This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Tohoku University seismologist that was interviewed has a wiki article, but it is in Japanese, can anyone link the Japanese language wiki page to get to the page about Shinji Toda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.117.146 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Casualties by Turkish province
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The table displaying deaths by provinces needs to be updated with the death toll rising. Can editors literate in Turkish find sources to update them? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The humanitarian aid section is back to listing off countries
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This seems like it might potentially get too long and might need to have a ton of stuff moved to the main article.
What do you guys think? DarmaniLink (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I made a few edits to trim it down. Might need a few others to see what else needs to be trimmed and reworked. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Building codes
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article is newsworthy because the earthquake happened in highly populated area where building codes were not enforced. In many videos we see relatively new buildings turned into pancakes. A section about Turkey building regulations and adherence to them is absolutely essential then. A good place to start: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/07/1154816277/turkey-syria-earthquake-why-buildings-collapsedR Alexandrov (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I feel like there could be some pictures regarding the collection of donations by Turkish Embassies around the world, either in this article or the one about the humanitarian response. Maybe an example can be this one which I just uploaded. Any thoughts? SBS6577P (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
if you have a source to show that it was part of the donations/humanitarian effort it can be included DarmaniLink (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah here is the official announcement from the Turkish Embassy in Singapore [1] and also from local Singaporean news sites [2][3][4]. All of these mention 10 Genting Lane as the collection point. SBS6577P (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Error
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Due to Edit conflict some error happened and many information got deleted without intension WikiEdits2003 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Strongest earthquake in recorded history in Turkey?
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
With a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent) and a magnitude of 7.8 Mww, it is tied with the 1939 Erzincan earthquake as the strongest earthquake to hit Turkey in recorded history.
Unless we have a Richter scale for these earlier earthquakes, it and the 1939 earthquake are the strongest recorded. We can add a statement about other earthquakes which are believed to be at least as strong, but they are not "recorded" in the same way Animal lover|666| 11:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it actually means instrumentally recorded, as there were no seismometers in 1668. C messier (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You are probably right; the intention is to say it is the strongest scientifically recorded. However, saying it is the strongest "in recorded history" is false. I'll amend (unless it's already been done.) Nø (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Mercalli intensity is a subjective scale. For instance, 1939 Erzincan earthquake has abolished every building but one in the city during night with very cold weather resulting in 40k+ deaths. These realities are what makes it XII (Extreme). This earthquake, on the other hand, was under-reported as 7.4 yesterday morning and there was not enough media coverage of some parts (which we get bad news about constantly now). I think it is possible the Mercalli intensity will be higher if it was re-evaluated now or couple of days later. Can we say it is the strongest earthquake in recorded history in Turkey? I believe so, but we should wait for the definitive number of casualties, injuries, and property damage. Yanekyuk (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
A strong example to the lack of translation from Mercalli intensity to Richter doesn't work: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was intensity VIII in closer places such as Los Gatos, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville but intensity IX in parts of the more distant San Francisco. Animal lover|666| 12:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
At the very least these are the strongest in the history of the Turkish Republic. Borgenland (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
False precision
Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments7 people in discussion
Please avoid false precision such as "1,797 dead, 6,893 injured", which I have just replaced in the infobox with "over 1,700 dead, over 6,800 injured". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Sadly User:Quake1234 keeps restoring a falsely-precise figure, without taking up my invitation to discuss here, apparently in the mistaken belief that being a able to cite a single, dated source is somehow adequate in a tragic case of this scale. They claim that "an exact number is used in the sources", when, in fact, sources differ; and are changing rapidly. Furthermore, their own citation has the title ""Death toll exceeds 1,700 as second quake strikes Turkey", and in its body says (emphasis mine) "At least 1,700 people are believed to have died after two earthquakes struck Turkey and Syria. The confirmed death toll from this morning's earthquake in Turkey has now risen to 1,014, the head of the country's Disaster and Emergency Management Authority has said. The death toll in Syria now stands at 783,". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Quake1234: Using such a value is a violation of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Specifically, the MOS states that "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context". That means that while the precise value is appropriate to the context, it is not stable and thus shouldn't be used here. NoahTalk 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
An exact number, when reported to represent something real, may be used. However, while there are almost certainly people who died and their deaths are still unknown, even exact numbers reported don't represent anything real; it's merely a snapshot of what's known. Even if we had some magical ability to get the current number of known dead at any given time, by the time we publish it the numbers will have gone up. We should only use rounded numbers for that reason until the rescue attempts are over. And this should apply to all earthquakes, everywhere in the world. Animal lover|666| 13:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I could say i am sorry hundreds of times to you. I would normally not be up with using rounded numbers, but since you said you're using them temporarily, I guess I could forgive you Quake1234 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You've done a great job on this article. It was just this one thing that we have complete uncertainty on and anything we write should reflect that until any reasonable uncertainty can be eliminated DarmaniLink (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
We should be using rounded numbers until the dust settles otherwise we'll just end up in an edit scramble every time a higher number comes out and only update every 100 "milestone" from there. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Round to the nearest 100 until the dust settles. Anyone disagree? I'm gonna make that change and if you disagree and think it should be done any other way, lets discuss it DarmaniLink (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Correction, round down to the previous 100. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion: someone should edit {{rounddown}} to enable decimal separator which currently used here in the infobox. Hddty (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought about it but once all the final counts are known and settled I would like to have precise numbers and would rather not risk this becoming a permanent solution any more than it already is.
I didn't know this existed or i would have used it at the start which would have been better than mentally rounding everything down so we could remove the final tallies.
@Quake1234 If you want to add precise numbers every time new ones come out and {rounddown|number|-2} on all of them, then remove the templates after a few days, you got the green light. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I added a rounddown with auto formatting so all you have to do is drop the number in and wikipedia does the rest of the magic. If anyone tries to change it again, please change it back and tell them to go to the talk page to make their case for keeping the precision while tolls are rising. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@DarmaniLink: To attempt to address one of your earlier concerns about this becoming a permanent solution, I have added Template:Update after at the end in this edit. Update after is a template for when it is likely that an update will be required in the future, but that such an update is not needed at this time. It is set to trigger in two weeks so that it can be determined if we should switch back to precise counts. Additionally, I have added in the reason to instead add two weeks to the Update after template if it is not yet a good idea to switch back. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks man, all these cool toys wikipedia has i never knew existed. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
These "cool toys" have not resolved the issue that the lede currently ends with the implausible claim that "7,108 were killed in Turkey and 2,547 in Syria". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:Per USA Today, "Turkey's disaster management agency said the country's death toll passed 12,000 early Thursday. The Turkish news agency Andalou reported that 12,391 people were killed and 62,914 others were injured. The Syrian Health Ministry placed the toll in government-held areas at more than 1,200, and at least 1,400 people have died in the rebel-held northwest, according to the White Helmets volunteer agency." CNN uses similar quotes. This leads me to believe that we should attribute the deaths more to the agency and ministry reports if there are concerns about the figures. Would that work for you? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It's less awful than the bare figures I quoted, but I don't see the need to quote precise figures, when we know that they are inevitably, and sadly, going to change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Palestinians
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It should be noted that the Palestinians killed in Syria were refugees and stateless, so it is misleading to put the flag of Palestine that links to the page of the State of Palestine. Sakiv (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If you include a source for it (nature of wikipedia), then it can be included.
Or you can go ahead and change it to "ethnic Palestinians" DarmaniLink (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it should not be changed to "ethnic Palestinians, any more that the link to Australia should be changed to "ethnic Australians". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I haven’t been able to get any meaningful number on those victims who remain missing. It seems Ankara and Damascus have yet to compile any such data. It would be useful to the article if we can find any reliable sources with confirmed data on the missing Juneau Mike (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Wrong use of caps along with semicolons
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
"Clockwise from top left: A Turkish flag flown at half-mast as a sign of mourning for the victims of the earthquake; A man sitting on a sidewalk in front of collapsed buildings; People surveying the damage after the earthquake; A collapsed police station; Displaced earthquake victims take shelter at an exhibition center" (notice the full stop missing at the end of the only complete sentence and after the numeration) is a wrong use of caps. SLBedit (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@SLBedit: I'm sorry please accept my apologies Moondragon21 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Palm Tree in Main Image and Hypothermia Paradox - Could lead to Underestimation of the Cold
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please consider changing the first image with a palm tree as this might lead some readers to think that hypothermia risk isn't as great. We are talking about lows of at least -10 to -15 degrees Celsius in some parts of the affected region and this serious hypothermia risk should be made apparent so the general public isn't mislead by creating a false perception. Not everyone is aware of the climate of the quake region and a picture taken somewhere else poses a big risk for damaging awareness and creating false impressions. It could help save lives, even though it might appear irrelevant at first glance. 85.153.205.9 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Good point. I believe the montage has been created by JoleBruh. Nataevtalk 18:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Half-mast flag of one country isn't a good candidate for the top level montage. But, I'd not stress too much about the image for now. nafSadhdidsay 22:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Aftershock list is getting both too long and too short
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments7 people in discussion
As it is, currently the list of aftershocks only list the aftershocks that were 5+. Beforehand it was 4+, but then the 4-5's started flooding the list. I take issue with the list just kinda being cut down like this, it kinda underplays the notability of the 4-5's. Now we may be getting to the point where me may have to cut 5-5.3 and only keep 5.4+ on the list. At that point we would be excluding over 100 notable aftershocks from the list.
I can see how the list shouldn't 120-ish aftershocks worth of scrolling. Well, nice argument, but why are we not writing them down anywhere? I say we put the 4.0+ quakes into a collapsed list instead of just deleting them. Nice argument (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
i think the best option would be to rm the list from this page and hyperlink to a new List of Notable Aftershocks in the 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake with all the 4.0 +DarmaniLink (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
What makes the M4–4.9 aftershocks notable? Readers who are interested can look up the aftershocks using this link. Mikenorton (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
notable might the wrong word to chose, remarkable? significant?
Typically that 4.0 is the point where it startles most people DarmaniLink (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
If there's a list, then we have precedent to add one. More information is better than less so long as it isn't WP:UNDUE which this isn't. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
needs to be renamed but I didn't move since there's an under construction tag. don't want to disrupt the editor Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
you're free to move it now if you want DarmaniLink (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see why. Can you clarify? (I also don't see any construction tags.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
It seemed like it needed to be made but nobody was doing it so i went ahead and made it, this should solve this problem we were having DarmaniLink (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, the solution is the map (which we already have) plus perhaps a chart/graph. The table is just going to take over otherwise. I.grok (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Criticism of [Turkish] govt section
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In Turkey the government has provided periodic "construction amnesties" - effectively legal exemptions for the payment of a fee, for structures built without the required safety certificates. These have been passed since the 1960s (with the latest in 2018). Up to 75,000 buildings across the affected earthquake zone in southern Turkey have been given construction amnesties.[1] Turkey's decision to block access to Twitter for about 12 hours from Wednesday afternoon to early Thursday as people scrambled to find loved ones after devastating earthquakes compounded public frustration at the pace of relief efforts. Opposition leaders and social media users criticized the throttling of the platform, which has helped people share information on arriving aid and the location of those still trapped in rubble after the initial tremor on Monday. President Tayyip Erdogan's government has blocked social media in the past and focused in recent months on fighting what it calls "disinformation", which it said prompted the block on Wednesday.[2]
But critics like Ozel point out that national funds meant for natural disasters like this one were instead spent on highway construction projects managed by associates of Erdogan and his coalition government.[3] Turkish engineers had previously warned that cities could become 'graveyards' with building amnesty.[4]
...Just in case someone doesn't want the above to be well known.Oathed (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Oathed (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I have made more additions to this. There are serious allegations (more than allegations, there are photos and videos) concerning forcing of aid to go through governors' offices (political appointees), delays in deploying military, tagging all aid with RTE name or party logos or ruling party slogans, diversion of machinery, limitations on social media, arrests of journalists, etc.. This section needs to be expanded a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9AE7:B400:382B:7B3B:1A0B:E6D1 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It's within the aftershock zone hence part of the larger seismic sequence, yes it is a foreshock. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
False information about maximum Mercalli intensity of earthquake
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
One of the strongest ground motion observed in Turkey earthquake history which is 2.14 g over Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş). Hatay and Kahramanmaraş provinces damages are huge, almost there is no non-damage building over there. Most of them were completely collapsed. Death toll will be increased dramaticly following days. Many Turkish geophysicist professor says that maximum Mercalli intensity of earthquake XII (extreme) according to damage. In spite all of that wikipedia shows maximum Mercalli intensity IX, which is ridiculous according to damage.213.74.67.62 (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The earthquake has been rated on intensity by reliable sources as IX, as you can see at the end of this archived discussion. If you have a reliable source that says the earthquake, and not the damage, had an intensity higher than IX, then please post the source for us to consider. Super Goku V (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Aftershock epicenters ?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can the table of aftershocks have their epicenters added to the chart? Especially the 7.5 -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would mind if you did that. Yanekyuk (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article is locked. Someone else will need to do it -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
JPL Photojournal's PIA25564: Satellites Assess Earthquake Damage in Turkey
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It currently says "Israel has deployed 430 search and rescue, disaster relief, 15 cargo planes, and humanitarian aid workers mainly to the areas of Adana and Gaziantep."
430 search and rescue what? workers? units? Should it be worded "Israel has deployed 15 cargo planes and 430 search and rescue, disaster relief, and humanitarian aid workers mainly to the areas of Adana and Gaziantep."? 196.159.218.213 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Maps in info-box
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
In my opinion, the maps in the info-box should both be displayed simultaneously by default. Currently, the Turkish map is shown by default, and the Syrian map is collapsed by default, and there is the option to switch to the Syrian map or to display both of them simultaneously. In my view, this issue significantly affects both countries simultaneously, so the two maps should be presented together by default. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I will be touching on a different but relevant issue: The map of Syria with the bullseye icon doesn't look good, because with its given size, the superimposed circle doesn't encompass much of the affected areas, and it also occupies the space outside the image. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
300km 200miles
Epicenter
I recommend to use {{OSM Location map}} instead of {{Location map}} like this.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s much better. Ayıntaplı (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to add the peak ground acceleration value (2.14g) Underneath the the Mercalli Rating Adarbari (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Adarbari: added this per your request. I'm not certain if the unit "g" is supposed to be italicized in this context or not, or if the reference is supposed to be inline or at the end of the template, so anyone with sufficient editing bits feel free to adjust to the standard presentation with my gratitude. Folly Mox (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Why is there an en-uk tag? This was previously en-us
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Save for the "footballer" part, most of the spelling conventions are american english
Should this be changed back? DarmaniLink (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I presume you are referring to the engvar parameter being set to en-uk in the infobox. If so, that was changed on the 6th in this edit by an IP user. They changed it this edit a day later to en-us. That edit was reverted a minute later with User:Ayıntaplı saying rv doesn't help, article is already in british english. As far as I know, this hasn't been touched again. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll change it back then since this is still largely american english DarmaniLink (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Last time I checked the article had British spellings like “centre” and so on. Maybe it was changed later. Ayıntaplı (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"center" gets 41 hits and "cetre" gets 3, 2 of which are a proper noun DarmaniLink (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Why make it American English? Saint concrete (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Because the article is already in american english. Having an en-uk tag in the info box when its american english makes no sense DarmaniLink (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I recommend changing it to en-gb, due to the fact that places uses the British spelling of the word centre, instead of the American spelling of center. Europe is primarily dominated by en-gb, so it makes sense to change it to the localized English dialect. ElusiveTaker (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"center" is used far more in the artcle and 2 out of 3 of the uses of "centre of them are the name of the thing itself with the third being a translation. we use "stories" instead of storeys. Of the uses of "center", most uses are "epicenter" while also being ".. business center" and "national center...". DarmaniLink (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This article seems to be mostly in en-US. Unless there is a strong reason, we should just keep eng-var field empty. nafSadhdidsay 22:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Kurdistan Project
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments6 people in discussion
The Kurdish population is clearly affected by the Earthquake both in Turkey and Syria. Who is against adding it and for what reason? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose. My initial comment in Talk:2023_Turkey–Syria_earthquake/Archive_1#Inclusion_of_Portal:Kurdistan: This was not the practice in past articles of earthquakes that were clearly within the Kurdish-majority region, such as Talk:2011 Van earthquakes(...) We may discuss this later, though, but I am totally against this during these troublesome times. Kurdish victims aren't thinking about Kurdistan, let alone millions of non-Kurds. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC) I am simply against the involvement of contentious ethnopolitics in this dire situation for the moment. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If Kurds are affected in Germany or the UK etc. Project Kurdistan is a relevant project, but if the article is about an event in the country they were born not? To any additional relevant project an article is added, the chances rise it once gets included in some sort of a Wikieditin campaign. I now added project Kurdistan and a phrase on Kurds (the majority population in Van) also to the Van earthquake article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No to both. Ethnicity doesn't make us quake-proof. Won't discuss further. This is nauseating. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
To be bluntly honest and fair @Ayıntaplı, inclusion of a project doesn't harm anyone, nor does it push any POV. It simply a statement by a project that the said project has interest in the article. I don't understand why there is any objection. If wikiproject Japan wants to add this, they should be able to do it -- it'd look stupid, but why bother opposing it? nafSadhdidsay 20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
As per my comment 3 days ago, I'm not against its later inclusion despite my current opposition, just not at this time, but I don't understand the apparent hype to add it the moment the earthquake happened. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Support. I do support adding effects to the Kurds. Leaving out a heavy hit majority may raise some red flags, and even cause a major article dispute due to Wikipedia's policies. Including everyone affected is better than leaving them out. ElusiveTaker (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Support - although I don't think this should be a vote, and I don't feel like I have the right to vote on a project's internal decisions. Ayıntaplı, no offense, but your opposition against the involvement of contentious ethnopolitics seems misplaced, because there is no ethnopolitics involved in this matter. There is no reason why the Kurdistan project should be handled in any special way, or why we even should have to debate this. The apparent hype to add it the moment the earthquake happened may be due to the urgency of the situation. It's the same reason for the "apparent hype" to write about the event, which started the moment it had happened. Or it's for some other reason, I don't really care why, because I'm not involved in that project. Renerpho (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already withdrawn my opposing vote, so no need to further discuss anything or even vote. When it comes to "ethnopolitics," there have even been a widely-shared claim that the earthquake was an attack against the Kurds perpetrated by Turkey so much so that it had to be fact-checked. The problem here is the amount of disinformation circulating the Internet in spite of that much of the affected places are outside the Kurdish region completely derails the discussion of a horrible disaster to one that divides people based on ethnicity. But as nafSadh pointed out, WikiProject is quite trivial, and my response was an overreaction. I am sorry if anything came off wrong. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
*Oppose The only thing the article says about Kurdistan (or even Kurds) is that a militant organization PKK has declared a ceasefire. Perhaps the debate about logistics and response times has been included the context of the conflict because it would hinder aid efforts. If there have been these problems in the distribution of aid and relief we would say more about it then. If and when we have reliable factual information. I am following closely and have not seen anything yet that would be helpful to improving our coverage. So the article contains very little information of interest to that Wikiproject imo.04:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. elwesii (talk • contribs)
Nevermind, I see someone added this to the article:
In the morning of 7 February, Turkey accused YPG of having overseen an MRL attack on its border checkpoint, and that the Turkish army has responded with further attacks.[231][232] The Kurdish Red Crescent[233] and Kamal Sido from the Society for Threatened Peoples later accused Turkey of airstrikes against the Kurdish population around Tell Rifaat also after the earthquake. Sido demanded from Turkey to open the borders to Syria for humanitarian aid just as they were open for Islamists.
Whoever added it also took the liberty of changing the content of the sources themselves (changing PKK to YPG). Not as innocuous as the above discussion presented, the citations look like right wing Euro junk and the Turkish press sources must be corroborated by international sources of good repute. I am even more strongly opposed to adding this project and this repellent content to the article until good and reliable information about this becomes available to us. G. elwesii (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
"Northern Cyprus" in the foreign casualties table
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Unlike eg. Kosovo or Palestine, Northern Cyprus is an entity with extremely limited international recognition - officially only Turkey considers it an independent country - and should be replaced with Cyprus on the table of foreign casualties. I'm neutral on this topic politically, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Cyprus is overwhelmingly the name used for this area in reliable English-language sources. (See the Turkey/Türkiye discussion further up on this talk page.) 73.168.37.85 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, not all Northern Cypriot citizens are Cypriot citizens, so that wouldn't be correct. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Recognition of a country isn't what Wikipedia is based on, it usually takes 'de facto' country status, e.g., Taiwan isn't recognized as a country by anyone. nafSadhdidsay 22:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Nafsadh That was a reply to my comment, but I don't think we disagree with each other? Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In old days' talk pages' users replied to last comment. It didn't mean it was a response to immediately previous comment. With these new UI it is a bit confusing :P.
That aside, my opinion on this matter is aligned with yours. I'd suggest using whatever the sources are using. I don't see any strong objection to adding TRNC to that table. I have a slight objection to adding a table for foreign casualties in general since the numbers are still being updated. I'd opt for adding a table once some reliable source publishes a single table which WP can directly cite. nafSadhdidsay 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Taiwan is recognised by multiple countries and has embassies in most countries in the world (unlike "Northern Cyprus"). This page is now used to push the legitimacy of "Northern Cyprus" despite being only recognised by Turkey. Alepik (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but it also doesn't legitimize the use of North Cyprus national terms and imagery. If reliable English-language sources don't typically recognize this subunit of Cyprus as a separate country - and outside the Turkosphere they don't appear to - then neither does Wikipedia. Micronations and sovereign citizen groups grant citizenship to people all the time; if any of them happen to be victims, their countries won't be acknowledged as such on that page either unless it's already common in English to do so.
North Cyprus victims who have citizenship elsewhere (eg. Turkey) should be grouped with the country that granted it.
The revert to North Cyprus/TRNC should be changed back Cyprus.
Agreed. If the casualties are not Republic of Cyprus citizens then they must be Turkish citizens and categorised as such. Alepik (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Building collapses in Diyarbakir
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Article currently says "Many buildings were destroyed in Adıyaman and Diyarbakır". Reuters reported on 2/6 that "at least 20 buildings crumbled" in Diyarbakir. [5] It is almost twice the distance from Adiyaman to the epicentre. Should we discuss them separately?
Cumhuriyet (Turkish press) reported 2.10 a lower fıgure of 7 buildings and there would be an investigation into the building collapses and possible illegal construction in this province. I wanted to make some changes about this. G. elwesii (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Detecting unreliable sources
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You may find User:Headbomb/unreliable useful. Obviously sources highlighted red may need human editor judgement. Although, for example, Youtube videos may sometimes be OK it usually takes longer to verify the info is actually in the video than it would for text info. And I have no idea how to verify who a tweet is really from nowadays.
So I think it would be useful if sources such as tweets and videos could be gradually replaced over time by easier to verify sources
Replacing the name 'Turkey' with 'Türkiye' to avoid confusion. RandomDudeEditingWiki (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done: A discussion at Talk:Turkey resulted in a consensus which favored the name Turkey instead of Türkiye, and for the sake of consistency, this article will continue to call that country Turkey. Nythar (💬-❄️) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
User:Userbala
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm letting other editors know that @Userbala is making unsourced changes/updates. I recently dropped a message on their talk page requesting them to cite sources when making new changes/updates. This revision shows they haven't comply to Wikipedia's policies of citing reliable sources. I am putting this user up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because the user isn't even discussing with me and continues with the bad editing habit. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
All I do is making minor updates like casualities etc. And none of the edits I made were wrong. I live in Turkey and I listen all the statements or updates about the earthquake on live and edit as early as I can. None of the updates were wrong. It's been 20 minutes since the last update and the figure is still outdated on this page, I tried to edit but found out I was blocked without a reason. Userbala (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Userbala: The reasons are given on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a news site and does not need up-to-the-minute accuracy. All information requires a source. Until the casualty figures stabilise, it's likely to be constantly out of date. The important thing is to document the ongoing and long-term effects of the disaster, not the minute by minute blow by blow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023 (4)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
change "The earthquake had more than 1,000 aftershocks, including an unusually powerful Mw 7.7 nine hours after the mainshock." The Mw 7.7 was not an aftershock but an other earthquake on a different plate. 2A02:FF0:220:C6A:F047:7AF2:C6F2:1571 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done According to our article on aftershocks, Most aftershocks ... either occur along the fault plane itself or along other faults within the volume affected by the strain associated with the main shock. If this information is incorrect, and aftershocks strictly occur along the same fault as the mainshock, please provide a reliable source to that effect so our article can be corrected to follow scientific consensus. Folly Mox (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Peak ground acceleration
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I try to find where in the source is mentioned a pga of 2.14 (214%g) but I can't. The highest values that I find are in Fevzipasa (2708), with 1.62 g. The only value that somehow matches is 215.34 cm/s of peak ground velocity in Hassa, but this is velocity not acceleration. The station tagged as Pazarcik has a pga of 0.63g. C messier (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Looking through the data in the source I uncritically copied from the body to the infobox, I've come to precisely the same conclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Updated the article to follow the data available in the source cited. @Adarbari:, since the edit introducing the value into the infobox was at your request, are you aware of a source that shows a peak ground acceleration of 2.14g, or were you just going off the prose like I was? Folly Mox (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Station data at the time I added the prose was 2.14 g. See the northernmost station indicating IX here. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. No station numbered 4614 is present in the current data at all. Perhaps USGS chose to invalidate the results. Thanks for the clarification 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Wrong citation
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This page says:
‘The national government declared a "level four alert" to appeal for international aid.’
International relief effort by country: ADD THE BELOW
Spain - Four Spanish Navy ships, part of a NATO contingent in Eastern Mediterranean at the time, arrived in Iskenderun on February 8. On board carrier Juan Carlos I and landing dock Galicia, 500 marines started helpingTurkish authorities. Ambulances and medical and food supplies were disembarked as well, while 12 helicopters on board the ships were also readied for medical and rescue operations.
On February 7, a 56 strong Spanish Army rescue unit from Unidad Militar de Emergencias (UME) and 35 rescue specialists from Comunidad de Madrid Firefighters were airlifted from Spain to Incirlik Air Base and, jointly with Spanish Army troops already at Incirlik manning Patriot missile systems, were deployed for rescue operations near Gaziantep.
I'm going to be deleting much of that section as its gotten waaaay too long
Good job by the way. This is well written and its a shame you were part of the collateral damage of this being protected. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Section has been repurposed to general information only. I'll add this to the other article though. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Cleanup urgently needed
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As a note, many sources are pretty old for this article as of now, and many sections are bloated. A cleanup is urgently needed. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
please give some specifics on where should be changed or everyone will just nod in agreement and nothing gets done DarmaniLink (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Inclusion of well-known names who had been killed during the earthquakes
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Excuse me guys but is this allowed to include some well-known names that has been killed during the earthquakes in this page? For example, one of the ValorantGame Changers player was killed during the earthquakes.[7]VernardoLau (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
You can try adding something like "..., including competitive Valorant player John Smith." DarmaniLink (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The photo montage is not neutral
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion
Hello. Does anyone know why almost 40% of the photo montage used for the infobox consists of showing the Turkish flag while the whole world knows that the earthquake also happened in Syria? I wonder why on earth there is a flag, and why only the Turkish one in it? Do Syrians not count? This photo montage should be replaced by a neutral one, for example a photo montage showing ruined buildings or the mysery itself. But instead a non-neutral political image (with a flag) has been added. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance. Ferrus (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe the Turkish flag flying half-mast could be relevant, but it shouldn't cover much of the picture. By the way, another problem about the montage is that at least 3 photos are from the Hatay Province. But since we need more pictures, we may want to wait a little. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Turkish Wikipedia is allowed to be used for chauvinistic purposes. It's amazing that the English Wikipedia is allowed and not interfered with. Penaber49 (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
A flag flying at half mast is for all the victims, not only Turkish victims but all the victims of the earthquake, Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian, Christian, Muslim, Armenian, American. A flag flying at half mast is a customary and formal gesture of respect for victims and mourning for those of have died, shared by all countries, for all of the over 20,000 victims who lost their lives. G. elwesii (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I totally agree, but still a flag has nothing to do with it. This article is about the earthquake, not about flags. Ferrus (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Because there are no pictures of the effects of the earthquake in Syria in Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, you are free to create a different photo montage from suitably licensed pictures. C messier (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
A flag flying at half mast in memory of the victims of an earthquake seems relevant to an article about an earthquake. And considering three quarters of the casualties we know about so far are in Turkey, it doesn't seem unreasonable for it to be a Turkish flag. As things develop, better photos might become available and this can be revisited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
That the Turkish flag flying at half-mast is for mourning the Armenian, Christian and Kurdish victims is WP:OR. I wonder what would happen if Kurds or Armenians would fly their flags... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The particular quote which you highlighted above suggests even more that the nature of the flag photograph is political. Bear in mind that the elections are coming up relatively soon, and it is obviously in the incumbent Erdogan's interest to develop support for his campaign via any means necessary. This earthquake is a major blow to his chances, but it is also an opportunity for him to prove his worth. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think most problems must have been solved with the new photograph, but I don't understand how Erdoğan and what the Turkish flag represents (which is totally subjective) are relevant to the discussion on the previous photo. The earthquake killed tens of thousands of people in Turkey, so that makes the flag relevant. The main problem pertaining to the flag was that it could overshadow Syrian victims. No need to dive deep into politics. Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Suggest map shows fault ruptures not concentric rings
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for quick reply. Something like that but with a simpler legend and zoomed in to only Syria and Turkey and both earthquakes together and svg Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Will try to find one in Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think there are any specifically with such features. Maybe we can use CSS image crop for the aforementioned image in order to "zoom in." Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I intend, as soon as I get the chance, to produce a map showing the epicentres of the larger earthquakes (M5.0+) and the relevant fault traces, I am currently away and won't get round to this for a few weeks, so no problem if someone else beats me to it. Mikenorton (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Deadliest after the 1268 earthquake?
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This earthquake is not the deadliest in the history of Turkey after the 1268 one.
The more than 34,000 deaths is the aggregate deaths of Turkey and Syria, not of Turkey alone. Deaths of Turkey is about 29,600 right now.
But the deaths of 1939 Erzincan earthquake was more than 32,000 (near 33,000) in Turkey alone.
When we talk about the history of Turkey we should count the deaths of earthquakes in Turkey alone.
So, the Erzincan earthquake is the deadliest one after the 1268 one. But the 2023 earthquake will take the position for sure.
Aminabzz (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
That is fine for the article History of Turkey and related articles in the field of Turkish history, to which this article is tangential. This article is about a geological event, and the human deaths directly and indirectly caused are summed across the geographical region, irrespective of national boundaries. Folly Mox (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the lede saying It was the deadliest earthquake in the history of Turkey since the 1268 Cilicia earthquake is still incorrect. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually the records for the 1268 earthquake are poor, with very little detail, so I would take that number as being pretty uncertain. Mikenorton (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Ranking among Deadly Earthquakes in the History of Turkey
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Text says this is second only to Cilicia 1266. Why is the Antioch quake of 526 not listed, as it is on the Earthquakes in Turkey page. How is history of Turkey being defined here? 2601:2C6:4300:B8C0:4CD:D65F:5FC7:DE23 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Text doesn't say it is the "second" deadliest only to 1268 Cilicia earthquake. It is the deadliest "since" 1268, meaning that the earthquake in 1268 was deadlier than the 2023 earthquake, but there weren't any earthquakes deadlier than the one in 2023, between 1268 and 2023. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't the deadliest since the 1268 Cilicia Earthquake. The death toll is rapidly rising, but it hasn't surpassed the 1939 Erzincan Earthquake yet. 46.2.62.55 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
When we talk about the history of Turkey we must count the earthquake-related deaths in Turkey alone.
The more than 34,000 deaths of this recent earthquake is of both Turkey and Syria (about 29,600 deaths in Turkey alone until now).
But the 1939 Erzincan earthquake had near 33,000 deaths in Turkey alone.
So that earthquake was deadlier than this one if we talk about the history of Turkey.
So we should say that the 2023 earthquake is the deadliest after the 1999 one. Not after the 1268 one. Aminabzz (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The intensity of the Erzincan earthquake is less than the 2023 earthquake.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
It was Turkey's deadliest earthquake since the 1268 Cilicia earthquake and more severe than the 1939 Erzincan earthquake of the same magnitude, making it the second strongest in the country's history after the 1668 North Anatolian earthquake. Turchiann (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The country is only 100 years old. That alone makes these claims inaccurate. Berkserker (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "region"
provide a RS and we can change it to reflect that this is worse DarmaniLink (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
This earthquake is the third deadliest (not the second) in the history of Turkey and here is why:
The more than 34,000 deaths is of both Turkey and Syria (about 29,600 deaths in Turkey alone).
But 1939 Erzincan earthquake had more than 32,900 deaths in Turkey alone. So Erzincan earthquake is the second deadliest. Aminabzz (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Should we change it to Türkiye - Syria earthquake.
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Türkiye is now the official name so should we change it or keep it the same? YashSuccess (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
See the previous section. --mfb (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Until/unless turkey becomes turkiye per WP:COMMONNAME articles will continue to call it "turkey" DarmaniLink (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@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.
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
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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)
@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)
This sentence belongs in international humanitarian aid and not domestic aftermath...
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"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)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
prediction of earthquake
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments7 people in discussion
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)
@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 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."[1] 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)
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
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments10 people in discussion
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 [8], 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. nafSadhdidsay 20:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
"Turkey-Syria Earthquakes", Not "Turkey-Syria Earthquake"
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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)
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 [9], 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)
Unverified statements
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments4 people in discussion
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. [1][2]
Telegraph didn't call Elbistan earthquake as an aftershock, but called it a second earthquake. So the reference says just the opposite. [3]
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."[4]
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. [5]
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.
[6]
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. [7]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. nafSadhdidsay 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. [8] Also Doğanşehir, which is close to Elbistan, was destroyed in the second earthquake. [9] Almost 2,000 buildings collapsed in Elbistan in the second earthquake. [10]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.
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" [11]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. nafSadhdidsay 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)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The line "unusually strong Mw 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.
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)
[10]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)
Arrests & eventual prosecutions of builders/contractors
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
International humanitarian efforts section is too long
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion
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)
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)
Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments13 people in discussion
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)
I'd love to. But the point I'm trying to make here is, that if someone is going to quote rules to me, I'd like to know and see the rules are followed consistently. Otherwise the rules are of little value, and it does no good to hide behind a rule and let that hold your end of an argument up. But we're getting off topic, and any further discussion can just go to my talk page. 2604:2D80:9F0D:2B00:51A0:5549:E67F:B58 (talk) 02:03, 16 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)
My main gripe with the "Türkiye" name change is the fact that it uses the umlaut. That alone makes me entirely unwilling to write it out in that exact form in a digital setting (handwriting is a different story). I am willing to write out "Turkiye" through my personal choice (I am not suggesting to retitle articles on Wikipedia; "Turkey" is still the common form). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Comparing Turkey to various other countries that have changed their names in recent history, Turkey stands out. Other examples include Macedonia (to North Macedonia), Swaziland (to eSwatini or Eswatini), Czech Republic (to Czechia, colloquial), Cape Verde (to Cabo Verde), Burma (to Myanmar), Upper Volta (to Burkina Faso), Rhodesia (to Zimbabwe), and Persia (to Iran), etc. Among these, Turkey is perhaps the most powerful country and one of the better known countries in the Western World and in the Anglosphere, which means that COMMONNAME is more relevant. Macedonia's name change was immediately recognised on Wikipedia due to its political nature as having resolved the naming dispute with Greece (plus, "North" is an English word, not from a foreign language). Meanwhile, countries such as Swaziland, Cape Verde, Upper Volta, and Rhodesia (former names) are not exactly well-known outside of their local region, so that probably explains why they were accepted quickly (notwithstanding the colonial nature of the names "Upper Volta" and "Rhodesia"). Myanmar's name change actually hasn't been fully accepted, and it is still alternatively referred to as "Burma", although "Myanmar" is preferred. The Czech Republic's name change is gradually shifting into common usage (perhaps due to "Czechia" being a very logical modification of the word "Czech"). Persia's name change is the most significant one in comparison to Turkey; Persia is now almost universally called "Iran" in the contemporary era, and "Persia" is now seen as a historical name. Persia is, of course, similarly large and powerful as Turkey, as well as located in the same geographic region as Turkey and hence similarly well-known to the West. The main distinction is that the name change for Persia occurred nearly a century ago, whereas Turkey's name change occurred only last year. So, obviously, Turkey's name change will not be accepted immediately as the common form in such a short time frame. By the way, one major problem that I personally have with Turkey's new name (in English) is the fact that it contains the "umlaut" symbol, which is really quite annoying to type out on my English-language keyboard, and I usually can't be bothered to do so, i.e. I tend to prefer "Turkiye" over "Türkiye". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, Cabo Verde is still generally called "Cape Verde" on Wikipedia, so the name change actually hasn't been accepted on this website (I was mistaken in my previous comment). By the way, I also forgot that East Timor changed its name to "Timor-Leste" in the recent past; this name change has also not been implemented on Wikipedia, and "East Timor" is still used because it is the common form. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done: A discussion at Talk:Turkey resulted in a consensus which favored the name Turkey instead of Türkiye, and for the sake of consistency, this article will continue to call that country Turkey. Nythar (💬-❄️) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done According to our article on aftershocks, 
Already done: Looks like this was taken care of in these two edits: Special:Diff/1139059635 and Special:Diff/1139059981. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:29, 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)
) 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)
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)