium on future RM requests so that things can settle. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: Agreed regarding the moratorium (after this RM). However, as has been pointed out, the previous RM probably should never have happened, so not allowing this one to go through would be unfair. Renerpho (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Renerpho: I don't exactly see where there is a comment regarding the prior RM should not have happened, but there are a decent number of comments so I am likely missing it. Regardless, I do think that this discussion should continue. The only way I would have requested the procedural close was if no one else had voted in support. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: Betseg a few lines up said that "it shouldn't have been moved back". I interpreted that as saying the RM should not have happened. If I misunderstood that comment then I apologize. Renerpho (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Renerpho: Oh, now I get it. Two separate users moved the article to "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes" despite the first RM being ongoing. Moves like that should not occur during an RM, so both moves were reverted. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Now opposed for procedural reasons due to the proposal being changed mid-discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Proposer has updated their proposal in such a way that it is somewhat clear that it was modified, so my issues with the proposal are alleviated a bit. As such, to make sure that my current stance is clear, here it is as follows: Neutral with regards to the requested move; Supportive of a moratorium as the user who proposed it. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support I already voted to make this move (instead of the proposed one) in the previous move request. Renerpho (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC):Change to oppose: As has been pointed out below by Hurricane Noah, usgs.gov has changed their stance and are now calling this an aftershock. Hence, the article title should remain singular. Renerpho (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  To other participants in the discussion, please make sure you understand the difference that the new USGS source makes; this is not currently reflected correctly in the article text, which still refers to those two as separate earthquakes. Renerpho (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  IMHO, technical nitty-gritty of whether the second major quake was an aftershock or another earthquake can be discussed in a section. Regardless, it seems like a case of multiple quakes happening around close proximity of time and locations. Earthquakes is less incorrect than the singular. nafSadh ^{did say} 03:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why has the proposal be changed mid-discussion? Please don't do that, Ayıntaplı. If I hadn't changed my vote to oppose before, I would do now, for just that reason. Renerpho (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  The original has been restored here, thanks Ayıntaplı. Renerpho (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why the hell is this discussion even needed? Why insist on stupid bureaucracy in the case of making a noun plural? Just move the damn article and be done with it. Noah^Talk 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Is there is a reason why you moved this in the first place when the prior title was perfectly fine? Noah^Talk 02:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Didn't move this "in the first place". Moved it back to this title because pages should not be moved during an ongoing formal move request. The banner at the top of the article is clear on that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Whether the second earthquake was an aftershock or not isn't completely obvious. That's the only reason I see why the question (maybe) should be discussed. I don't agree with it (this were two earthquakes), but you could argue either way. Renerpho (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

appears the sources have changed their mind.

@Ayıntaplı, Betseg, DarmaniLink, Renerpho, SilentResident, and Estar8806:Oppose per [1] which states the 7.5 was an aftershock. Noah^Talk 02:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

in that case, I change my vote to oppose. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Changed to oppose as well. Renerpho (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Per aftershock's definition, it is still considered an earthquake, so the plural form wouldn't be problematic either way it is considered an aftershock or another full on earthquake. But the suggestion of a single earthquake would be for the latter view. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is whether it occurred on the same fault as a result of the prior quake or on an entirely different fault. The latter case is when it would be earthquakes plural. Noah^Talk 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Other large earthquakes are typically referred to only by their mainshock, even though there's always aftershocks. You wouldn't want the 2010 haiti earthquake or the 2011 earthquake to be called the "earthquakes".

If a scientific consensus that they were 2 seperate mainshocks comes out, i'll support. If there's only 1 mainshock, I'll oppose. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: Just my speculation, but this likely was a Doublet earthquake. Noah^Talk 03:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah Correct me if I'm wrong, but that article says that "Doublet/multiplet events also have nearly identical seismic waveforms, as they come from the same rupture zone and stress field", and that seems to contradict what we know about the current event (or maybe that's just my outdated understanding). Renerpho (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC) -- I was wrong; this was thought to be the case initially, but isn't anymore. Renerpho (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah and DarmaniLink:, "The intensity of the quake was earlier revised by AFAD from magnitude 7.4 to 7.7. Another 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck [...]"[2] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless that source has been updated, it is outdated. Noah^Talk 03:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah:, it is not outdated information, the Guardian whose feed was updated 24 mins ago, reports it as two major earthquakes, not aftershocks of one major earthquake "The first quake struck as people slept, and measured magnitude 7.8, one of the most powerful quakes in the region in at least a century. It was felt as far away as Cyprus and Cairo. The European Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) said preliminary data showed the second large quake measured 7.7 magnitude, and was 67km (42 miles) north-east of Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, at a depth of 2km." [3] Please double check on your sources because you are misleading other editors into Opposing the RM even though sources confirmed otherwise. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Other news sources have corrected themselves from quakes to quake. [4][5][6] Noah^Talk 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

[7] CNN specifically mentions the 7.5 as an aftershock here in an article from an hour ago. Noah^Talk 03:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Because the prior RM caused a bit of a disruption. There were moves made during the first RM to the proposed title of this second RM that were reverted for obvious reasons. A third move to the proposed title might be seen as disruptive and against policy, even if it is after the first RM had closed, so that is likely why another RM happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support I am against initiating too many RMs in such a short time, but there was an almost identical earthquake of 7,7 happening after the one of 7,8, (or 7.6 and 7.7 respectively, depending the sources) bringing further destruction and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Considering this fact, it is not WP:UNDUE to have this reflected on the article title. Quite the opposite. It is safe to say that this time the RM should be endorsed because it is based on indisputable facts: there wasn't a single major earthquake but two. Also, Super Goku V's motion for a short moratorium on RM requests should be considered.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  USGS updated to say that the 7.5 was an aftershock, not a second mainshock. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. As Reego41 has pointed out, the second one was a different quake generated by stress transfer onto another fault. They both ruptured different faults, and a quake being smaller from the other doesn’t necessarily mean aftershock. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Change vote to Oppose per @Hurricane Noah. NYT does say second quake however, but aftershock does make sense in context Estar8806 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Why was it changed back to 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake in the first place? It should be changed back to 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquakes due to there being multiple quakes. Idontknowlol7 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Idontknowlol7: (move request still ongoing - please do not rename pages that are undergoing requested moves - was the box at the top of the article unclear???) Since the two moves were made during the first RM, they were reverted. The template on the article says Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  ? Idontknowlol7 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  The first Requested Move discussion was ongoing at the time of the two moves to "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes." Both of these moves were reverted by a different user with the edit summary, "(move request still ongoing - please do not rename pages that are undergoing requested moves - was the box at the top of the article unclear???). When a Requested Move discussion is occurring, there is a template placed at the top of the article where it is visible to anyone who tries to move the article. The template says, "Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed." The general reason for such a warning is because moving the article during a Requested Move discussion can be disruptive to the discussion. That was why it was changed back to "2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake" --Super Goku V (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support an aftershock is an earthquake. Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt about that. However, all large earthquakes have aftershocks, and it is general practice (on Wikipedia, and elsewhere) to still refer to them as single events. Renerpho (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment It seems the general consensus is that if there were 2 mainshocks on 2 different faults, it should be 'earthquakes'. If there was one mainshock and strong aftershocks, it should be 'earthquake'. This seems to be disputed right now, so, this seems like a wait-and-see instance. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per nom, and as I've mentioned in another thread. There are two major earthquakes. I've proposed moratorium on a move since another discussion was open. Whether we call is Turkey-Syria or some other regional names, this should be one disaster with multiple quakes. --nafSadh ^{did say} 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: No Consensus After going through various media articles and other sources, I think, it is too soon to claim that there is an obvious consensus. --07:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• That isn't the case anymore... sources are reflecting that this wasn't two quakes but rather one quake and a large aftershock. Noah^Talk 03:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Some more scientific sources are claiming that it was one earthquake followed by a strong aftershock, however, some things are still reporting that there were 2 large mainshocks. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Replied above. In addition to that, it is worth mentioning that aftershocks are also earthquakes. Quoting from the LEDE of aftershock: "In seismology, an aftershock is a smaller earthquake that follows a larger earthquake". Hence, the plural form is correct either way. nafSadh ^{did say} 03:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  If earthquakes project has an established naming convention, we need to follow that rather than picking and choosing whether or not an aftershock should or shouldn't make the title plural. Almost any earthquake would be earthquakes by default since most have aftershocks with that logic. The issue here is whether or not two earthquakes occurred on two different faults. That was thought to be the case initially, but isn't anymore. Noah^Talk 03:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Does the earthquakes project has an established naming convention? If not, this is worth using plural where since two of the max intensity shocks had very similar magnitudes and are outstanding compared to other shocks. I do buy your arguments above regarding other earthquake articles having singular article titles. I don't have a strong opposition to keeping singular, and we're being pedantic here. IMO, plural is less incorrect. In addition, having this move discussion itself is evident that this event is different from other ones.

  On the other hand, I do think, this discussion needs to be closed as WP:SNOW. nafSadh ^{did say} 03:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Nafsadh: "having this move discussion itself is evident that this event is different from other ones." That is an interesting point that should maybe discussed in the section below, about what to do with the 7.5 mag earthquake in the main article; such a difference from other events would be worth mentioning in the article. Renerpho (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Noah Do you happen to have a link to the relevant discussion by that project? I think it would be good to have that linked here. Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't know since I'm not a member, but hopefully someone who is could shed some light. Noah^Talk 04:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure that they have such a naming convention. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is explicate with regards to events like tornadoes, but is not with regards to earthquakes. I would be under the impression that if there was such a procedure, that it would have been mentioned there. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, media editorials seems to be almost evenly split between using the plural vs singular. Media consensus is a good indicator of what should be used as article title. But, right now, it is of no help.

  Precedents of articles titled earthquakes is also not providing any clear guideline on whether to call earthquake vs -quakes. nafSadh ^{did say} 06:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose (Updated position): There is a strong consensus in the media coverage for using singular by most (if not all) sources. Sources that at some point used plural seems to have reverted back to singular. --

  nafSadh ^{did say} 07:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Support The magnitude 7.5 "aftershock" is notable to have a significant note in this article, due to its huge size, faulting, and complex relationship to the Mw 7.8 Quake1234 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Its because it was previously thought to be a second mainshock rather than an aftershock it got special attention. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Is there any such instances before for earthquake articles to be labeled with the plural form "earthquakes"? RXerself (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

2020 Iran–Turkey earthquakes Ayıntaplı (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the main difference is that, in that instance, the second earthquake has been the bigger one. Renerpho (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, the first one would be a foreshock, but the title is plural. Ayıntaplı (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho There is also the 2011 Van earthquakes. Ayıntaplı (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Didn't find any similar prior incident that has set a precedent. nafSadh ^{did say} 04:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ayıntaplı.nafSadh ^{did say} 04:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@RXerself: 1349 Apennine earthquakes, 1926 Padang Panjang earthquakes, 1990–91 Alto Mayo earthquakes, 1992 Cape Mendocino earthquakes, 2007 Aysén Fjord earthquakes, March 2007 Sumatra earthquakes, September 2007 Sumatra earthquakes, 2021 Hormozgan earthquakes, 2021 Kermadec Islands earthquakes, 2021 South Sandwich Islands earthquakes, January 2022 Afghanistan earthquakes, 2022 Hormozgan earthquakes, 2022 Taitung earthquakes, 2022–23 West Azerbaijan earthquakes, and others. Is there something specific that you are looking for or was this just a general question? (If the former, then I did pick a variety of earthquakes, including both recent and historical.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I was just looking for precedence. What about earthquakes articles to only have been labeled "earthquake"? RXerself (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, shoot. In any case, Category:2010s earthquakes list 253 articles or other links. Of these, Category:2015 earthquakes is the smallest with 16 such links. Discounting the redirect, list, template, and one specific article, there is still 12 other article listed. This implies that there is roughly ~190 articles for the 2010s. Just at a glance, there are dozens of article that use the word earthquake in the title. (Additionally, some articles are about aftershocks, like May 2015 Nepal earthquake.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/question I know that USGS is now considering the 7.5 tremor as an aftershock, but could this event be [eventually] considered a doublet earthquake? If that would be the case, then the title could possibly be changed to a plural form; however, upon checking Category:Doublet earthquakes, it seems that both the singular and plural forms are used in the titles. That said, we might as well retain the current one, especially because most of the damage was done by the first (and stronger) quake. Vida0007 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  In that event, then we will open this back up for discussion. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - There were two earthquakes of M≥7.5, each with their own areas of damage. Whether the USGS or anyone else calls the second one an aftershock doesn't seem particularly relevant. Mikenorton (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a scientific journal. From that point of view, there were two highly devistating earthquakes of nearly the same strength affecting largely the same area. The article should certainly cover the question of whether the second was an aftershock or a seperate earthquake which coincidentally hit the same area 9 hours later, but from the prospective of Turks, Syrians and rescue crews - as well as many readers - this is of lesser importance. Animal lover |666| 05:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, especially when considering the fact that the second earthquake was nearly as powerful as the first. That and all the other powerful quakes. Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per all above. War Wounded (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per User:Dora the Axe-plorer. The Mw 7.5 is not an aftershock but rather a different quake generated by stress transfer onto another fault in a short period. They both ruptured different faults, and a quake being smaller from the other doesn’t necessarily mean aftershock. An aftershock is an earthquake that is way smaller than the mainshock which occurs in the same fault where the mainshock occurred in. Even if the Mw 7.5 had occurred in the same fault as the Mw 7.8, it would be considered a doublet and not an aftershock, due to the similar size.

Reego41 08:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support 110.224.106.42 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the precedent noted by DarmaniLink re: the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami where some of the immediate aftershocks were 7.4-7.9 on the same day within a 60 minute period; NYT referring to it as an aftershock, etc. Kazamzam (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelming Support Such as 1966 Xingtai earthquakes, multiple earthquakes over 6.0 is enough

Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per @Reego Erenbatu (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: It is important for us to still adhere to WP:V and WP:NOR as to not make our own conclusions whether here or in our minds only about such and such things are happening or not. USGS and news sources put forward by some so far seemed to support not moving this page as to these rules, for now. This doesn't close the possibility of moving this page should they change the classification. I would like to hear the sources for the other opinion other than the article Aftershock which as of now, lacks inline citations in its opening and first section. RXerself (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Second event was a very large earthquake of its own—aftershock or not. Ruptured a separate fault strand and had its own effects.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Regardless of whether or not it was an aftershock, articles such as 2011 Van earthquakes, 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes & 2013 Balochistan earthquakes show that an article title can have the plural form if there’s a major aftershock. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as common usage of the word "earthquakes" Chidgk1 (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  "earthquakes" is not common usage even when there's extreme aftershocks: see 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami DarmaniLink (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure about other varieties of English but what I am trying to say is that a typical Brit is more likely to understand the word “earthquake” than “aftershock”. If in years to come scientists agree that both of them were the same earthquake then the article could be renamed back to “earthquake” Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There was only one mainshock. Per above. --DragonFederal (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article documents one mainshock and multiple aftershocks, which describes what happens with virtually all earthquakes (in theory, earthquake = mainshock + aftershocks), so its content is incompatible with the proposed title. I know that 'earthquake' as a singular noun in plain English creates ambiguity, but it scientifically has a plural meaning.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  The content was recently changed. The article originally referred to two earthquakes. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support There are two independent powerful earthquakes, not a foreshock and aftershock. This is not my personal opinion, but the common opinion of seismologists. See: October 2016 Central Italy earthquakes Adem (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per common understanding. Ludicrous levels of scientific semantics and bureaucracy here. --XapApp (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  If its just "scientific semantics" then why not call every earthquake article "earthquakes"?

  2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami] had tens of thousands of aftershocks yet its still called earthquake, singular DarmaniLink (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Looking into it, I would suggest that the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami article is not a good example. List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake covers the main fore- and aftershocks with separate articles listed for the 2011 Shizuoka earthquake, the April 2011 Miyagi earthquake, the April 2011 Fukushima earthquake, the 2012 Sanriku earthquake, the 2016 Fukushima earthquake, the 2021 Fukushima earthquake, the March 2021 Miyagi earthquake, and finally, the 2022 Fukushima earthquake. If we do not have separate articles for any significant aftershocks, then we would need to keep the information on this article, which would mean that we would be covering more than one notable earthquake. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Sources are reporting that there were two major earthquakes,and there's WP:CONSISTENCY with other similar cases as mentioned above.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and reliable sources refer to more than one quake, with the BBC and CNBC referring to two earthquakes, and NDTV referring to three earthquakes. The Guardian also talks about more than one. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Those were largely outdated and reported before USGS reclassified the 7.5 to an aftershock. Many sources changed their wording from "quakes" (plural) to "quake" DarmaniLink (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• *Support per above explanation, move it back to the original title. User:Em-mustapha ^talk 15:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Ab

Abs'tain'' to eak Oppose - I don't believe this should be decided/moved until all the factfully s are s, considering the tragic severity, a grammatical singularity for the whole is sufficientettled. --~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support based on rationale provided by several editors including User:SilentResident. There were 2 earthquakes; the second one was not an "aftershock" when it had virtually the same magnitude and strength. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I would follow reliable professional sources (USGS) in this regard; not media reporting from yesterday (which has become outdated by now) and even less what a poorly referenced article says. USGS remains the best available source for this aspect. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - there were two earthquakes, and media coverages of the earthquakes are not separate. I would recommend making it plural to make sure it's clear that this article covers both earthquakes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose if the 7.5 magnitude shake is proven to be an aftershock and not a second earthquake. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

    That's what USGS has said and a lot of sources have retroactively changed "quakes" to "quake", giving weight to the mainshock being referred to as the earthquake and aftershocks being considered part of that. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

    At this point, I second @DarmaniLink that, most sources has reverted to quake. nafSadh ^{did say} 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support There was 2 earthquakes, so I would recommend making it plural. NotSquare (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article clearly states there was one mainshock and multiple aftershocks. Until such time that sources specify two different mainshocks, we should refrain from changing the article's title. Keivan.f^Talk 22:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support There were two major earthquakes, and while the USGS tentatively called it an aftershock, due to the complex nature of the faulting of the second earthquake, I absolutely believe in the future these events will be considered a doublet. The fact that the second event has such a strong magnitude relative to the original mainshock, I think that updating the title to be plural would better exemplify this. Even if sources call it an aftershock, I still think the title should reflect the nature of this sequence. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami should be called the "earthquakes"? There were multiple aftershocks over 7.0 DarmaniLink (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  The mainshock of the Tohoku earthquake was 9.0-9.1, so there was a much bigger difference between the mainshock and the aftershocks. That feels like an apples to oranges comparison to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  agreed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  5 August 2018 Lombok earthquake Here's a better example then. Despite having foreshocks and aftershocks relatively close in magnitude, its still referred to as an earthquake, singular. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a better example, but there are counter-examples such as 2011 Van earthquakes, 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes & 2013 Balochistan earthquakes. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  this sounds like something the earthquakes project needs to establish a consensus one DarmaniLink (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - in terms of practical impact we had two similarly strong earthquakes on one day. I don't think it matters if the second one is technically an aftershock or not. I don't see precedent either, the Lombok earthquakes were a week or more apart and they have separate articles so of course the titles are singular. We are not going to split this article, right? --mfb (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment 2011 Van earthquakes says "A separate earthquake within the same earthquake system" whatever that means Chidgk1 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the USGS says the second one is an aftershock, it's an aftershock. (And I live in a part of the world where plate tectonics is a mandatory subject in both elementary and junior high schools.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. USGS considered the M7.5 earthquake as an aftershock and Wikipedia, in general, uses USGS as its main reference. RPC7778 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support In an update at 16:10 UTC, EMSC no longer talks about an aftershock but now about a second shock. It is obvious that the whole sequence was caused by a single rupture, but leading to a 2nd major rupture on an adjoining fault easily dissociable from the first with their own set of aftershocks. Wormanseder (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  — Wormanseder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support Not only did the two earthquakes occur on two completely different faults about 8 hours apart, but the movement zone is also not oriented in the same way at all. The first rupture that generated Mw 7.8 goes from SW to NE, while the 2nd rupture that triggered Mw 7.5 goes from O to E. The two aftershokes zones are clearly distinguishable. Chleremastra (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.127.75.144 (talk)

  — Chleremastra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose because the situation is too muddled right now to work out which is right and which isn't. The best solution in my mind is to give it time for the world out there <waves vaguely> to reach a consensus as to how to classify this, and THEN to change our article title only if it is clear there is one best title, and this isn't it. As it seems right now that the rest of the world hasn't gotten it's shit together yet, let's just hold off on any moves, leave it here, and see what shakes out. Simply put, I oppose this only for now, but not because it is currently wrong, merely because what is right is too unclear. --Jayron32 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – I've been following this article closely, so I will jump on board here in agreement with others. This article is about one main earthquake and a series of aftershocks, some of which were very strong. It is not about a series of separate earthquakes. United States Man (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  What this article currently mentions is of no relevance, because it mentioned two earthquakes until recently. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Despite the continuous and increasing amount of aftershocks, there is no doubt there were two main earthquakes (7.8 and 7.5) and so, the title should reflect that. --Bedivere (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't really matter whether the USGS or any other similar authority on earthquake seismology (there are lots of others) says the M7.5 was an aftershock, what is important I think, is that there were two large earthquakes on different faults, albeit linked in some way, each with their own areas of damage and aftershock sequences. Most sources that I've read mention both the 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes and single out no others. Mikenorton (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I am also unsure for the title, as The Guardian main title on the side for the series of articles has singular use of earthquake, but the title of the article dated today of 9 February 2023 has plural usage. It seems it can be correct either-way? Govvy (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose moving until there is more of a consensus in the sources as to whether it was two, or one and a big aftershock. It's too unclear right now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - it seems to me RSes are still referring to it as a singular 'earthquake'. Until something more definitive is out there, there's no reason to rush into moving the article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most sources are currently calling it an earthquake and we should go with that. Nigej (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - There will be time enough to worry about this when the world has come to a decent consensus. Right now the world rightly reckons that there are more important things to worry about than whether it was a shock or an after-shock, and I suggest that we should own that view too. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME. What killed 20,000+ people on the 6th February will go down in history as the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. Enforcing technical correctness in the title would be just pedantic, and confusing to the general reader, for whom at least the title and lead should cater, beside the subject matter experts. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So now that the 7.5 is considered an aftershock per new scientific consensus

Do we just delete everything that refers to the 7.5 as a second mainshock or try to salvage it by referring it to as a strong and devestating aftershock? DarmaniLink (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a scientific consensus yet. Just mention that the whether the other major shock is aftershock or another mainshock is currently being disputed. nafSadh ^{did say} 03:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to say what happened: That it was originally considered a second main shock, but was understood to be a strong aftershock the next day. (And yes, it may be understood to be something else again later.) Renerpho (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC) And yes, I think keeping a section about that aftershock is a good idea. Renerpho (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me DarmaniLink (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful with those noses, DarmaniLink. If consensus changes again then what we'll do of course is patiently reflect what is happening. Renerpho (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It didn't happen on the same fault line, it's a second earthquake, not an aftershock. ~~~~ BurakD53 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

They're now saying that the first earthquake caused the second adjacent fault line to rupture, therefore making it an aftershock DarmaniLink (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It depends on how you define aftershock. BurakD53 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not a seismologist; but from my read of relevant sources so far, I don't see a clear objective classification system which separates aftershocks from main shocks. The USGS sources doesn't identify 7.5 to be an aftershock in it's own entry, while calls the 6.7 one an early aftershock. The news post which is written by comms and not necessarily carefully reviewed by scientists do call both of these aftershocks. nafSadh ^{did say} 04:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is YET a consensus on whether the 7.5 one was an aftershock. BBC summary explicitly says: "A 7.5-magnitude tremor then hit at around 13:30 local time (10:30 GMT), which officials said was "not an aftershock" ", whereas, the NY Times map clearly show it as an aftershock. nafSadh ^{did say} 06:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

USGS now says it was an aftershock too, so, how should we reflect the uncertainty? Do we even need to say that its disputed whether or not its an aftershock? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We can consider adding a note. USGS news calls it aftershock, but site entry for the quake doesn't. nafSadh ^{did say} 07:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Most seismologists say that primary aftershocks tend to be around a whole unit lower on the scale from the original shock. Thus the 6.7 aftershock fits perfectly into that belief, but a 7.5 one does not. Moreover, we now have reports of a third earthquake this morning in Eastern Turkey, at the north-east end of the East Anatolian faultline. Although of a smaller scale than the earlier shocks, this is reported separately as a third earthquake from all of the multiple aftershocks (which run into thousands in quantity). The plural would appear to be appropriate. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The scientific consensus will appear over a matter of months to years as analysis of this sequence goes on. It's worth looking at the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes and the discussion on naming on the talk page. When the scientific papers were written they all referred to "Ridgecrest earthquakes" or even better the "Ridgecrest earthquake sequence". Mikenorton (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

All the major aftershocks should just get sections, since they also cause major damage to physical infrastructure -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In the article Aftershock, we say

In seismology, an aftershock is a smaller earthquake that follows a larger earthquake, in the same area of the main shock, caused as the displaced crust adjusts to the effects of the main shock.

That would seem to include the 2nd quake in this case; the distance between the epicentres is not unusual for aftershocks, and the fact that the 2nd quake was at another fault is not significant (I think); it's just another edge of the same corner of a plate (I think). However, Aftershock continues:

Large earthquakes can have hundreds to thousands of instrumentally detectable aftershocks, which steadily decrease in magnitude and frequency according to a consistent pattern.

I think the 2nd quake may not follow this "consistent pattern"; hence it could be seen as a separate quake. Furthermore,

In some earthquakes the main rupture happens in two or more steps, resulting in multiple main shocks. These are known as doublet earthquakes, and in general can be distinguished from aftershocks in having similar magnitudes and nearly identical seismic waveforms.

In the present case, "similar magnitude" is satisfied, but I don't know about the waveform - but again, it might suggest not considering the 2nd quake an aftershock.

However, we should not figure this out for ourselves; we must adjust to what reliable sources say. Newer sources take precedence over inital reports, and at this point, I'm inclinde to think we should describe the 2nd quake as an aftershock.

For now, before reading this discussion, I've added this text in the "Aftershocks" subsection:

and many early reports described it as a separate earthquake rather than an aftershock.

I have not added a source - not for lack of sources, for because I was unsure which one(s) to choose. Nø (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the real problem is the continuing pretence that any of us can know. When I saw the first main shock drop off the top of the lsit, I figured someone was overediting and deleted it by mistake. Now I read here and learn the problem is overthinking. Listing all the big shocks except the first one is counterproductive to our mission of informing the public. Just rename the table Shock Sequence or Mainshocks and Significant Aftershocks. Be inclusive. Find a title that allows the chunky important stuff to be included. It looks weird with a 7.5 highlighted halfway down with no mention of the Big One that kicked them all off. BeeTea (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's what it was before, but someone removed the first one and renamed the table to aftershocks because it was listed under aftershocks DarmaniLink (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

anyway tl;dr WP:DOIT DarmaniLink (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

list of deleted flag soup from a previous page version if you want to add info from it to humanitarian effort section

User:DarmaniLink/sandbox/2023EQIHE I'm not inlining this as posting all this would make the talk page unusable. If you know a way to add all this in here and make it condense itself without adding citations to the bottom, please let me know and I'll add it here or do it yourself and save me the trouble. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hypothermia mention

I think it is worth to mention hypothermia risk in the affected areas. Mayors of the affected cities, news reporters and other people warned about hypothermia risk due to cold weather in the ares. Saint concrete (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes good idea - you do that Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

yup - Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Remote detection

Article says:

Tremors from the two mainshocks were detected as far away as Denmark and Greenland.

I'm no expert, but wouldn't quakes of this magnitude be detectable all over the globe? If so, mentioning these locations would be superfluous. Nø (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have now removed this (misplaced in the "Aftershocks" section anyway):

Tremors from the two mainshocks were detected as far away as Denmark and Greenland.

References

Video labelled "Video from Gaziantep"

It seems to be mostly hysterical people, doesn't add anything to the article really... some damage is shown but people in distress in the streets I don't think is appropriate here. Mercster (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Countries affected by the earthquake

In the article, the countries affected by the earthquake are countries such as Greece, Romania (removed by others) and Russia. There is no exact reports about these countries. I recherced on the Internet, only at hours of earthquake some tweeted by those countries that they felt the earthquake or gave feedback to the interactive maps, maybe there are fakes. I even state that the cities (Istanbul, İzmir etc.) in the west of Turkey, which are close to Romania and Greece, do not feel it. Times of Israel newspaper cited EMSC as the source, but neither tweets example tweet and neither reports of EMSC and USGS about the earthquake include Greece, Russia and Romania. Uncitoyen (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

aftershock list

it's too long. it is diluted by the 5.0-5.4 entries. 194.102.58.14 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

it used to be 4.0+

I wouldn't say its too long *yet* but its definitely getting close DarmaniLink (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftershock list is getting both too long and too short

As it is, currently the list of aftershocks only list the aftershocks that were 5+. Beforehand it was 4+, but then the 4-5's started flooding the list. I take issue with the list just kinda being cut down like this, it kinda underplays the notability of the 4-5's. Now we may be getting to the point where me may have to cut 5-5.3 and only keep 5.4+ on the list. At that point we would be excluding over 100 notable aftershocks from the list.

I can see how the list shouldn't 120-ish aftershocks worth of scrolling. Well, nice argument, but why are we not writing them down anywhere? I say we put the 4.0+ quakes into a collapsed list instead of just deleting them. Nice argument (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

i think the best option would be to rm the list from this page and hyperlink to a new List of Notable Aftershocks in the 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake with all the 4.0 +DarmaniLink (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes the M4–4.9 aftershocks notable? Readers who are interested can look up the aftershocks using this link. Mikenorton (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

notable might the wrong word to chose, remarkable? significant?

Typically that 4.0 is the point where it startles most people DarmaniLink (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We should split off the article to make List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake, or alternatively: List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake Swarm. ElusiveTaker (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be good. With those kinds of lists, we can get overly long. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There is only one such list in the project - List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake, I'm not sure what makes these aftershocks particularly special. Note that this is definitely not a swarm. Mikenorton (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If there's a list, then we have precedent to add one. More information is better than less so long as it isn't WP:UNDUE which this isn't. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The naming format is a bit different, but there is the List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

needs to be renamed but I didn't move since there's an under construction tag. don't want to disrupt the editor Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

you're free to move it now if you want DarmaniLink (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see why. Can you clarify? (I also don't see any construction tags.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

i think dora was talking about List of Aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria Earthquake DarmaniLink (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. That would explain things. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

List of Aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria Earthquake

It seemed like it needed to be made but nobody was doing it so i went ahead and made it, this should solve this problem we were having DarmaniLink (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, the solution is the map (which we already have) plus perhaps a chart/graph. The table is just going to take over otherwise. I.grok (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

2 countries

Currently the: 'Countries that offered help or condolences to Turkey after the earthquakes (Dark blue: Turkey)' world map - the dark blue includes Turkey and Syria, which is another sovereign country, just FYI. 87.227.220.130 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the desc been updated to T & S nafSadh ^{did say} 22:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Deaths and Injuries in Adana

Here it first mentions the deaths and injuries in the province, later mentioning the city. I don't think the city should be mentioned, it causes confusion. The words for "province" and "city" in Turkish ("il" and "şehir", respectively) are sometimes used synonymously, which means the sources might be referring to the province. Even if the sources refer to the city, it might cause confusion and data about the city might not be up-to-date. Is there any reason to mention the city or should that part be edited? Mathdotrandom (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Estimation of losses - lira to usd

The article currently says that "the Turkish lira value struck a record low of 18.85 against the US dollar". I find that statement confusing. On the one side, the Turkish lira struck a record low; on the other side, the value of that low, 18.85, is the highest that this measure ever was (it stands at 18.83 lira per usd as of the time I am writing this comment, and was around 8 in mid-2021). This should be rephrased. Renerpho (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the wording could be better. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of Turkey

According to Wikipedia's own page Name of Turkey the country is now preferring to be called Türkiye, and the UN is now using this name. I'm puzzled why on an article referenced on Wikipedia's home page it isn't referred to as such. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:8088:572F:CDB9:A470 (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason is that the current consensus at talk:Turkey is to use Turkey due to the fetch thst the current spelling is the WP:COMMONNAME used by most reliable English language sources. Also, while they may change in the future the last discussion regarding changing the article title was closed in late November 2022 so it’s highly unlikely that there is, at this point, a significant enough change to support using the new name.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless/Until the Turkey article is moved per an RM, the rest of Wikipedia (other than the Turkey and Name of Turkey articles) should assume the country's name is Turkey. If/When it's renamed, we can discuss the point in time where the change starts to apply, and update this article if the point in time is before now. Note that these decisions should be made for Wikipedia in general, not with any specific reference to this article. Animal lover |666| 07:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand this, and I don't at the same time. It's just basic manners to refer to a person, an organization, a country, as they wish. If the argument is 'we use the name Turkey because everyone else does' then I have a hard time understanding when it could change, because for change to happen some people have to adopt and use the new name. I also don't see this consistently done throughout Wikipedia - for example, the page for Maize is named such even though it is not a commonly used name in English. But I suppose you have answered my question, and I don't want to argue, just want to offer a rebuttal to this. Thank you. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:8088:572F:CDB9:A470 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is the wrong place to discuss it. Please discuss it either at Talk:Turkey or at an appropriate venue based on the policies involved. This article won't be singled out for use of any other name for this country. Animal lover |666| 12:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fifth strongest earthquake

@Dora the Axe-plorer I didn't really understand why it "doesn't make any sense" that this earthquake is the fifth strongest earthquake of this century, tied with April 2015 Nepal earthquake, which is what the table in the lists of 21st-century earthquakes say. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what list you're looking at; Lists of 21st-century earthquakes#List of largest earthquakes by magnitude doesn't support this afaik. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. This is embarrassing. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

sources?

sources? 71.223.140.62 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

At the bottom of a page, if a section is missing sources, edit in a {{citation needed}} where it should be DarmaniLink (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is there an en-uk tag? This was previously en-us

Save for the "footballer" part, most of the spelling conventions are american english Should this be changed back? DarmaniLink (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the engvar parameter being set to en-uk in the infobox. If so, that was changed on the 6th in this edit by an IP user. They changed it this edit a day later to en-us. That edit was reverted a minute later with User:Ayıntaplı saying rv doesn't help, article is already in british english. As far as I know, this hasn't been touched again. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll change it back then since this is still largely american english DarmaniLink (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Last time I checked the article had British spellings like “centre” and so on. Maybe it was changed later. Ayıntaplı (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"center" gets 41 hits and "cetre" gets 3, 2 of which are a proper noun DarmaniLink (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why make it American English? Saint concrete (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Because the article is already in american english. Having an en-uk tag in the info box when its american english makes no sense DarmaniLink (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I recommend changing it to en-gb, due to the fact that places uses the British spelling of the word centre, instead of the American spelling of center. Europe is primarily dominated by en-gb, so it makes sense to change it to the localized English dialect. ElusiveTaker (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"center" is used far more in the artcle and 2 out of 3 of the uses of "centre of them are the name of the thing itself with the third being a translation. we use "stories" instead of storeys. Of the uses of "center", most uses are "epicenter" while also being ".. business center" and "national center...". DarmaniLink (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to be mostly in en-US. Unless there is a strong reason, we should just keep eng-var field empty. nafSadh ^{did say} 22:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reporting a text block that needs more sourcing

I've noticed that the third text block from the Effects in other countries paragraph ("The European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre said ... No deaths or injuries have been reported.") might not include enough sources, and the ones already present only cover a part of the statements, in regards to Israel, Armenia and Iraq.

I haven't got enough time to go through it by myself, but I still wanted to report it.

Oltrepier (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

About a statement I need to fact-check

In addition to what I wrote just up above, I also need help to fact-check a potentially useful bit of information, if any of you can, please...

Shortly after the earthquake, Turkish seismologist Aybige Akinci, who currently works as a researcher at the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Italy, stated in a brief interview that one of the reasons why Eastern regions of Turkey have suffered a far bigger amount of damage than, for example, the Istanbul area, has to do with a greater lack of economic and logistic resources needed to successfully implement safety measures for housing buildings and infrastructures. According to Akinci herself, these measures were primarily introduced by a law that was passed by the Turkish Government back in 2012.

Obviously, before I add this information, I'd like to get help in searching other sources that reported the same problem and, perhaps even more importantly, bits of news that refer to the aforementioned law.

Every type of help is hugely appreciated!

Oltrepier (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer @Ayıntaplı @BurakD53 I think you might be the best people to ask to in this case... Oltrepier (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What are those "eastern regions"? The damage was greater in Hatay, in the southernmost tip of the country, not at all in the "eastern regions". Gaziantep seems to have had less damage, but Kahramanmaraş and Adıyaman had more. This is due to change, though. This is very vague. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ayıntaplı You're right, I messed up there: Akinci referred to "eastern regions" while talking about the infrastructural law and how extensively it was implemented across the country, not while describing (more generally) the damage caused in this instance. I'm so sorry, that was a really poor re-adaptation from my part...

This is her correct quote:

"In 2012, the Government of Turkey passed a law to improve building complexes [in order to make them more resistant]. We know that the risk of earthquakes is extremely high in our country, but it takes a lot of time and money to rebuild everything. So far, construction [operations] have mostly taken place in Istanbul, whereas the eastern regions fell behind."

(I do agree it's still a vague term, by the way).

On a side note, the quote actually comes from an interview for La Repubblica, but that's behind pay-wall, so I had to use another reliable link that cites the exact same source. Oltrepier (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no city/province called Hatay anymore. Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Adıyaman, Western part of Gaziantep affected the most. I agree with every single word of @Ayıntaplı. BurakD53 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ayıntaplı @BurakD53 Right, I think I should just discard this source, then.

But anyway, thank you for joining the discussion and again, sorry for that poor mistake above... Oltrepier (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced death count

@Userbala, @Ecrusized and a number of IPs have been "updating" the death count without bothering to change the sources. Can you add a citation in that the SAME time you make these changes? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: I suggest you check the diffs before pinging others. I have added citations with each edit. Ecrusized (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone also changed the precision back to borderline violating MOS:UNCERTAINTY but i'm not good enough at wikipedia-ing yet to know how to check DarmaniLink (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mercalli intensity

One source previously added mentions XI as the intensity. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer Am I getting something wrong, because the source literally mentions XI as the intensity? Maybe it's a different scale. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no mention if it is the evaluated or the possible intensity, though. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The effects of earthquakes are evaluated to be assign its maximum intensity. If it doesn't mention anything about being evaluated then MMI XI is not appropriate to mention in the infobox. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm using a translating machine to run through the source ("Osmaniye Üçgeninde olabilecek en büyük deprem M7,4 Richter büyüklüğünde, 11 Yıkım Gücünde(Mercalli Cannani) oldu"), it says "The largest earthquake that could occur in the Osmaniye Triangle was M7.4 Richter, with 11 Destruction Power (Mercalli Cannani)". I interpret this as MMI XI is possible in the region; does not mention the recent earthquake was evaluated at XI. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong btw Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer Actually, the translating machine seems to have messed it up, because it literally translates to "The strongest possible earthquake in the Osmaniye Triangle M7,4 on the Richter scale and with 11 destruction power (Mercalli Cannani) has happened." "Oldu" means "happened" not "was". So, it doesn't refer to the possibility, but what happened, and that the worst possibility has happened. I don't think this needs an explicit mention of "evaluation," because as per what was said, it is clear that it refers to what happened and what was evaluated. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Mercalli intensities of earthquakes should come from proper scientific literature. Much like sourcing magnitude figures from the USGS or GCMT because they are authoritative data. I'd suggest waiting a bit and sticking to the USGS ShakeMap intensity now. Note that the ShakeMap also has station data that corresponds to IX. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians

It should be noted that the Palestinians killed in Syria were refugees and stateless, so it is misleading to put the flag of Palestine that links to the page of the State of Palestine. Sakiv (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If you include a source for it (nature of wikipedia), then it can be included.

Or you can go ahead and change it to "ethnic Palestinians" DarmaniLink (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed to "ethnic Palestinians, any more that the link to Australia should be changed to "ethnic Australians". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was to add a note next to the flag. Massive earthquake kills 4300 people in Turkey and Syria Sakiv (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Building codes

This article is newsworthy because the earthquake happened in highly populated area where building codes were not enforced. In many videos we see relatively new buildings turned into pancakes. A section about Turkey building regulations and adherence to them is absolutely essential then. A good place to start: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/07/1154816277/turkey-syria-earthquake-why-buildings-collapsed R Alexandrov (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have started this at Architecture of Turkey#Earthquakes and excerpted to Turkish_construction_and_contracting_industry#Earthquakes and List_of_earthquakes_in_Turkey#Buildings. Of course you and other editors are welcome to improve it.

Is anybody doing this on Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If suitable you could excerpt it here (perhaps as a background section) or link to it from here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The humanitarian aid section is back to listing off countries

This seems like it might potentially get too long and might need to have a ton of stuff moved to the main article. What do you guys think? DarmaniLink (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I made a few edits to trim it down. Might need a few others to see what else needs to be trimmed and reworked. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Casualties by Turkish province

The table displaying deaths by provinces needs to be updated with the death toll rising. Can editors literate in Turkish find sources to update them? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Pictures of collection of donations

I feel like there could be some pictures regarding the collection of donations by Turkish Embassies around the world, either in this article or the one about the humanitarian response. Maybe an example can be this one which I just uploaded. Any thoughts? SBS6577P (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

if you have a source to show that it was part of the donations/humanitarian effort it can be included DarmaniLink (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah here is the official announcement from the Turkish Embassy in Singapore [8] and also from local Singaporean news sites [9][10][11]. All of these mention 10 Genting Lane as the collection point. SBS6577P (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this structural engineering wikilink right?

In Architecture of Turkey#Earthquakes I have linked pancaking to Progressive collapse. Is that right do you know? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Error

Due to Edit conflict some error happened and many information got deleted without intension WikiEdits2003 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Palm Tree in Main Image and Hypothermia Paradox - Could lead to Underestimation of the Cold

Please consider changing the first image with a palm tree as this might lead some readers to think that hypothermia risk isn't as great. We are talking about lows of at least -10 to -15 degrees Celsius in some parts of the affected region and this serious hypothermia risk should be made apparent so the general public isn't mislead by creating a false perception. Not everyone is aware of the climate of the quake region and a picture taken somewhere else poses a big risk for damaging awareness and creating false impressions. It could help save lives, even though it might appear irrelevant at first glance. 85.153.205.9 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I believe the montage has been created by JoleBruh. Nataev ^talk 18:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Half-mast flag of one country isn't a good candidate for the top level montage. But, I'd not stress too much about the image for now. nafSadh ^{did say} 22:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of missing

I haven’t been able to get any meaningful number on those victims who remain missing. It seems Ankara and Damascus have yet to compile any such data. It would be useful to the article if we can find any reliable sources with confirmed data on the missing Juneau Mike (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong use of caps along with semicolons

"Clockwise from top left: A Turkish flag flown at half-mast as a sign of mourning for the victims of the earthquake; A man sitting on a sidewalk in front of collapsed buildings; People surveying the damage after the earthquake; A collapsed police station; Displaced earthquake victims take shelter at an exhibition center" (notice the full stop missing at the end of the only complete sentence and after the numeration) is a wrong use of caps. SLBedit (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moondragon21: Care to explain your revert? SLBedit (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• @SLBedit: I'm not sure what you're referring to. My last edit on the article I added Template:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake at the bottom of the page. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moondragon21: Maybe you didn't want to revert, but you did. SLBedit (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I'm sorry please accept my apologies Moondragon21 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Northern Cyprus" in the foreign casualties table

Unlike eg. Kosovo or Palestine, Northern Cyprus is an entity with extremely limited international recognition - officially only Turkey considers it an independent country - and should be replaced with Cyprus on the table of foreign casualties. I'm neutral on this topic politically, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Cyprus is overwhelmingly the name used for this area in reliable English-language sources. (See the Turkey/Türkiye discussion further up on this talk page.) 73.168.37.85 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, not all Northern Cypriot citizens are Cypriot citizens, so that wouldn't be correct. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Recognition of a country isn't what Wikipedia is based on, it usually takes 'de facto' country status, e.g., Taiwan isn't recognized as a country by anyone. nafSadh ^{did say} 22:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but it also doesn't legitimize the use of North Cyprus national terms and imagery. If reliable English-language sources don't typically recognize this subunit of Cyprus as a separate country - and outside the Turkosphere they don't appear to - then neither does Wikipedia. Micronations and sovereign citizen groups grant citizenship to people all the time; if any of them happen to be victims, their countries won't be acknowledged as such on this page either unless it's already common in English to do so.

North Cyprus victims who have citizenship elsewhere (eg. Turkey) should be grouped with the country that granted it.

The revert to North Cyprus/TRNC should be rolled back. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of [Turkish] govt section

In Turkey the government has provided periodic "construction amnesties" - effectively legal exemptions for the payment of a fee, for structures built without the required safety certificates. These have been passed since the 1960s (with the latest in 2018). Up to 75,000 buildings across the affected earthquake zone in southern Turkey have been given construction amnesties. Turkey's decision to block access to Twitter for about 12 hours from Wednesday afternoon to early Thursday as people scrambled to find loved ones after devastating earthquakes compounded public frustration at the pace of relief efforts. Opposition leaders and social media users criticized the throttling of the platform, which has helped people share information on arriving aid and the location of those still trapped in rubble after the initial tremor on Monday. President Tayyip Erdogan's government has blocked social media in the past and focused in recent months on fighting what it calls "disinformation", which it said prompted the block on Wednesday.

But critics like Ozel point out that national funds meant for natural disasters like this one were instead spent on highway construction projects managed by associates of Erdogan and his coalition government. Turkish engineers had previously warned that cities could become 'graveyards' with building amnesty.

...Just in case someone doesn't want the above to be well known.Oathed (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Oathed (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made more additions to this. There are serious allegations (more than allegations, there are photos and videos) concerning forcing of aid to go through governors' offices (political appointees), delays in deploying military, tagging all aid with RTE name or party logos or ruling party slogans, diversion of machinery, limitations on social media, arrests of journalists, etc.. This section needs to be expanded a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9AE7:B400:382B:7B3B:1A0B:E6D1 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

was it a foreshock?

M 4.2 - 5 km W of Bahçe, Turkey יאצקין52 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Dora the Axe-plorer it was 2 days before the disaster. any idea..? יאצקין52 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

prediction of earthquake

i think it is important to talk about the "prediction", whether you believe its possible or not of this earthquake. The tweet by Frank Hoogerbeets showed his prediction ended up being pretty close. my addition is being revoked because of "its psuedoscience". Even still, it matters to include it with a disclaimer about how earthquakes "cant be predicted". here was my additon

Prediction See also: Earthquake prediction The seismologist, Frank Hoogerbeets, predicted an earthquake would occur in the exact location the earthquake occurred. He said in a tweet on Feb 3, 2023, that has since gone viral, "Sooner or later there will be a ~M 7.5 earthquake in this region". His prediction ended up being 35-40 miles SW of where the original 7.8 magnitude earthquakes epicenter was and 95 miles SSW of the 7.5 magnitude aftershock. He later said after the earthquake that earthquakes like these are always preceded by "critical planetary geometry," similar to what happened before earthquakes in 115 and 526, and what happened on February 4-5. According to Hoogerbeets, "Earthquakes are affected by planetary alignments." His organization, SSGEOS, also claims to work on monitoring geometry between celestial bodies related to seismic activity. PalauanReich (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in the summary, "Sooner or later" is not a prediction. If you call "sooner or later" a prediction, anyone can predict earthquakes at this point. I could say "sooner or later" the San Andreas Fault in California will produce an earthquake. It's useless if the "prediction" isn't specific.

The reference you added (his tweets) are primary sources which doesn't support a lot of the claims in the description; that's WP:OR. FYI Hoogerbeets isn't a seismologist, he's a researcher. I agree this can be covered in the article since many rs mention his alleged "prediction" but the way it's written is not adequate and I've removed it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe it can be included, but some, including me, touched on his tweet before, and many disagreed saying that it shouldn't be mentioned as trivia at all. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hoogerbeets himself, in his own video, states that this was "a coincidence" and he "didn't know" (youtube video pqIrvFNltc0 link blacklisted; timecodes roughly 3:10–3:50). Folly Mox (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of his "predictions" never come true. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich I see you've added sources back. Can you please support what you've said with secondary sources? Using his tweets is original research. A lot of information there is uncited/unsupported by existing (and inappropriate) refs. Any editor can remove it if the section isn't improved Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A humor columnist has done better than this. In 1989, Kevin Cowherd wrote these are two teams are from California and God only knows if they'll even get all the games in. An earthquake could rip through the Bay Area before they sing the national anthem for Game 3. Which is just when the Loma Prieta earthquake occurred. Except, we don't mention that at Loma Prieta earthquake, because, you know, million-to-one events are actually kind of common. This is nothing more than crank getting lucky. We forget all the unlucky cranks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with including the prediction stuff as long as we also include the statements from the U.S. Geological Survey and what reliable sources say about the misinformation. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)