Jump to content

Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 238: Line 238:
=== Considering the Most Recent Earthquake... ===
=== Considering the Most Recent Earthquake... ===
* I believe it may be worth splitting this discussion in light of the most recent earthquake. I understand this may be unorthodox, but this event vastly changes the discussion. So, I am a '''support''' in changing the name of the article to plural for this reason. (and if anyone supported prior for the reason of this event feel free to re-support here) [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
* I believe it may be worth splitting this discussion in light of the most recent earthquake. I understand this may be unorthodox, but this event vastly changes the discussion. So, I am a '''support''' in changing the name of the article to plural for this reason. (and if anyone supported prior for the reason of this event feel free to re-support here) [[User:DarkSide830|DarkSide830]] ([[User talk:DarkSide830|talk]]) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' - Depending on severity of the new event it should likely have it's own article. Similar to how the aftershock [[2011 Christchurch earthquake]] is separate from the mainshock [[2010 Canterbury earthquake]] article. --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 20:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


== Proposing a move moratorium until 15 March 2023 ==
== Proposing a move moratorium until 15 March 2023 ==

Revision as of 20:05, 20 February 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. Already discussed. Too many move requests. --DragonFederal (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strong Support Earthquakes are named according to their epicenter. Many countries can be damaged by an earthquake. The "epicenter" of the earthquake is the name of the earthquake. The title should be changed to Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Tahriqedicii (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was the nominator of the original proposal, but I still have to oppose this nomination because not enough time has passed to justify a new one. Betseg (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The common name appears to be "2023 Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş earthquakes".--Gazozlu (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support The name should be "2023 Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş earthquakes" as it was two major earthquake event with epicenters in Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş provinces of Turkey. PointOfViewGun (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to @PointOfViewGun Both epicenters were in Turkey. When naming earthquake articles, we take the epicenters as our main focus. 2010 Chile earthquake shook Argentina as well and some aftershocks literally happened in Argentina, but the article is "2010 Chile earthquake"; not "2010 Chile-Argentina Earthquake". Because "it was also felt there and made the most damage" is extremely vague. Many earthquakes affect more than one country. I don't ever remember an earthquake was attributed to two countries when the epicenter was only in one. If there's a similar article already on Wikipedia, please enlighten us.
This earthquake was felt from many countries, Syria was one of them but giving the reason "Syria was affected the most" doesn't make it the source country.
It is vague, it is confusing and it is wrong. Koko the tabby cat (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The map in the article (at the beginning of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Earthquakes section) currently refers to the two strongest shocks individually as the Marash-Ekinözü earthquake, and the Gaziantep earthquake. It does not mention a Kahramanmaras earthquake. The file itself is named 2023 Gaziantep-Marash Earthquakes. Are any of those names commonly used? Renerpho (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Maraş" is the former name of "Kahramanmaraş" as the "Kahraman" name (means "hero") was added after the Turkish Independence War. They are often used interchangeably. You can also check the Wiki article for Marash and the first sentence in hte article make that connection quite clearly. PointOfViewGun (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article, there were Multiple earthquakes not just one

Requested move 14 February 2023

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

Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
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[1] 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 [2]. 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.[3][4] "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"[5] "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"[6]

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.

References

  1. ^ Govers, Rob (14 February 2023). "The science behind an earthquake". Utrecht: Utrecht University – via YouTube. ORCID 0000-0001-7148-8857
  2. ^ "Artçı depremler ne kadar sürecek, ne zaman durur, devam edecek mi? Kahramanmaraş artçı depremler tehlikeli mi normal mi, neden bitmiyor?". 2023-02-13.
  3. ^ https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/japon-yer-bilimci-kaneda-ayni-gunde-2-buyuk-depremi-daha-once-tecrube-etmedim-2051841
  4. ^ https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/siyaset/kahramanmaras-merkezli-buyuk-deprem-doc-dr-alkan-ikinci-deprem-bizi-de-sasirtti-bolgede-inanilmaz-bir-stres-2049191
  5. ^ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p304
  6. ^ https://theconversation.com/why-have-so-many-earthquakes-hit-turkey-and-syria-199630

Gazozlu (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I do not understand your reason for thinking that general scientific consensus does not already exist. Gazozlu (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thanks for the link. This article is the most authoritative source I have seen yet, and it explicitly calls it an aftershock. It's unlikely that the USGS have changed their mind on this, as their reasoning still holds, and they explicitly refute Rob Govers's argument (not that they appear to be aware of it), saying that neither the similar magnitude ("About one in every 20 large-magnitude earthquakes will have a similar-sized aftershock near it within the first week") nor the different fault ("Aftershocks don’t always occur on the same fault as the mainshock") prevent it being an aftershock. Armouredduck (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's a matter of converging definition. The Turkish, Western European and Japanese experts seem to explicitly regard such contingent events as another earthquake, i.e. not just an aftershock and their reasoning seems consistent.
The Americans (USGS) seem to not be as conservative in their usage of the term aftershock for such contingent events as is made evident from their most recent article. The idea that they are explicitly refuting an argument by Rob Govers is misplaced, Rob Govers is giving an educational lecture and simply explaining why such an event is not considered, just an aftershock based on the established academic understanding. Gazozlu (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Rob Govers is a professor of tectonophysics who teaches at the doctoral level and has authored or co-authored dozens of peer-reviewed articles. If he isn't a subject matter expert, nobody is. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to hear. But that wasn't in the initial proposal or a follow-up comment explaining why the YouTube link was relevant, which is a bit of a problem. Govers is not a well known professor, so it made it difficult to determine how important and accurate his lecture was. At least he can be consider an expert source now, though I think that there is still the issue of reliable sources that continue to prefer earthquake: AP, Reuters, CNN, Guardian, Bloomberg, PBS, ABC, etc. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is not based on initial assumptions. It is based on the definition it links to, which has not changed. The definition clarifies that "within one fault line" should read "within 1-2 fault lengths. So the fact that it is on a different fault is irrelevant, per the USGS definition. Armouredduck (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where does it say that it is not an aftershock? I see no such statement. Armouredduck (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose (and speedy close + moratorium) per @Renerpho
Please just WP:SNOW this DarmaniLink (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There was an ongoing discussion to rename the article. A tag was placed in the article explicitly stating not to move the article during an active discussion. So clearly that rule was violated. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Animal lover Chidgk1 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Question There are other sources other than USGS that do not come actually from USGS (edit: so with an expert advice that the 2nd was a aftershock, not from press articles copying each other)? 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    No, there is not. Multiple reliable sources still use the singular. You can't cherry pick only those sources that support what you want. There are many such sources referring to the event in the singular. Those are all published in the last 24 hours. I'm not saying singular is necessarily the only choice, there are sources that refer to the event in the plural as well. The point is, where there are two reasonable options, there's no rationale for switching from one to the other right now. Some time (say a month or so) may allow a better consensus to emerge out in the world. There isn't one today. --Jayron32 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to make a distinction between a news article that is simply mentions "the eathquake" in the title of the article and sources that discuss the actual earthquakes themselves. The sources you posted also refer to multiple earthquakes in the body of the articles and none of them refer the second as an aftershock.
    But again, this is not about finding news articles that refer to earthquake vs earthquakes, this is about asking what the general consensus is among reliable sources that are actually about the nature of these earthquakes based on analysis of the data. Gazozlu (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia guidance says to use the most common name to refer to something, even if it is not official or "correct" by some other metric. It matters how the event is referred to in sources, as that gives us an indication of what others are calling it. We're talking about how to name the event, not how to describe it. If sources are naming it in the singular and naming it in the plural in similar proportion, then we don't have a basis to change it right now. --Jayron32 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per arguments nominator. Beshogur (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As of today, another two earthquakes one of 6,4 and other 5,8 were recorded. So these aren't "aftershocks", definitely multiple earthquakes. Beshogur (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am only active on the Dutch Wikipedia so I will refrain from taking a position here. However, maybe the following will help. 'We' solved it by calling the 10:24 UTC event an aftershock while explaining that it has also been reported as a doublet and as a second earthquake, possibly triggered by the first. The following sentence was added (here loosely translated): "Ian Main, professor of Seismology and Rock Physics at the University of Edinburgh, called it an issue of semantics or classification.[1]" Hiro (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not an English wikieditor either, but I would like to contribute some considerations for discussion that seem to have not been mentioned. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, therefore it should be guided by what reliable sources establish. If existing sources do not determine a general consensus on a topic, Wikipedia should not express a preferential stance on either side, it should simply state that there is no consensus and show both sides. The name of the article shouldn't only depend on what science determines about whether one earthquake was an aftershock of the other, but also on facts.
    Did two major earthquakes occur? Yes, it's a fact. Did the second one cause great damage and victims? Yes, it's a fact. Are the affected cities in the second earthquake different from those in the first? Yes, it's a fact.
    It's only necessary to argue with sources for the answers to these three questions so that the name "earthquakes" is properly supported over "earthquake" without waiting for the USGS to decide.
    My suggestion is to name the article "2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes." Argue in the structure of the article the importance of the second earthquake. Make it clear in the "Aftershocks" section that there is a debate with sources supporting the hypothesis of "two independent earthquakes" and that of "aftershock". JTequida (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a counterpoint, we already have a redirect from "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes" to this article, so our focus is with regarding more to WP:COMMONNAME. Currently our sources use Turkey as the spelling of the country, so we have it as Turkey in the title. Very few sources are calling this the "Gaziantep earthquake(s)" or the "Kahramanmaras earthquake(s)" so we don't use those names. And finally, our sources have primarily gone back to saying it was just one earthquake, so that is what we are currently using. I think more time is needed to see if sources change on any of these three things. With regards to just this move request, time is needed to see if sources switch back to calling the events "earthquakes" over just "earthquake" before we can switch. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again? Oppose for the same reason as before: 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 only be pedantic, and confusing to the general reader. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find the arguments that the very best sources—the ones we should be relying upon—largely agree that these were two separate earthquakes compelling. This is a descriptive name, not a proper name (as evinced by how all sources are using sentence case), so we need not and should not follow the practices of inferior sources merely because they are more prevalent. I find the large number of people opposing solely because there were other recent discussions quite improper, especially the ones saying that the supports are correct on the merits but they oppose anyway. It's obvious from reading this discussion that the scientific consensus is clearer than it was previously, clear enough to justify the move. (We live in the information; the knowledge landscape can change that quickly.) Maybe it will stay that way, maybe new controversy will emerge; either way, we must follow the scientific consensus as it currently exists. If it changes again, we'll just move it back, no biggie. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support It is correct and appropriate to say these were two main earthquakes, not a single earthquake; those were followed by aftershocks, but two main events mean the article should be titled "earthquakes", in plural. Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; see Animal lover's support comment. SabreOnYouTube (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I supported the original proposal, but not enough time passed since then to justify the new proposal. Betseg (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find votes like this rather vexing. Why oppose something you think is an improvement? Because the normal process for improving the encyclopedia is disruptive? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK this is just going to end in a no consensus stalemate again until we have more information DarmaniLink (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compassionate727: Please read the page WP:BLUDGEON. Repeatedly starting move requests, over and over again, after each one fails, often within hours of the prior one being closed, is the definition of "bludgeoning the process". Also, not everything has to be done NOW. Thinking the article should probably be moved, but also recognizing the futility and disruptive nature of this kind of neverending discussion, is perfectly fine. It's okay to let things settle for a month or so and then come back to the discussion when the matter is more settled. --Jayron32 18:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with bludgeoning and understand why moratoriums exist: to prevent endless discussion of issues that are well-settled and have no chance of leading to anything. The fact that such a large percentage of people support this move (if I exclude all the votes that opposed out of weariness, either without commenting on the merits of the proposal or actually expressing agreement with them, I count eight supports and four opposes) suggests to me that consensus is not settled and that opposing on the basis of a moratorium that was never actually imposed is a misuse of process to stifle discussion. Yes, not everything needs to be done now, but there is also no reason we shouldn't do it now if we agree that it should be done, which my reading of this discussion suggests most of us do. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its because we DON'T agree that it should be done, which is why the last proposal (and this one is set to) end in no consensus. Having the same failed move request twice along with several discussions regarding it is extremely disruptive and frankly whether or not there's an 's' at the end is an anal retentive detail that isn't worth the level of disruption that a no consensus stalemate, multiple times in a row, brings.
Its something that can be settled as a later date, one the geologists (not us) form their consensus DarmaniLink (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727: if I exclude all the votes that opposed out of weariness ... I count eight supports and four opposes -- I've got good news for you: That ratio will continue to move in your favour with every new move request that's opened. If you want to turn this into a war of attrition, you are going to win. People eventually stop discussing the topic, and jump to the most obvious (and strongest) argument, regardless of their actual opinion on the matter. That they become annoyed by going through the same bureaucratic process over and over again is not a valid argument for anything. Renerpho (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If people who opposed in the previous RM want low effort here, IMO it's fine to just say "oppose for same reasons as last time" and anyone interested (e.g., the closer) can read the previous discussion and weigh those arguments. That doesn't really answer my question of why someone like Betseg, who supports the move, would oppose solely because the last discussion was too recent. But maybe I'm not going to understand and it's not worth continuing to discuss this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727: All they said was that not enough time passed since then to justify the new proposal. Wanting to wait until things settle down because of repeated discussion is fine. This is the twelfth day that a move request has been active on an article that has existed for sixteen days. In any case, it seems like the user isn't going to answer your question so I guess we will not know how they would have responded to your request for an explanation. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Compassionate727, it does not seem like @Betseg has addressed the new sources that were not included in the previous discussion. Their vote appears purely procedural which may be fair but will understandably cause frustration. Gazozlu (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - The current article name fits much better than List of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes, because although the largest aftershocks caused extensive damage, they are still aftershocks, and other earthquakes, like the 2011 Tohoku earthquake have articles named like what we currently have, so it would make sense if the article name remains unchanged for consistency purposes. Quake1234 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the slightly larger >M7 which preceded the second >M7 can be seen a foreshock of the later earthquake and vice versa, and they are thought to be part of a larger sequence of earthquakes, the difference with the 2011 Tohoku quake is that the Kahramanmaras quake happened on a different fault than the Gaziantep quake. To the best available knowledge we have, we can see at least two separate distinct lines of faulting very clearly. The Tohoku quakes however can be understood as one line of faulting related to a single subduction zone if i'm not mistaken, where the mainshock was also almost 2 magnitudes higher than the fore and aftershocks. The premise for recognizing these two earthquakes in Turkey as related but distinct earthquakes lies in the separate faults that they occurred and the fact that the two were almost the same magnitude, whereas to be considered an aftershock the magnitude should be at least 1 whole magnitude lower. This is corroborated by the reliable sources at the top, which explicitly state that the 2nd >M7 was not just an aftershock of the first >M7.
Hence the logic in pluralizing the article title lies in that the article is about a sequence including two main quakes of the same caliber with their own distinct area of aftershocks, rather than being about a single quake and its fore/aftershocks. Gazozlu (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazozlu: I think you are mistaken as to what the problem is. As far as I can tell, this does not address what the reasoning is for removing "foreshocks and aftershocks of the" from List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake(s). Can you clarify that since it does not seem to be in the original proposal? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Super Goku V Quake1234 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, yes I see you are referring only to the 3rd proposal. I support 1st and 2nd proposal and agree about the 3rd. I will change that proposal. Gazozlu (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazozlu: I am guessing that the third proposal's original target was a mistake. Regardless, both WP:Requested moves and List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake show the request being to move to "List of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes" instead of your updated target. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have made a thread here for the WP:RM issue. Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second update: CX Zoom took care of the issue so everything is now correct. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the closer, please note the move moratorium listed under this proposal. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note the concurrently running "move request" at the top of the page. It was not properly listed as such, but it is actively voted on nonetheless, and should be considered a move request in all but name. I suppose both can be closed at the same time (with both being considered individually). Renerpho (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Most Recent Earthquake...

  • I believe it may be worth splitting this discussion in light of the most recent earthquake. I understand this may be unorthodox, but this event vastly changes the discussion. So, I am a support in changing the name of the article to plural for this reason. (and if anyone supported prior for the reason of this event feel free to re-support here) DarkSide830 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Depending on severity of the new event it should likely have it's own article. Similar to how the aftershock 2011 Christchurch earthquake is separate from the mainshock 2010 Canterbury earthquake article. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support Per Renerpho. These discussions and requests with no consensus needs to stop. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah there was significantly more support than oppose. Gazozlu (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It ended 27-20. That's not overwhelming. That's no consensus. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a fourth move discussion that I don't know about??? Renerpho (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's 2 up right now and 2 that failed previously DarmaniLink (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the other one? Gazozlu (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Rename to 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake DarmaniLink (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you count that then you should probably count the Türkiye ones as well. Gazozlu (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No matter if you count that or not: None of the discussions on this page have shown overwhelming support for anything. If you were referring to them then I don't understand how you reached that conclusion (except if you were counting your own opinion twice, of course). Renerpho (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the previous discussion to move the articles name to the plural earthquakes which had much more support in favour of moving to plural and was closed as no consensus anyway. Gazozlu (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Thisisahumanboi's thread was not submitted as a formal move request, but just as a general discussion to see if there was support or not. ("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.") However, a separate user who commented in the discussion decided to manually add User:RMCD bot/subject notice to the article under the apparent belief that the discussion was a move request, which I removed in this edit. Thus, there have only been three discussions that have appeared at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that earlier and got confused. Worth mentioning for technical reasons. Either way, 3 isn't too different from 4 in WP:DTS territory DarmaniLink (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, Super Goku V. The number of concurrent discussions on this page is hurting my brain. Renerpho (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plus with all the "votes" it looks like a mv req so its really easy to see it as a move request DarmaniLink (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess it does. I hadn't considered that at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Jayron32 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Assuming the previous unsigned comment is by Jayron32: I agree, and I also think that there is a strong case to be made for everything that Gazozlu is saying. Hence why I am open to discuss this again in a month. Renerpho (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in favor of seeing this through now rather than leaving it for 1 month, because the article is being heavily read right now so timing does make a difference. Why do I not see the point of waiting one month? Because the amount of sources that explain the details of why it was an aftershock will still remain 0 in one month. Gazozlu (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTDEMOCRACY DarmaniLink (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia is an website that gathers information. It is not a science journal. Wikipedia editors are not experts, and do not have the duties such as reviewing scientific articles. Thus, we should not wait for additional scientific research so that some non-expert Wikipedians decide on this technical issue to name an article. The first earthquake caused a very severe damage. The second earthquake, although less strong than the first one, also caused significant damage. 2,000 buildings only collapsed in Elbistan in this second big earthquake. How is it possible the article's name should only mention the first earthquake, and the second eerthquake which is the one of biggest earthquakes in history (both in magnitude and damage) is not mentioned in the article title (for 1 month at least)? Kavas (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second earthquake/7.7 aftershock has substantial cover in the article. Nobody even came close to pretending that it didn't exist. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: February 6th: The first move request; February 7th to 10th: The second move request; February 14th and Ongoing: The third move request. In the twelve days that this article has existed, there has been an active move request for eight of them. This does not include the various unrelated and related discussions about the title that were not formal move discussions. Simply put, there are users who disagree with the current name, but there has yet to be a consensus to move the article to a specific title. Another move discussion soon after the current one will likely not result in consensus. We need time for sources to be written and updated to make it clearer what the second major event was (whether an aftershock or earthquake) for one side of the issue and to see if a potential WP:COMMONNAME develops both for the location of the earthquake (Gaziantep or Kahramanmaras) and for the name of one of the countries (whether Turkey remains the COMMONNAME or if Türkiye supersede it) so as to be able to reach a decision on if the article should be moved. And, to make it clear to those that do want the article moved, WP:MORATORIUM says that [a]n existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so. If new evidence comes in that provides a reason to move the article, then we can hold a discussion to see if there is support to ending this proposed moratorium early. This moratorium will give us time to see what develops while allowing us the ability to still take action sooner if agreed upon. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are too many concurrent points to discuss. We should first establish a consensus on weather to consider the second earthquake an aftershock or not in all the prose of the relevant articles, independent of any discussions of what the title of those articles should be. We seem to already have enough sources to be able to determine the status of the 2nd quake right now, whereas in contrast determining Wikipedia:COMMONNAME could benefit from more time.
In the mean time there is no need to rush in closing the move proposal. Gazozlu (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with most of this. We can discuss the points, but we should wait until we get a better and clearer picture. If it was clear that there was enough current evidence to come to a consensus on what the second major event was, then I would not be voting in support of a moratorium. As it stands following this archived discussion from last week, I don't see how there has been enough time that would change the consensus we already have on the matter of the second major event, so I fail to see why we need to reconsider the classification of the second major event at this time. Additionally, I am confused a bit about your comment that there is no need to rush in closing the move proposal. I do not see where in the prior comment I said or implied that we should have the third move request end early, though I am sorry if that is how you interpreted it. Can you point out the specific line so that I can determine if I need to strike part of it out? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --DragonFederal (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All of these earthquakes occurred in such close succession to one another that it is silly to treat them as separate events. They are obviously sub-units of the same collective event. It's not like Turkiye has had one (huge+deadly) earthquake in February and then is going to have another (huge+deadly) earthquake in July (well, it might)... Using the plural "earthquakes" makes it sound like there were multiple different earthquakes spread far apart from one another chronologically, which is misleading. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone supporting. Betseg (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The First Earthquake was on the Dead Sea Transform Fault, no?

"7.7'lik deprem Ölüdeniz fayında olmuştur. Doğu Anadolu Fayı'nı tetiklemiştir. Dolayısıyla orada da 7.6 olmuştur. Bu akademik bir şey. İki deprem var.https://www.karar.com/guncel-haberler/prof-naci-gorurden-istanbul-uyarisi-aklimizi-basimiza-toplayalim-1728932 https://www.cnnturk.com/yasam/kahramanmaras-depremi-sonrasinda-uzmanlarin-uyari-verdigi-iller-yerler-fay-hatti-bilgileri

Gazozlu (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making the assumption that "Ölüdeniz Fault" is the Dead Sea Transform? I don't see DST mentioned anywhere. In those links. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an assumption. I can read Turkish. Check this map https://twitter.com/Paleosismolog/status/1624717599471726592/photo/1. Dead Sea Transform is called Dead Sea Transform because the type of fault that it is, is a transform fault. Gazozlu (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So please clarify what's the connection between "Ölüdeniz Fault" and DST? I still don't understand what you are trying to say. I looked at a few sources that mentioned "Ölüdeniz fayında" in relation to the earthquake but nothing about the DST. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that Ölüdeniz = Dead Sea? Does that clear things up? Gazozlu (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking for. Alright I'll see how I can develop the article with new info. Thanks for clearing up. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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."
In the AFAD report says the first event occurred on the DST. The report contradicts itself when comparing to the maps they supplied. It's clearly on the EAF. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) There is I think no doubt that the first shock was caused by rupture along the western part of the East Anatolian Fault (EAF). The Sentinel 1 results make that clear. The geologist interviewed in the source presented at the top of this section also states that it was the EAF that ruptured, although perhaps he views that as a continuation of the Dead Sea Transform (DST), that's not clear. Just to note that the EAF is also a transform, joining with the DST at the Marash Triple Junction, an FFF type triple junction. Mikenorton (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? According to the coordinates of the epicenter of first earthquake, it would be here on the sentinel 1 map. What area do you consider to be the EAF and what area do you consider to be the DST on the sentinel 1 map? Gazozlu (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naci Görür the geoscientist interviewed in the source at the top states that "the M7.7 earthquake happened on the Dead Sea Fault. It triggered the East Anatolian Fault. Because of this there was a M7.6" (on the EAF). Gazozlu (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As sure as I can be. The Sentinel result show the surface trace of the fault that moved during the two main earthquakes, which matches very closely to the known trace of the EAF. The offset of the epicentre would suggest that the EAF was non-vertical and had a significant dip to the southeast. The mainshock may be relocated eventually and the 3D distribution of the aftershocks will anyway illuminate the full geometry once a full analysis is done. Mikenorton (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a new source. + @Dora the Axe-plorer https://dergi.mta.gov.tr/dosyalar/images/mtadergi/makaleler/tr/20171219111107_1610_1e7384193.pdf According to the abstract, the Narlı segment (Narlı fay segmenti) belongs to the Dead Sea Fault Zone(DST). The location of the Narlı segment is shown on the diagram on p.193 (labelled NFS). The epicenter of the first >M7 is pretty much within the bounds of where the the Narlı segment is, and the Sentinel map also shows there was a considerable activity in this zone. It could be that the Narlı fault zone triggered activity on the south segment of the EAF which triggered activity on the north (Sürgü)segment of the EAF, which would be consistent what Naci Görür is saying.
However I do not discount that the hypocenter down below may be a dip of the EAF under what on the surface level is faulting belonging to the DST. It's interesting to note here the hypocenter depth differences of KOERI and USGS, the shallower (5KM ) estimate by KOERI would make a hypocenter on the DST more likely however the deeper estimate by USGS (~18KM) would make the chances of it being a dip of the EAF more likely. Gazozlu (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS surface rupture map in the source I mentioned below shows that the earthquake ruptured the Karasu (Amanos) Fault segment in addition to the Gölbaşı and Erkenek fault segments (both parts of the EAF). The Karasu fault is regarded as part of the DST, part of the EAF or a transitional structure between the two in different sources. The shallow velocity structure near the M7.8 mainshock may not be well-constrained and it's possible that the location will move. Mikenorton (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A useful new USGS source. Mikenorton (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Turkey and not Türkiye?

Why? 200.69.195.43 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the latest discussion on this topic, see Talk:2023_Turkey-Syria_earthquake/Archive 2#Name of Turkey. Mikenorton (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Tl;dr is that almost nobody commonly uses Türkiye. I mean, we don’t say “USM” for Mexico even though it’s technically the United Mexican States. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer, Until/unless Turkiye becomes the WP:COMMONNAME we're going to be using Turkey in line with Turkey. If they change it there, this will follow suit. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may also find more information in the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) talk page banner at the top of the page. It will be the one with the icon of a question mark on the left side. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rounddown "remove review" tomorrow

I havent been paying too much attention but have the death counts stabilized to the point where single digit precision is due? DarmaniLink (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet I think and there is at the moment an unknown number of missing in both countries. Sadly, more bodies will be found as the rubble is removed. Mikenorton (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of the 7.5 aftershock

Hi, I haven't seen any reference to this, anywhere. Is it anywhere in the article? I've seen the duration of the main earthquake quoted as at least 1 minute (even 1 minute 20 seconds) but have never seen the duration of the aftershock quoted. Would be good to have the relevant durations at the top of the article with all the other brief data listed. Thanks 120.16.87.240 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS give durations as part of their "Finite fault" models for the two earthquakes, 81 seconds for the M7.8 mainshock and 38 seconds for the M7.5 aftershock. Mikenorton (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the duration of the M7.8 mainshock sourced to the USGS. I'm holding back on putting all the details of the M7.5 shock into the infobox as that might appear to be prejudging the results of the renaming discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Thanks for the info on the main aftershock duration & thanks for having a look at the whole thing for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.87.240 (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo needs fixing

Hi, minor issue. Can't edit the page.

Under "sports" there is a grammatical error where it mentions Christian Astu's death. It says "he had be found dead".

Please correct, thank you- 118.176.52.32 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mikenorton (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese flag

What's the exact reason of putting the Japanese flag and not the Turkish flag? Either remove both, or add Turkish one. This is laughable. Beshogur (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The top image which shows collapsed apartments is a fantastic one but I'm just as perplexed and unhappy with the Japanese flag in the collage. How is Japan's flag at half-mast relevant or important such that it has to appear in the infobox? I'll ping @Adem since he's the one who changed the infobox image. Can you replace that Japanese flag with another image? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedbacks. Firstly, I don't see anything laughable @Beshogur. Is it laughable for a country its flag at half-mast for victims or use it? Please keep your personal comments to yourself.
In fact, there was a Turkish flag taken during the mourning, but it was not so well posed, so i chose the flag of Japan. Yes, the importance of this is negotiable and I see objections as normal. If a different perspective or comment doesn't come, I can replace with Turkish flag or another image in the evening. -- Adem (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is so ridiculous about mourning and lowering of flags in most countries of the world? I think it's an important event and it's only natural to have your photo in the collage. Kurmanbek (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaziantep earthquake is stronger than 1668 North Anatolia earthquake.

1668 North Anatolia earthquake is estimated to have had a magnitude of about 7.8 - 8.0 Ms as stated on its Wikipedia page, source. The Gaziantep earthquake has a magnitude of 8.0 Ms, as stated on the USGS website source. Ms_20 and Ms are units of measure that give the same magnitude source, source2 p. 83.

An earthquake with a strength of exactly average 8.0 Ms magnitude is stronger than an earthquake with a strength between 7.8 - 8.0 Ms. Therefore, I think that this earthquake is the strongest earthquake in Turkey in the last 2000 years. While the maximum prediction for 1668 North Anatolia is 8.0 Ms, the average value for Gaziantep earthquake is 8.0 Ms. Among 646 stations, 302 stations have recorded 8.0 or greater magnitude for Gaziantep earthquake.

Gaziantep USGS 7.8 Mww, USGS 8.0 Ms_20; Erzincan USGS 7.8 Mw, Kandilli 7.9 Ms, ISC 7.8 Ms; 1668 North Anatolia 7,8 ~ 8.0 Ms. Hakan Duran (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Turkey–Syria_earthquakes&oldid=1140589777"