Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes

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)

I agree this isn't the venue - trouble is, that isn't the venue either. The conversation seems to be closed. Please don't be that way. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:F0FB:EEF6:4DDF:7549 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to familiarize youself with WP:COMMONNAME - "manners" has nothing to do with it, and your POV is tiresome. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, Wikipedia does not always follow this rule either. You can disagree if you like; the point was that the conversation isn't open at Talk:Turkey either. Please don't quote rules to me when those rules aren't followed consistently. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:1449:94CC:AEB4:18D5 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

the point was that the conversation isn't open at Talk:Turkey either - That likely has to do with what the FAQ says at Talk:Turkey. Q: Why don't you rename this article Türkiye, the correct name for this country? A: Because the English-language Wikipedia has a WP:COMMONNAME policy. We use names for countries and places that are the names commonly used for them in English, regardless of what official organizations use. Technically, this kind of name is known as an exonym. For example, we use the name Germany, instead of the native endonym Deutschland. If or when that general English-language usage changes (as has happened in the past with place names such as Mumbai and Beijing), the same WP:COMMONNAME policy implies that the English-language Wikipedia will necessarily also follow suit. So far, that hasn't happened. This has been discussed many times, with the same result every time because of the common name policy; there is currently a moratorium on further requests for name changes until 1 December 2023. This tells me that the community is tired of dealing with the multiple attempts to rename the Turkey article. This is kinda why we have the WP:NAMECHANGES policy: Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. ... If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names". The majority of reliable sources after the switch use Turkey, so we use Turkey. If the majority of reliable sources were to use either Türkiye or Turkiye, the we would change to follow suit. At this time, there is no realistical path to a name change. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Germany calls itself Deutschland yet we call it germany

Japan calls itself "Nihon" yet we call it japan

This has nothing to do with manners or respect.

Quoting from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS "We are, by design, supposed to be 'behind the curve'".

This is simply the WP:COMMONNAME and this will continue to be reflected until/unless the new spelling takes over. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly plausible that at some point we will follow the new spelling, and do so retroactively to a date before these earthquakes. However, we have repeatedly made a decision not to do it yet. And this article will follow decisions made at Talk:Turkey in this context. Animal lover |666| 07:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be this way. Turkey's not the same thing. As the page itself says, Turkey sees a negative connotation to having the same English name as a bird - a problem Japan and Germany do not share. You may very well be right about the way Wikipedia does things - goodness knows I have not memorized the dozens upon dozens of rules that exist here, and this is obviously my fault. But I reserve the right to express my disagreement. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:1449:94CC:AEB4:18D5 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not expecting you to memorize all the rules - even I haven't done this. What I am expecting is that if you make a request and someone answers you with the rules - that you will remember those rules. Now here are some important rules: the name of a topic - as it appears in all titles related to that topic - is based on the WP:COMMONNAME (yes, follow that link for more details) in English; if there is any dispute on what this name is, it is to be discussed on the topic's own talk page; and if a request is discussed and fails, you wait a reasonable amount of time before making it again. Animal lover |666| 14:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate it if you understood that Wikipedia does not seem to consistently follow its own rules, so from my perspective it's not really about rules. I did give you one example of the rule not being followed, and you've ignored it. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:30AE:CEB0:133C:F3F3 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to your comment about Maize, you can see from the talk page that it has had numerous debates about the name to the point that Template:Round in circles is used to warn editors against disruptive editing. Along those lines, this is still somewhat off-topic. If you are going to discuss the spelling of Turkey/Türkiye, then it should focus on that and not other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you call it Roma? 2603:3020:2E8:E000:9D1:A00F:BAD4:FD57 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that this is only about the spelling of Turkey/Türkiye, we should focus on that on this talk page. (See WP:NOTFORUM for why.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Super Goku V -- please focus on the case of Turkey. Also, the analogy is flawed, but maybe it's worth pointing out why: I am not aware of any attempts by either the Italian government, nor the city of Rome, to make any formal suggestions about the name of the city in languages other than Italian. In fact, the very idea that this is done for any place/country is quite odd, I think, but that's exactly what's happening with Turkey/Türkiye. I hate to break the news to the country of Turkey, but what the English speaking world calls either them or the birds in the genus meleagris is none of their business. That said, Turkey is free to make suggestions... It seems to me that Wikipedia so far is using the name Turkey, and that's also the common name beyond Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 04:17, 15 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)

I did include that info but it was still deleted. I could change it to alleged prediction or something like that, but it is still important info IMO PalauanReich (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich: I'm wondering how you're interpreting this as important information to include, when the Solar System Geometry Survey site specifically disclaims any ability using their method to forecast earthquakes with this kind of precision, and in a video posted days following the event, Hoogerbeets stated: "I tweeted about that region three days before it happened. That's more or less of a coincidence. ... There was some increase in seismic activity... and that made me think about the region, because historically there have been very large earthquakes — very deadly earthquakes in the past and it had been a long time. And that was the reason for me to tweet about that particular region, that sooner or later there will be around magnitude 7.5 again, and it just happened three days later, which I didn't know." If even the person who made the statement characterizes it as a coincindence rather than a prediction, what reason would we have for including it in an encyclopaedia article? Folly Mox (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it is a common misconception that people have, both in general and in connection to this event. The AP source I linked above along with other sources like NPR, Snopes, and The Independent shows that people are falsely claiming that this person scientifically predicted that an earthquake would hit. We can easily say something along the lines of "Social media claimed researcher predicted earthquake. Experts agree claims of prediction are bogus. While there is debate in general on Earthquake predictions, experts have concluded that earthquakes cannot be predicted through astrology." --Super Goku V (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSs are only mentioning this just to debunk it. It's not "important". Another word for "planetary alignment" is astrology. To even devote a single syllable to this "research" is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not as sure that it is covered under that. To start with, we already devote an article to Earthquake predictions in general with sources that say that earthquakes can be predicted. Our problem is that there is disinformation that earthquakes can be predicted with astrology. I agree that it is misinformation, but the problem is that these claims have been spread as you can see by the sources I linked above. It should be made clear in the article that it isn't possible, in line with what reliable sources are saying. We already do that for Covid misinformation. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

SSGEOS video

According to the end of the Bible, the Christ returns, fulfills the prophecy of Rev 5:1 by producing the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals" (revealed as 'Beyond Einstein Theories'), and many catastrophes occur including earthquakes. The "Book/scroll" is titled There Are No Coincidences - there is synchronism... Read http://7seals.blogspot.com . 2603:3020:2E8:E000:9D1:A00F:BAD4:FD57 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

7.7 can not be the aftershock of 7.8

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)

The initial response was that it was a second mainshock and now they're saying it was an aftershock. What we see from the map of fault lines doesn't matter per WP:NOR. The RS are calling it an aftershock, therefore thats what we call it. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

In this lecture [1], tectonics expert Dr. Rob Govers from Utrecht University clearly mentions that they are separate earthquakes. 62.20.163.180 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The degree of the earthquake, which is described as an aftershock, has been renewed. AFAD announced the first of the two earthquakes as 7.7 and announced the second as 7.6. According to the current situation on Wikipedia, the first one is 7.8 and the second 7.7. This does not fit the description on the aftershock page. It is neither an earthquake that occurred on the same fault nor its intensity is lower than the first earthquake. If it was high, this time we would call the first earthquake the foreshock of the second. However, it is neither higher nor lower, which makes using either name debatable. In addition, geologists around the world, including Turkey, often describe it as a second earthquake. In this case, the phrase aftershock should be reconsidered. BurakD53 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that will become clearer with hindsight. Better to wait for a scientific consensus to emerge than argue over it now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @HJ Mitchell. I still that USGS categorize it at 7.5. nafSadh ^{did say} 20:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

International humanitarian efforts section is too long

Suggest some details moved to the main article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. It was in a good state a few days ago but now its gotten entirely out of hand. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Details should be moved to the article about it. --IndexAccount (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should merge everything in the section to the article and agree not to have anything other than the lede statement here. That way it stops being a problem here and allows more focus on that article. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea - maybe the bit here could just be an excerpt of the lead of the main article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Its been done. Now the organizations needs to be pruned. I'll do that in a seperate edit. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll leave it for now. Its not out of hand and it doesnt seem like its going to be in danger of getting out of hand. Maybe the sections can be merged. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with moving some of it to the other article. its been moved once, and then it grew again... I'll then remove the move template on top of the section for now. If it grows again, we have a new discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Gotcha. I tried doing that in these two edits. Does it look fine to you? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes great thanks. Previously the lede excerpted here was too simplistic in that it blamed insufficient aid to Syria on sanctions. The reasons are more complex - I have added some detail in the body of that article at Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Insufficient aid to affected areas in Syria so if anyone wants to summarize it in a new paragraph for the lede of that article it will automatically feed through to here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done The section is partly an excerpt and partly transcluded from Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. --DragonFederal (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

For now, I have reverted to the other collage, due to hypothermia concerns mentioned earlier, which are now archived. However, later realized that the map in the collage only shows the second quake, which needs to be fixed. We need a better collage, one without a palm tree but one that also has the right map. Right now, neither collage fits this bill. Berkserker (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Berkserker I created one just a few minutes ago. It doesn't include the map and also the Turkish flag. Let me know if there are any further concerns. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ayıntaplı Personally, I see no problem with the inclusion of a half-mast flag, which is perhaps even necessary. If desired, another image of a half-mast flag with a different backdrop can be used. The main point of the archived topic was that foliage in the image is representative of a very small portion of the quake area and could mislead some readers to think that hypothermia risk isn't as great. Either way, thank you for the collage. A similar approach should be followed in other localizations. Berkserker (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this montage solves it. I tried to include most places that were affected. The color scheme is a lot darker, and there is even snow in one of the pictures, so I think this montage should convey the risk of hypothermia. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ayıntaplı: Looks like we do have a problem. A1Cafel has proposed that File:Syria earthquake damage 1.jpg should be deleted due to a copyright issue. This would mean that File:Turkey-Syria Earthquake Montage.jpg would be impacted as one of the images it uses is the file proposed for deletion. (File:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake montage.jpg is also impacted, but it isn't being used on the English Wiki and that has additional problems.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V It doesn't really pose a problem, because I can just change it and reupload. Ayıntaplı (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I didn't realize it would be a somewhat simple to fix. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Rename to 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake

There is already several Wikipedia articles which use the province/state/city the earthquake was centered in, some examples being the 1964 Alaska earthquake, 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and the infamous 1960 Valdivia earthquake and 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. I feel that the name change would follow WP:CONSISTENT and the earthquake is centered in the Turkish province of Kahramanmaras. Although, I would have to know your input first. Thisisahumanboi (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

we had a similar discussion Special:PermanentLink/1137917668 here that was closed by WP:SNOW

This might be worth revisiting at a later date because right now this is almost certain to get declined by WP:COMMONNAME

Anyway, if we decide to make it into a vote

Support by WP:CONSISTENT DarmaniLink (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What are reliable sources calling the earthquake? Do they use the name noted above? Do they do so enough to make it a common name? --Jayron32 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Alternative title: The epicentre is actually in Gazientep Province near the border with Kahramanmaras, so if anything changes, it should be renamed to 2023 Gazientep-Kahramanmaras earthquake, like the Turkish language version of this very article, but I like the current title as it is. Quake1234 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the article considers the 7.5 magnitude earthquake in northern Kahramanmaraş as an aftershock, it should only be 2023 Gaziantep earthquake in my opinion if it would have to change. Ayıntaplı (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

CommentI have not read much of a Kahramanmarash earthquake yet, Gaziantep earthquake I have also not read much about. Usually articles on the earthquake mention the two countries Turkey and Syria. Maybe Dora the Axe-plorer could assist us, as he is an earthquake focused editor?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The epicenter of the mainshock (or "the first earthquake") was not in Kahramanmaraş but in Gaziantep. Given this, the article would have to be renamed to 2023 Gaziantep earthquake, but this has been discussed a week ago and wasn't accepted. Ayıntaplı (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out that the naming of Wikipedia earthquake articles is not consistent; especially seen when comparing current and historical events. Might explain why even some historically large earthquakes have titles of a city in them (1960 Valdivia) rather than the geographical region/country/etc (2004 Indian Ocean). The examples listed by @Thisisahumanboi are events that took place decades ago; their common names; referred to in scientific literature or mainstream media have been well-established before the Wikipedia articles were created, with the exception of 2008 Sichuan and 2011 Tohoku; those earthquakes affected a very wide area.

Most current events settle for a descriptive title that best encompass the scope of the disaster. Recent earthquakes the project has been involved in are only locally damaging hence title follows a city, county, province, geographical region's name (eg 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake; 2022 Luding earthquake). Here and there, a title may include the country's name despite the earthquake only damaging on a local level. Those events don't spark discussions like these because they're low profile ones. I get it.

Within the last 10 years however, there hasn't been an earthquake disaster of such massive scale affecting a very large region like what we are observing now. The title Turkey–Syria earthquake isn't meant to be a common name because there isn't one with a proper consensus; it's purely descriptive. It indicates Turkey and Syria were the most affected by the earthquake.

Given there's two move requests and varying opinions; I recommend not proposing another until the article is stable. Any discussions to move from the current would simply be too early and rushed for no compelling reason imo. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Already discussed. Too many move requests. --DragonFederal (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose My reasons above and because there's too many requests it's hella annoying. This req needs WP:SNOW Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, Kahramanmaras is not the location of the main quake. Damages are also not limited to the province, or any other single province but rather the entire south of Turkey and northern Syria. Ecrusized (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Note This was mistakenly listed on the article as a move request for just under an hour, despite it not being a move request. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This sentence belongs in international humanitarian aid and not domestic aftermath...

"India airlifted 6 tons of assistance to Syria, which included 3 truck loads of protective gear, emergency medicines, ECG machines and other medical items."

I can't edit the article, but maybe someone else can. 2.44.10.109 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done Thank you for noticing that. I took a look at it and removed the line as the Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake and Operation Dost articles both appear to cover this. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Arrests & eventual prosecutions of builders/contractors

Hi, you may want to include this in its own section as it will only expand as more information comes to light & without its own section it will get messier & uglier. Thanks 120.18.36.44 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there already is a section called Criminal investigation in Turkey. Did you mean to suggest something else? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I didn't see that til after. I figured that the Criminal Investigation (including arrests & prosecutions) section (only a sub-section presently) will eventually enlarge & exceed the size of the Section it is under now. It might view as a little odd compared to the set out of the rest of the article & perhaps might warrant its own section, with its own subsections, subsequently. At the moment in its present size & form it sits nicely where it is. Down the track when the whole article is close to being complete it could be looked at. Mine is just a suggestion. Thanks for replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.7.149 (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I was a bit unsure if this was an attempt to request it become a separate article instead of a separate section, but it looks like everything is resolved. (Y) I will say that I would expect it to grow a few years down the road in some form, though a bit unclear when. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Magnitude 8.0?

@Quake1234: appears to have changed one of the estimates to 8.0 citing USGS, although I'm not seeing reliable reporting on this apart from a listing which also includes a 6.9 estimate.

@Dora the Axe-plorer: Ecrusized (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The reference link includes some alternate magnitude scales for the quake, we have 6.8 mb, 7.9 mwc and ms 8.0 in here. I made a separate reference also because people may get confused or think it’s vandalism or unreliability Quake1234 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Where does the USGS reference say 8.0? I looked and saw a big green tick over 7.8. Even if there are other estimates, we shouldn't be confusing matters in the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Syria earthquake damage 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Unverified statements

Hi all,

As a Wikipedia editor, it's my duty to check for unverified statements. Unfortunately, I've found two unverified statements in the article, that there was a foreshock, and Elbistan earthquake was an aftershock.

There were 4 references in sentences describing the second earthquake, but none of them proved the claim made by editors. Let's discuss them.

Two references only showed magnitudes, and didn't provide other information.

Telegraph didn't call Elbistan earthquake as an aftershock, but called it a second earthquake. So the reference says just the opposite.

AA's source is not about the Elbistan earthquake being an aftershock: "Tedbiren boşatılan bina, merkez üssü Kahramanmaraş'ın Elbistan ilçesi olan 7,6 büyüklüğündeki depremin ardından çöktü."

Now let's explore more and read scientific articles. I've searched and found these two sources now.

AA cites Rossetto and Durrheim that say the Elbistan earthquake was a second tremor.

AFAD's article clearly say that these two earthquakes were in different faults: Mw 7.7 büyüklüğündeki Pazarcık depremi, sol yanal doğrultu atımlı Ölü Deniz Fay Zonunun kuzey ucundaki Narlı Segmentine rastlarken, Mw 7.6 büyüklüğündeki Elbistan depremi ise Doğu Anadolu Fayından ayrılan bir kol olan Çardak Fayına rastlamaktadır.

Even if the talk page discussion is not concluded, I kindly ask other editors not to remove tags. It's a duty for Wikipedians to tag articles for requesting inline citations for any unsourced statement as per Wikipedia rules, such as WP:NOR. Kavas (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that whether the second one was aftershock or a separate quake isn't backed by any unanimous source. Please tag/edit accordingly. nafSadh ^{did say} 23:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There were 2 large earthquakes. One at night around 4 a.m. and then another one in a different location during the day time. Generally I've seen the event been reported as the Turkey Earthquakes. The 2nd large earthquake has never been referred to as an aftershock by seismologists. I have seen the 2nd earthquake be referred to as an aftershock only here on wikipedia. This is a wrong but understandable assumption that wikipedia editors have made. The earthquakes are the Elbistan and the Pazarcık earthquakes. To that affect the article should also be renamed:

• 2023 Elbistan and Pazarcık earthquakes
• 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes
• 2023 Turkey earthquakes
• 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes

Although Syria was severely damaged by the earthquakes, both of the major earthquakes were centred within Turkey (Kahramanmaraş Province) so it would make sense to leave Syria out of the name. Generally also the earthquake articles have been named after the location that the center was in to the best known accuracy, not in the country they occurred in or near, such as the 1939 Erzincan earthquake.--Gazozlu (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If I can recall, in some of the earlier sources which I came across last week, the mainstream media referred to the second M7+ as an "aftershock" or "large aftershock". A number of seismologists however, call them two separate earthquakes. Determining if the second earthquake (which ruptured a different fault from the first) is an aftershock or another mainshock requires scientific consensus which will take months.

The Mw7.8 earthquake has impact that are well-established; the latter Mw7.7 does not. I've seen a few fuzzy reports of people killed and many buildings collapsing during the 7.5 but the great effects of the former events overshadows that. Keep in mind there's also disagreements on the "Turkey–Syria earthquake" title. See my comment in #Rename to 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The second earthquake's impact is well-established. FYI: Büyük Mahalle Köyü, Malatya was destroyed in the second earthquake of Mw7.7. Also Doğanşehir, which is close to Elbistan, was destroyed in the second earthquake. Almost 2,000 buildings collapsed in Elbistan in the second earthquake. Kavas (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no seismologists that have referred to the second earthquake as an aftershock. That would mean the scientific consensus already is that this is a case of 2 large earthquakes. Any of the mainstream sources that might have wrongly published a heading that the second was an aftershock without an editor catching it should be given no weight.

(there were also about a hundred smaller earthquakes) (and yes there were also aftershocks, there were about a thousand aftershocks) Today there was a new 4.9 magnitude earthquake in Gaziantep. This may all be part of a larger seismic flareup. Gazozlu (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say seismologists called the second event an aftershock. Can you provide reliable sources citing those seismologists who say the second earthquake wasn't an aftershock? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say seismologists said the second earthquake wasn't an aftershock. I said there have been no seismologists that have referred to the second large earthquake as an aftershock.

First large quake 7.8 in the middle of the night in Gaziantep.

Second large quake 7.5 during the day in Kahramanmaras. Gazozlu (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The United States Geological Survey called the second M7+ event the "largest aftershock" here. This I assume was preliminary since it was issued on the day of the earthquakes and there wasn't a follow-up analysis. This article by Temblor, Inc. citing Ross Stein says the second earthquake could be an aftershock or “contingent event” based on their preliminary analysis of coulomb stress brought by the former event onto faults that eventually ruptured during the latter.

It's definitely too early for a scientific consensus. Let's wait a bit first. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That source wasn't cited, and none of the references in this page used in Wikipedia sentences containing phrases like "7.6 aftershock" contained the word "aftershock". Aftershocks are smaller earthquakes that occur afterwards in the same place as the mainshock. The scientific reports call them as "earthquakes", rather than "the earthquake and its aftershock". I've found another report (prepared by Jeoloji Etütleri Dairesi Başkanlığı - MTA Genel Müdürlüğü) now. "06 Şubat 2023 tarihinde Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) dolayında yerel saat ile 04.17’de aletsel büyüklüğü (Mw) 7,7 olarak kaydedilen yıkıcı bir deprem meydana gelmiştir. Bu depremden yaklaşık 9 saat sonra Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) dolayında yerel saat ile 13.24’te aletsel büyüklüğü (Mw) 7,6 olarak kaydedilen ikinci bir yıkıcı deprem olmuştur. 06 Şubat 2023 tarihinde Pazarcık ve Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş)’da meydana gelen depremler ve artçı şoklarının" Kavas (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that seismologists haven't unanimously defined a clear definition as to what is or isn't an aftershock. Even if they did, we (editors) shouldn't use that to decide whether it was one. I've not found any scientific consensus on whether to call these two separate mainshocks or ms-as. I have a hunch, that seismologists aren't going to publish anything definitive in this regard. nafSadh ^{did say} 06:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The way the article is written now is original research. It clearly presents a narrative that there was only one earthquake and that all other seismic events both around the area of what it considers this main earthquake and also the other quakes at a different fault line and the events around it were all aftershocks of that earlier largest earthquake. Gazozlu (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

References

"Turkey-Syria Earthquakes", Not "Turkey-Syria Earthquake"

The title of the article should be changed to plural into Turkey-Syria Earthquakes, because there was not just one earthquake that happened but more than one earthquakes, in order to be more accurate to what really happened in the Anatolian Plate fault lines. 202.90.134.242 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be Kahramanmaraş-Gaziantep Earthquakes or Eastern Anatolian Earthquakes.

(the latter after the faultline). Gazozlu (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We just had a discussion on this that wrapped up on Friday with No consensus to move. Another discussion to the same target is highly likely to go nowhere. 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes does exist as a redirect and will help readers get to this article if needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was closed, however looking through that discussion there are compelling arguments to why it was two major earthquakes. There are no compelling arguments as to why it should be considered a single earthquake. The only arguments are that "the article already talks about one mainshock" and that some sources have semantically referred to the second massive quake as an aftershock of the first massive quake. Gazozlu (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone else wants to have a round three, then fine. I still think that we are having too many move discussions in a short period of time, but that is my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think those discussions were not done properly. There really was no case to be made to consider it one earthquake. See Talk:2023_Turkey–Syria_earthquake#Multiple earthquakes, Not one. It should really just be moved, nothing to discuss really. The only argument to keep it as one earthquake pins on a preliminary webpage by USGS on the first earthquake that appears to refer to a series of aftershocks including a 7.5 aftershock. Gazozlu (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In this lecture [2], tectonics expert Dr. Rob Govers from Utrecht University clearly mentions that they are separate earthquakes. 62.20.163.180 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think that the prior discussions were not done properly, then I would say that it would be understandable from a certain point of view to start a new discussion. If you want to move it without discussion, then don't be surprised to see it reverted given the last two discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Evaluate

This article holds lots of information and data that comes from reliable sources. I looked at the links and most were from geology and news channels and articles. We were informed of the damage done and the measures that would be needed to be taken to further predict these earthquakes Morganljackson (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Section: Damage and casualties

@User:Abcmaxx suggested splitting of the article. Section Damage and casualties is way too long and I think it could be good to move majority of it to the Damage and casualties of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake or something similar. -- IndexAccount (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Can take a look at individual pages under Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami#Countries suffering major casualties and damage to get an idea of how it's done. The impact in both countries can be covered in the new split article. Should always ensure the main article covers or summarizes adequately key points of damage and casualties.

Another suggestion is to remove the dead figures from prose and only include them in the table with the respective citations. This can be helpful especially for Foreign casualties. Could trim the length by a good amount. Right now a large chunk of that section discusses deaths which can be simplified. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. First, we should try cropping unnecessary or repetitive details. If it's still too long, we should then consider a separate article. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To make my stand clear, I oppose a split. The section isn't long enough for that. We should be addressing issues in that section rather than split. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Support: While paragraphs should be quite long enough to read for a while, a separate article would be a good fit in my opinion, since Turkish provinces could have their own sub-sections so more can be added Quake1234 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What we should really be doing is work on the main article first, we shouldn't always resort to split. The Int' humanitarian split was definitely needed but damage & casualties don't need that if we can improve the main. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath for both countries can easily be split into another article with more detail and just keep a summary here.

I dont think there's enough info for syria DarmaniLink (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• I second that. This section has got quite long. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this move. I agree that the article is too large currently but this section is much more relevant to the article compared to the "Reactions" section which is as large as the damages section. That section would be better to be moved to separate article with the damages being kept. Ecrusized (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the Reactions section is only 30% of the space of the "Damage and casualities" section. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: I took a second look and just to confirm, were you talking about the byte size of the sections or the visual size of the sections? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I mean the visual section, it is mostly political. Ecrusized (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I will agree that they visually take up a good portion of space with "Damage and casualties" being the largest section visually and the "Reactions" section being the third largest section visually. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

oppose for now. There is a rather long paragraph with foreign casualties in prose and beside a table containing a similar information. Could we agree on trimming that foreign casualties paragraph?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Will take awhile. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah you had the same idea above...sorry did not see that. Thanks for trimming.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes the article is way too long as per WP:SIZESPLIT. Also the consequences are far reaching and will continue for years to come, therefore the 2x aftermath sections should be split too. Question is do we split into Aftermath of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake or into two; Aftermath in Turkey of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake and Aftermath in Syria of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. Further splits can be done from there by topic or province if needed, but this parent article should really only be an overview. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The article visual size is about the same as 2008 Sichuan earthquake, 2010 Chile earthquake, 2010 Haiti earthquake, April 2015 Nepal earthquake. No other editors have called for splits at the present (because some have already had splits).

As someone who has been working on this article since day 1, I'm at this moment very tired of having to deal with discussions. I'm sure other editors are as well; there's just too many move/split discussions going on in such a short span of time. I don't see the urgency split the sections. What we should do is trim away details that aren't notable to keep. The size just isn't out of hand right now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hildeoc and Dora the Axe-plorer: Actually the WP:TOOBIG guidance is anything over 100,000 bytes should definitely be split, unless in certain circumstances for list and disambiguation articles. This one is currently at 263,476 bytes, which over 2.5 that! Even if you split it into 6 articles it'll still be long enough. And that we have other articles that are equally monstrously over-sized (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a convincing argument either. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The Damage and casualties section hasn't experienced much expansion recently. Most changes relates to updates in the death toll only. We can definitely trim away some items in there. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

but there's no need to trim when you can just move it to the correct WP:FORK. Then you can trim the parent article, otherwise you are just undoing lots of work. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Though opposed on the split at the moment, there should just be one article covering both countries for now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support to split in principle, because the article is too long. The consequences in both countries are quite different, so the split the aftermath article into a Turkey and a Syria part could make sense. I don't think we need a third article about the aftermath, though. The consequences in other countries can be handled in a few paragraphs, and that can be handled on the original page. Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Me too, I agree. There was also a separate damage and casualties article for the 2010 Haiti earthquake which is similar to what you've been discussing. Filipinohere (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now although in a few weeks time once the article is in better shape a Turkey/Syria split could be reconsidered because of the big differences between the countries Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple earthquakes, Not one.

The line "unusually strong M_w 7.7 aftershock" in the lead is Original Research.

No, just because the 2nd major earthquake was slightly less in magnitude and also within the same larger fault zone does not mean that it was an aftershock of the first one. There is an assumption being made here on wikipedia and in some off wikipedia sources that this second earthquake was an aftershock, this is a wrong assumption and there have been no seismologists that have actually made the case for this second earthquake being an aftershock of the first. By the logic of the way the article is now, any earthquake that happens in this general area x amount of time in the future is an aftershock simply because it was a lower magnitude than the larger one that happened. This is of course a problematic logic.

Along the East Anatolian fault zone pressure is constantly building up in many different faults along this larger fault zone. When this pressure reaches a breaking point at a certain plane of contact that results in an earthquake, the activity in this fault can have fore and aftershocks. When pressure reaches breaking point at a different point of contact then an earthquake also occurs there and that earthquake can also have its own aftershocks. And yes pressure being released at any given plane of contact might result in adding pressure elsewhere and pushing that other plane of contact beyond breaking as well. This is NOT an aftershock this is simply another earthquake. Pressure is constantly being built up and released at many different points over time through history and resulting in earthquakes, these are not aftershocks of each other.

Yes I have read the earlier requested move that was closed, it contains no good arguments for why all the other earthquakes should be considered aftershocks because they were smaller, we should immediately open another one or just go ahead and move and edit the article.

Some other sources:

The first earthquake (7.7 magnitude) hit southern Turkey at 4.17 am and was followed by at least 78 aftershocks and then a second earthquake of 7.5 magnitude at 13:24.

Two major earthquakes cause devastation across Turkey and Syria

a second earthquake of magnitude 7.5 struck at 1:24pm local time, further north. This earthquake was not an aftershock: according to the first data processed live by the major international seismological agencies, it would have occurred on an east-west fault crossing-cutting the main rupture trace.

Two Earthquakes That Struck Turkey and Syria

it is very important that it was a double earthquake. Earthquakes of this magnitude at such frequent intervals are extremely rare in the history of geology.

Japanese Geoscientist Kaneda: I had never experienced 2 big earthquakes on the same day before

on the air during the second earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6 in Elbistan.

Elbistan, the epicenter of the second earthquake

How many seconds did the two earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş last... AFAD announced the earthquake durations

Assoc. Dr. Alkan: The second earthquake also surprised me, there is an incredible accumulation of stress in the region.

There were a number of earthquakes, each with their own aftershocks. These sources are referring to the two big ones. The most compelling reason why these were two different earthquakes is that they occurred at adjacent but separate faults, not the same fault. The aftershocks for each of the earthquakes occurred within their respective faults. Gazozlu (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

[3]Its not original research. We originally thought it was a second earthquake, but it was later said to be an aftershock. USGS lists it as one as well. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It was later wrongly said to be an aftershock by journalists in that preliminary article the day of, not geoscientists. All geoscientists have said it was a second earthquake. The information in that article is now defunct as we know that the second earthquake occurred along a different Faultline making it physically impossible to be an aftershock of the same earthquake. That old article states that it was on the same Faultline. Perhaps at that time they did not know it was a separate Faultline. The locations of the aftershocks belonging to the 2nd earthquake reveal clearly that it is another faultline.

It's not a bad assumption to assume that this was just an unusually large and late occurring aftershock, but with the data we have available since it occurred we know better. Newer sources explicitly state that it was "not an aftershock". Gazozlu (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

300km
200miles

  

Epicenters of the two main earthquakes

• I would recommend you start a move discussion asking for the article to be moved to the title you want. Be aware, however, that this proposal has failed twice in a very short time before, so it is unlikely to pass, but you never know. Miracles happen. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial for how to start such a discussion. --Jayron32 19:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Move the article, there were Multiple earthquakes not just one

Requested move 14 February 2023

• 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes
• Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes
• List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake → List of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes

– This was a case of multiple earthquakes. The 2nd largest quake has been erroneously labelled an aftershock of the slightly larger earlier earthquake.

300km
200miles

  

Epicenters of the two main earthquakes

Why is it a separate earthquake and not just an after shock? For 2 reasons, it is almost as large as the first earthquake and not a low enough magnitude to match the time-magnitude drop-off scale that the actual aftershocks of the first earthquake match, and the second reason is because this second earthquake occurred on a completely separate Faultline. Both these two major earthquakes have had their respective aftershocks. See Dr. Rob Govers explanation from 17:58 on (Thanks to 62.20.163.180 for sharing) There were also a number of other earthquakes also with their respective lower in magnitude aftershocks. All in all this was and is a case of a series of earthquakes with their respective aftershocks. As of Feb 13, 2412 aftershocks have been recorded by Kandilli Observatory . Aftershocks may continue even up to a month to a year with decreasing intensity.

Why is it important that we recognise that these were 2 large earthquake? Because it is an rare event of a second earthquake and it has a much different geophysical implication. Dr. Yoshiyuki Kaneda and Dr. Hamdi Alkan also refer to this rare event of a second earthquake occurring. "The first earthquake (7.7 magnitude) hit southern Turkey at 4.17 am and was followed by at least 78 aftershocks and then a second earthquake of 7.5 magnitude at 13:24" "Ten minutes after the strongest earthquake, an aftershock of magnitude 6.7 struck near the epicentre. “Aftershocks” are earthquakes that occur after every major earthquake, and their statistical behaviour is well known. At the time of writing, others continue to affect an area stretching over 350 kilometres from eastern Turkey to the Syrian border. More surprisingly and dramatically, a second earthquake of magnitude 7.5 struck at 1:24pm local time, further north. This earthquake was not an aftershock"

The pages should be moved, the idea that we must "wait for scientific consensus" as to whether it was an 2nd earthquake or "just an aftershock" does not make sense as there is no debate or discussion between geoscientists. There is no consensus coming for something that scientists are not discussing. The data that we have received simply shows a case of 2 earthquakes, "was it a 2nd earthquake or an aftershock" is not something scientists are thinking about. Gazozlu (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Support also because of the impact of the second earthquake. 2,000 buildings collapsed at the town near the epicenter of the second earthquake. Source: https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/deprem-2-bin-binayi-yikti-elbistan-faysiz-yere-tasinacak,3AIlXSlKKEuhonSZcBJsBw Kavas (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose Firstly, we have discussed this already (at least twice). I believe we have agreed on a moratorium for move requests for the main article. It was moved a couple of times already, and the discussions failed to reach a consensus. It isn't good style to keep requesting a move until you get the desired outcome. Secondly, if anything, the list of fore- and aftershocks would have to be moved to List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes, rather than the suggested title. And lastly, the suggestion that there will be no scientific debate is at least WP:CRYSTAL, and possibly just nonsense. If user Gazozlu has insights into the scientific community that are both deep and broad enough to reach such a conclusion then they should provide further evidence for an unusual lack of debate. I am not convinced, because there has been hardly any time for the debate to begin. One more reason to give it at least a few weeks; then we can reconsider. By the way, you'd get more responses if you put a note on the main page that a discussion is in progress. Is there any reason why that note has not been placed? Renerpho (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Final comment has been struck because the page header has now been updated. Renerpho (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, in the prior discussions about the same move, I have voted first in favor of, then against the move. I was convinced by the fact that the USGS has changed their language, referring to it as an aftershock. I also recognize that we have to discuss this again because the situation is unusual (and the second strong shock was so significant). But I think that now is not the time. Renerpho (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just move the page as soon as possible and get this over with. I was not involved in the previous request (of which there was only one of this exact type) to move the page and I have read it through and found it inadequate. I don't mean to be rude but I think you are completely missing the point of what I mean about no debate. There is no debate because there is nothing to debate, the data has shown two earthquakes occurring and this is also what seismologist have reported. There is no case to be made that this second earthquake in a completely different fault was somehow an aftershock of the first earthquake. This does not mean that it wasn't triggered in someway by the earlier earthquake which it likely was, but this does not make it an aftershock. On a larger scale, earthquakes in the whole world are connected, this does not make them aftershocks of each other. I encourage you to watch the explanation by Dr. Rob Govers.I agree with your other comments. Gazozlu (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand your frustration. I think we should just move the page as soon as possible and get this over with. -- I think that of every opinion I hold. I nonetheless try to respect that other people don't share my obviously (not) true opinions. I doubt that there is nothing to debate, given the strong opposition in the previous discussions, and the fact that USGS has actively changed their position on the matter in the days after the event. Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but I legitimately do not see any grounds for debate here. The science points towards 2 earthquakes and this is also overwhelmingly what every geoscientist has said about these earthquakes. I have not seen a single geoscientist that has referred to the second earthquake as an aftershock, not on TV, not online, not in academic articles. The USGS having actively changed their position is a misconception that appeared in the previous discussion based on this article from them. This preliminary report was given too much weight and was likely an editorial judgement taken in the first hours of the quakes. Since then there are only geoscientists that talk about two major earthquakes and their respective aftershocks. If this wasn't the case and there was some mirky waters I would understand but it seems crystal clear right now. Gazozlu (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case then it will also be crystal clear to most other people in a week or two. Maybe even to me. I won't oppose a move if it's clear that it reflects the general scientific consensus. But until the water has cleared, there is no rush. Renerpho (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your reason for thinking that general scientific consensus does not already exist. Gazozlu (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a rush in the sense that the general wikipedia-reading public will continue to be misinformed for 1-2 weeks as everybody is still reading up on the earthquakes while it is hot news. Gazozlu (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about changing the title of the page, right? Not about the content of the article. There is no reason why the article should not reflect the changing ways in which this event is reported - as long as you make sure to actually reflect all the relevant positions, and don't try to misrepresent the facts. Those readers who are still misinformed after that have to read beyond the title (which is generally good advice). Renerpho (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I do see the contents of the page slowly changing towards calling the 2nd earthquake and earthquake rather than an aftershock of the first one as we speak. And yes you are right its about the title of the page but also the contents have the same error. I thought reaching consensus that it was 2 earthquakes here would trigger editors to fix the errors in the article. Gazozlu (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to try it the other way around: Work on the errors in the article, and see if that convinces people to support the move. Just don't push against consensus against things that appear self-evident to you. (Also, try to avoid Youtube lectures as references, people may not be convinced that they are reliable sources.) That's a more productive way to spend your time than stirring up murky waters. Renerpho (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand the initial aversion to YouTube but at the end of the day I expect most editors to understand that the source here is Dr. Rob Govers and Utrecht University department of Geosciences, not YouTube. The things appear evident to me only after I looked at the sources and got convinced and I believed it would become evident to the other editors that looked at these sources as well. Gazozlu (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gazozlu: Just to let you know, I've created Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes as a redirect. I think it's a reasonable search term, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Renerpho (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while a moratorium was proposed during the last move request, the closer of that move request did not mention it during their closing. Thus, I am left to assume that the closer deemed that there was not enough support for a moratorium at the time. As with before, I do agree that a moratorium would be a good idea, especially with this not only being the third attempt in just over a week, but also this coming less than a week prior to the end of the last discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is only the 2nd following no consensus before. The first page move discussion was not about making it plural, it was about changing the name to Gaziantep earthquake. Gazozlu (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how the first one proposing a different target means that we should not count it as a move request. If the issue is that my comment was unclear, then that is my mistake and to make it clear, this is the third move discussion in total since the article was created nine days ago. There has been more days with at least one active discussion than not. It also doesn't help the discussions outside of formal move requests to consider changing the article name for various reasons. (At least one discussion has been ongoing about the official spelling of Turkey in the article name.) This is why I think a break from move requests will be better than repeated proposals and suggestions. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

People need breaks. Articles don't. As i was not really involved in any of the previous rename discussions I don't have that feeling of needing a break, but I understand if you or others might want a break from this article. Gazozlu (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The break that I would be seeking would be on further move discussions on this talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose It's too soon for another discussion and editors are rushing into discussion. I previosuly supported a move but there's no distinction between impact from the two large earthquakes and I'm not compelled to support now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is false. There is a very clear distinction between the two large earthquakes. Watch Online lecture: the science behind an earthquake - YouTube at least 18:00 to 22:00. It's not to soon to correct the article. Gazozlu (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you read "there's no distinction between impact from the two large earthquakes" correctly? I'm referring to casualties and damage. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There is considerable distinction considering how far apart they were geographically and the different direction they made buildings shake. There was also a long time gap between them. Buildings that did not collapse during the first did collapse during the second due to the different nature of the vibrations that resonated with buildings in a different way. Their most heavily impact zones also also different on the map and clearly are forming along two different faultlines. Gazozlu (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have specific descriptions of impact from the two earthquakes supported by reliable source such that we can write about them both, I won't support a move at this moment. Very unlikely given they were only a few hours apart.

To address the aftershock/second mainshock; Wikipedians are making their own definition of whether it is or isn't and there's no consensus. It's just messy right now, I'm figuring my way around this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Haha, yes it's very much a Wikipedia problem, the scientific community is already in consensus and they stick to their scientific definitions. Erroneous extrapolations of definitions without understanding them is problematic. Still, things on wikipedia are always supposed to be based on sources, everybody should just look through the sources, especially the lecture. Gazozlu (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In a way, it is a Wikipedia problem, yes. In order to find consensus, you have to convince a bunch of non-experts of some pretty difficult and technical concepts. And that is hard when the waters are murky. In addition, Wikipedia works under the assumption that it's better to wait than to rush things. That's one reason why Wikipedia usually doesn't allow the same move request to be put forward within a few days of each other, no matter if it's the right thing to do. You have to give people time to relax and think. If what you propose is right then it will still be right in a week. Or the week after that. Renerpho (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought people would actually watch the 2-3 minutes of the video i presented before commenting. I guess I was wrong about that. Gazozlu (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your video, it is a YouTube link, which means that WP:RSPYT applies: Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. In this case, I will confirm that the video was published on the official YouTube channel for Utrecht University, which can be confirmed through the link at the bottom of the official website for Utrecht University. After that, the person needs to know or discover that Utrecht University is considered a top University in the world by some rankings. And even with all that, you need to confirm if Rob Govers should be considered a reliable source as it is Govers' work in the video and not the University's. If this had been covered in some form in the initial proposal or in a follow-up comment, then I think people would have considered checking the YouTube link. But without that information, it means that we have a video from a supposed expert without the proof that they are who they say they are and that they are giving verifiable and reliable information. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a very interesting video. There's a lot of info, mostly preliminary, from the scientific community. Again, trying to sort those out. I agree anything about the geology of the earthquakes should only come from the experts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I put my stand (weak oppose) because the move discussion is just too soon and I don't think a lot of editors would change their stance (we know at least one other now opposes). Trying to develop more info about the second earthquake when possible; that should be priority. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Bookmarked; I'll watch it later. I may not agree with the move, but nonetheless, thanks for the source, Gazozlu. Renerpho (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close - Another RM on the same topic was closed just four days ago. Give it some time before proposing the move again. Estar8806 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose

"it is almost as large as the first earthquake."

So not as strong, got it. It's an aftershock.

"This second earthquake occurred on a completely separate Faultline"

That doesn't matter. It is a shock that occurred after. It's an aftershock.

Here's the dictionary definition for you:

/ˈaftərˌSHäk/

noun

a smaller earthquake following the main shock of a large earthquake.

This was a smaller earthquake that followed a larger one. It's an aftershock. This discussion has already been had, and this was the consensus that was reached. Gflare (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The details matter here and you are glossing over them. No it's not an aftershock, by that definition every single earthquake that happens anywhere from now on is an aftershock. Please actually look at the explenation. Gazozlu (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftershocks as strong as Turkey’s second earthquake are rare and unpredictable (nbcnews.com)

I've looked at it, it's just incorrect. Regardless of what you think, the professional consensus (from the people who actually know what they are talking about) is that it is an aftershock; an unusually powerful one, yes, but an aftershock. See attached article. Gflare (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is outdated and based on initial assumptions. It states that it was classified as an aftershock because "It occurred within one fault line of the initial quake". We now know that the second earthquake was in a different faultline. Gazozlu (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That definition varies across seismologists but consensus is still unclear. This article on The Conversation says it's not an aftershock. Note it's dated 10 Feb; the article Gflare gave is dated 7 Feb. The USGS event page does not call it an aftershock either. Take it slow and look through sources critically (and discuss when possible) before making a decision. I don't know why Wikipedians are so anal and rushing to form a definition it to their deaths. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, not only does it not call it an aftershock, it explicitly states that it was not an aftershock, as do the other sources that I had provided. I must say I am quite disappointed that people have apparently not looked at the sources I provided in my initial opening text, but rather seem to be treating this as a vote. Gazozlu (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's still new sources saying it was an aftershock and new sources reporting it wasn't.

We don't need technical names up to date to the very second or else we will be bouncing back and forth between rms every day.

Give it more time and we can revisit this because right now this is just becoming annoying. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no new scientific sources calling it an aftershock. It's expected that wrong information continues to resonate in less reliable sources, especially on things that are seemingly semantics. The solution is simple, we give due weight to scientific sources and don't give undue weight to a journalist who is simply referring to it as an aftershock because they don't know any better. Gazozlu (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We initially thought it was a second mainshock, then scientific sources said it was an aftershock, now we're seeing sources say "mainshock" and "aftershock".

Changing this is going to require restructuring the 3 articles you mentioned here and many others. Wikipedia by nature isn't up to date on every little thing.

Wait another week because we just had this a few days ago. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose (and speedy close + moratorium) per @Renerpho

Please just WP:SNOW this DarmaniLink (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I'm actually in full agreement with this proposal but now is not the time to bring this forward. There is no rush. Mikenorton (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose Already discussed with no consensus a week ago. It's too early for any further actions on this matter. --DragonFederal (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close The proposer should have waited longer before suggesting a move request that was discussed less than a week ago. Ecrusized (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support - this is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a geological essay. From the public point of view, there were 2 major earthquakes of close to the same strength, close enough in time and location to be considered part of the same event, along with lots of more minor ones over a large area (including 3 in the Israel-Palestine area, reported by Israeli media as having been felt in the settlement of Ariel). And aftershocks are earthquakes. Animal lover |666| 11:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support - I originally moved the page to this title on the day the second earthquake happened, yet it was unilaterally moved back --- Tbf69 P • T 11:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per Animal lover Chidgk1 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

COMMENT - The lecture by Dr. Rob Govers (Associate professor of Tectonophysics at Utrecht University) has been edited, the relevant timestamps have changed. Watch from 13:36 to 14:26. Although I encourage everyone participating in this discussion to watch at least from 9:20 to 17:16 as he does a great job in explaining the difference between the two earthquakes in a simplified way.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment - WP:DROPTHESTICK We had this discussion not even a full week ago and we're seeing the same arguments used again. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Question There are other sources other than USGS that do not come actually from USGS? In France, there is a consensus of authoritative sources (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Commission for Atomic Energy...) that it is not an aftershock but the USGS has sown some discord in all this. An expert in Temblor company promotes the hypothesis of a Coulomb stress transfer Wormanseder (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose and close Can we have some kind of moratorium on this? I reiterate what I said previously; it does NOT look like there is a clear consensus among reliable sources out there in the world <waves hand vaguely> for us to decide which is better, so the status quo should remain unless we can. That situation has not become more clear in the few days since the last discussion closed. Lets give this a few months to shake out, and see if reliable sources coalesce around using the singular or plural to describe this. --Jayron32 15:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like there IS a clear consensus among reliable sources that discuss the nature of what happened. Out of the sources presented in this discussion, all of them talking about the detail of what happened refer to two distinct earthquakes and several also explain why it was indeed two earthquakes and not an aftershock. The amount of sources that explain why the second earthquake should be considered an aftershock are 0. Gazozlu (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposing a move moratorium until 15 March 2023

It seems every day we get a new request or a new person mentions earthquake vs earthquakes. Some recent RS are saying it was coulomb stress transfers while others are saying it was an aftershock.

Lets formally decide to let the dust settle. Edit notice: There was a brain typo previously where aftershock was replaced with mainshock. I don't believe this changes the proposal, but its worth disclosing the edit occurred. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support We have talked about a move moratorium in the previous two move request discussions. Two failed move requests, and a third one that appears unlikely to succeed, within nine days is enough. There seems to be little chance to reach a consensus right now, and we can't continue like that. I am not opposed to discussing a move again once things have calmed down a bit. Renerpho (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Per Renerpho. These discussions and requests with no consensus needs to stop. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The Coulomb Stress transfer theory supports that it was NOT an aftershock. The previous discussion was also overwhelmingly in support of moving the article to plural.--Gazozlu (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Typo, while others were saying it *was* an aftershock.

The previous discussion closed with no consensus. That's not overwhelmingly in support. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah there was significantly more support than oppose. Gazozlu (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a fourth move discussion that I don't know about??? Renerpho (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's 2 up right now and 2 that failed previously DarmaniLink (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is the other one? Gazozlu (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Rename to 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake DarmaniLink (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Everything that Gazozlu is saying may be correct. Even if I concede that, I still don't know that this justifies discussing the matter ad nauseum. If the current move request fails, which it may, then I think we need to stop trying to move it for a while. This is not about who is right or wrong on the facts, this is about whether or not it is useful to have repeated requests to add a single letter to the title of the article. If the requests keep failing, maybe giving it a rest for a month is a good idea. --15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)