Talk:2005 Kashmir earthquake

Images

We don't have some problems with at least one of the images on this page with respect to copyright. Image:2005 subcontinent quake-1.JPG is a screenshot from television program and we are using it arguing fair use. As the article is not about the TV coverage shown we can not use this under the fair use rules so we should remove this image. Andreww 10:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, this image isn't fair use and should be removed. we can remove it now, or in a couple of hours, of course, personally I don't feel obliged :) 130.60.142.65 11:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have removed it. Andreww 20:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rakija; jklcjkwljekrjekrjekrjekrjekrjekrjkerjkejrkejrkeeeeeeeeeeeeejrs; zzzzzzzzzzniewuoyasssUser_talk: Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 04:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that we should use the PD alternative, Google still doesn't get to ban fair use. — ceejayoz ^★ 16:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a commercial website. We can use "non-commercial use" licenced images. Such images are discouraged however, if they are not absolutely essential for the article, or if there is a PD/GFDL substitute -- both conditions apply in this case blah blah blah. As for whether the image is even copyrighteable by Google, that's quite another question. Obviously they own the copyright for the high-resolution keyhole data. But the low-resolution and elevation data is in the PD, they took it from NASA. It could be argued that images rendered by Google Earth from low-resolution Nasa data is not copyrighteable in the first place. 83.77.221.225 09:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo banned non-comercial images here. While we do not have ads on our website, various Wikipedia mirrors have ads plasted on the top and sides on the website, so we have, by default, became a commercial website. Zach (Sound Off) 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded this image, and one day later, I was notified of its deletion. I apologize for breaking the rules of copyright, which was quite accidental, and also for listing it under GFDL, which was a mistake on my part because of my lack of experience on Wikipedia. I hope that if images from Google Earth cannot be used, that there will be a suitable subsitute. --Luckybeargod 20:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clairfy, we are not commercial. While some copies are, it is not our responsiblity to ensure that they abide by copyright law. However it is a policy aim that we comply with at least GFDL as much as possible, in order to make our content as free (as in speach) as possible. NASA have a similar product to Google which is based on US Govt infor (their own) and hence we can use. Rich Farmbrough 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Casualties Breakdown by city

Casualties Breakdown by City
Location	Deaths	Injured	Sources
Sirinagar, India	180	600	[1]
Islamabad, Pakistan	3,000		[2]
Other	150	Thousands	[3]
Total	18,400	Thousands	[4]

I removed the table (left) because I don't think it adds anything to the article at the present time and it seems to be inaccurate. In particular the table notes 3000 dead in Islamabad but the cited source says "The only serious damage reported in Pakistan's capital was the collapse of a 10-story apartment building, where at least 10 people were killed and 126 were injured." -- Andreww 04:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Cavemen like the Al-Kaida

Any info, what happened to Sheik UBL, Mullah Omar and Dr. Zawahiri? Is it the same area they are thought to be hiding in?

No they are thought to be on the other side of the country.Geni 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they are thought to be not in the country. Waqas.usman 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Geni is correct, they were thought to be on the opposite side near the federally adminsterated territories, a region only under nominal Pakistani control, though earlier there were reports that they were in Mashera (NWFP) for a short time. Gtadoc 05:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

In the table these shoudl only be confirmed figures, as per our practice on other disaster pages. Rich Farmbrough 16:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. is there any good reason to have it as a template? Rich Farmbrough

Also- on the deadliest earthquake list, it's 17th, not 18th as it says in the information. Iran is 18th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.14.175 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

helpful artcile

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4322624.stm Its shows the whole area of destruction.

Odd math

The template has funny math for total of injured. It has 42.4k + 0.8k + thousands = tens of thousands. One of the most meaningless mathematical expressions I've ever seen. I think it would be better if we could say more than 43k in total of injured or something like that. I'm changing it =p __earth 06:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Earth changes

Somethings unusual is happening with Earth - or arguably it isn´t. In 2005 several important natural disasters have drawn a line that is statistically higher than normal years. Is this a coincidence? I suppose an Encyclopedia should provide information about this, showing what is known, what is speculated and controversies. I suggest we create the Earth changes article. Contribute! Subramanian ^talk 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a good idea as that would have to involve origianal research. Andreww 10:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I restate my suggestion: "showing what is known, what is speculated and controversies." It´s just a useful compiling of published material on a highly debated topic. Subramanian ^talk 11:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I have heard of with regards to global warming and earthquakes is that it is thought that if glaciers melt rapidly, the loss of the weight of the glaciers can lead to an increase in earthquake activity if the area is already seismically active. I don't think this would apply to the big earthquakes though, and so not to this one. The Earth changes article is not needed (I think it should be deleted), as this can all be worked into the articles on climate change and global warming. The statistical argument looks like original research to me. I've always thought that increases in severity of natural disasters is mostly due to human populations expanding and living in the wrong areas. 194.200.237.219 12:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Deaths

the news on www.cnn.com today are

Quake toll soars above 30,000 The death toll has soared to 30,800 ...

in article is just 20,000 and frontpage just 19,000

Where has the 43,000 figure come from? More conservative estimates are at 25,000 [[5]]Kamayoq 23:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Distinction between aid pledged and given

I feel we should be very clear about the aid that has been pledged for relief work in Pakistan and other affected areas and the aid that has actually been released or given. For example, the article previously stated that the US had made 50,000,000 dollars available for relief work... which is not true. According to the New York Times, that is an initial amount pledged by George Bush and not yet delivered. Hulleye 11:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely true. And what is promised and what is actually given should be clarified for every country. Knowing Bush, he won't deliver. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to date Bush has delivered almost all of what he promised. Whether the Pakistan government uses it for the intended purpose is an entirely different matter. Gtadoc 05:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you edit the death toll box...it won't work

To anonymous. I've fixed the edit link.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

International Response

Should Islamic Relief be added to the list? The organisation is currently active raising money, particularly from the Muslim communities, in the UK, US and elsewhere. They are also one of the organisations with people on the ground in Kashmir. See BBC News.

Singaporean response

Should there be a Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake? Currently, it's the only page dedicated to a country's response to the crisis. I believe it's sufficient to have just International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake. The page is nominated for deletion. Reason - redundancy. Any thought is appreciated. __earth 06:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There is only a small amount of duplication in the content of the two articles because the levels of details are different. For info, there are large Pakistani, South Asian and Muslim communities in Singapore, they and others have strong concerns about the victims and very much wish to contribute to the humanitarian relief effort. --Vsion 06:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Change the Map

The current map shown is not right for this article since it shows the whole of India, doesn't even shows Pakistan completely and the Kashmiri area affected is not much viewable. Please use a map which focuses more on the areas where the destruction has occured most including Pakistan administered Kashmir, Indian administered Kashmir and NWFP and Punjab provinces of Pakistan.

See if any of these maps work; they covers all major affected areas:

[6] [7] [8] [9]

All maps are from BBC.

And hgence copyright. Rich Farmbrough

Richter scale

I suppose this earthquake was 7.6 on Moment magnitude scale (Mw), not Richter scale. --Tbonefin 04:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuk! The Richter Scale was so much easier, The "Moment whatever" seems to be full of complicated mathematical jargon. With the Richter Scale, it is easy to class the earthquake as "Great", "Strong" etc. The new classification just provides a number and a bunch of formulae. It also means that we have to create a whole new set of numbers maybe. For example, the Great Kanto earthquake was approx 8.1 on the Richter Scale. What would this be recalculated to? 7.1? 8.6? Would it be renamed just the Kanto Earthquake, as "Great" is a Ricter term? Wallie 07:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuk! "Great" and "Strong" earthquakes. What an arbitrary way to divide up earthquakes. Why not have a nice, simple Moment magnitude... 194.200.237.219 17:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to convert from Mw to ML? If so, maybe we could put in brackets "(xx on the Richter scale)" -Tcwd (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there is an easy way to convert. I would guess that multiplying by 1 would be safe in many cases, though. Why o why do scientists have to replace a simple system that nearly everyone understands with a complicated one that you can understand only if you have an IQ of over 120, which leaves most of us out. Anyway has everyone gone over to this "Mw" scale and away from Ricter? Or is it just the Americans? Wallie 06:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You are calling the Richter scale simple? To understand the Richter scale you have to understand what a logarithmic scale is, and that is something many people fail to understand about the Richter scale. You also have to appreciate that the energies involved are not simple multiples of ten, but depend on the "square root of the cube of the amplitude". To quote from the Richter scale page: "a magnitude 9 has 10,000 times the amplitude of a magnitude 5, but a million times more energy". That is not simple. The Richter scale is not simple. 194.200.237.219 12:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds very straight forward to me. You explained the Richter Scale very well. Now if you can do the same for the "Moment Magnitude scale", which I for one have no understanding whatsoever, without about 60 pages of complex mathematical gibberish, you will be doing well! Wallie 18:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Saturday

I'm surprise that so many students were trapped in schools. Are school classes on Saturday morning common in the region? --Vsion 04:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In many areas in Pakistan (especially in NWFP) Friday is an unofficial off-day. Also, not all schools have two weekly offs.

PS: In Pakistan, the word "school" is generally used to refer to children's school (primary, middle, high school). Undergrad level school is usually refered to as University. All these references to "students" were to young school children.

9-10 Grade: High School

11-12 Grade: College

Bachelor/Undergrad: University Waqas.usman 06:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information on the local context. What about workers? Do most people work on Saturday? I am wondering because there are also many victims trapped at home. --Vsion 06:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The local time of the first shock was 8:50am, I'm not sure about the start of working hours of NWFP and Azad Kashmir these days, but because of Ramazan (month of fasting for Muslims), most people take a couple of hours' nap after morning meal, and many people might have been sleeping. And there was no time to escape, it was 7.6 and the epi-center was only 10km (6.2 miles) deep (which is considered very shallow in earthquakes). From some of the helicopter footage (of remote villages I guess) it seems that even those who were outside would have been kind of sucked into the earth. Cities like Muzaffarabad and Mansehra had buildings made of concrete or cement, and most parts of these cities have been destroyed, you can just imagine the villages where houses and other buildings were made of mud. Access to most areas was blocked due ot damaged roads, many people have now spent three nights without shelter and food. Some roads are now open but many areas might still be inaccessible. Waqas.usman 07:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Iran" removed from the list of the countries under "International Response"??

I added "Iran has dispatched foodstuff, blankets, tents and medicines through two aircrafts." alongwith reference yesterday, and for no apparent reason it wasn't there today. I've again added it again, also I've alphabetized the list of countries under Asia.

Canadian Pledge

Is it just me or does the wording seem to put a lot of importance on the first donation of CAD 100,000 and really downplay the much larger sum of CAD 20 million, listed last? Just a thought.Freshgavin 07:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It's the opposite with US Aid, the "announced" US aid of $50 million has been mentioned first, and the actual amount of $500,000 given yet by "US Agency for Int'l Development" has been mentioned in the end.

Read "Distinction between aid pledged and given above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_Kashmir_earthquake#Distinction_between_aid_pledged_and_givenWaqas.usman 07:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If I had some more time I'd try to verify exactly what was merely 'pledged' and what has already been given, but in general many publications (at least online ones) are rather vague about this distinction too, and with so many countries promising money it's quite a daunting task.Freshgavin 23:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"location on the globe"

sorry but that first map is really devoid of any useful information. You might as well do a map showing the "approximate location in the Milky Way". Let people who don't know where Pakistan is click on Pakistan. 08:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Location of EPICENTER

I may have this wrong but the coordinates of the epicentre (as cited by (USGS) seem to change regularly. They are now 34.443°N, 73.581°E which expanded are +34° 26' 34.80" N, +73° 34' 51.60" E when this morning they were 34° 24' 7" N, +73° 33' 36" E and earlier 34° 25′ 55″ N, 73° 32′ 13″ E. I guess the USGS refines its interpretation of the data from time to time, but does not make this clear? It's not that important in the context of the widespread and devastating destruction - but I'll change the refs in any case Kamayoq 14:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

432 Pakistani soldiers killed

I have updated the info in the article > Confirmed Casualities. It was officially reported on ARYOne Digital News that 432 Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the earthquakes. Does this needs to be input on the table of casuality figures?

No, but it would be nice if you could provide a link to the website/source which reported this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ARYOne Digital is a Pakistani News Channel. The deaths were announced in one of their broadcasts. And unfortunately their site is not yet up and running. [10]

Ok. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Relief and Aid

I think this section needs rationalising.Geni 01:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake spinout

The main bulk of the section on International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake is now spinout to a separate article, as was suggested by several users. This make sense since the section is more stable now, and the article can remain focused on the on-going relief effort. --Vsion 01:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Red Star, why?

It is probably not fortunate to denote the location with a red star on the earthglobe picture, considering how the pakistani were among the most adamant anti-communist warriors in the afghan war against the ussr! 195.70.32.136 14:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see an orange star, but I still don't think that the star symbolizes anything. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the orange star does mean something. The image is from the USGS, and the color they use for the star indicates the depth of the hypocenter of the earthquake. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Most amusing. We need some "gallows humour" in these sad times. Wallie 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Casualties" means "dead and wounded"

The article currently says:

Local authorities reported the official death toll as 39,422 in Pakistan (including more than 13,000 killed in North West Frontier Province) and 1,329 in Indian-administered region of Kashmir. Eleven days after the quake, the number of casualties has risen to 79,318 [11]. Some estimate that the death toll could reach 100,000.

The sequence of numbers makes me think someone incorrectly used "casualties" as a synonym for "deaths", but clearly I may be wrong. Can someone verify? And the claim that deaths may reach 100,000 needs to be sourced. Tempshill 18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is sourced (3): ""The relief commissioner, Maj. Gen. Farooq Ahmed Khan, gave an even worse prediction to Pakistan's Geo television. ``Some people fear that the death toll could be 100,000 and they may be right, he said. "" [http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5348229,00.html]

But I take your point about casualties... the latest via AP and many other sources is that the DEATH TOLL is rising towards 80,000. I'll change it.

Kamayoq 23:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Economic/social/political impact of the earthquake on Pakistan

Shouldn't there be a section about these things? I remember that the Hurricane Katrina article had some extensive analysis and commentary about the effects of the disaster on wider American society. This is a tragedy of even greater proportions and it is bound to have catastrophically effected Pakistani society and attitudes to their government. Maybe somebody who knows more about this than I do could write a section or even an article about it? :)Ya'Aseh Shalom 19:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan earthquake relief

I have added Pakistan earthquake relief to list what help pakistan need like blankets, food etc. Some body changed it, without reason. Tell me if I would like to list items needed in releif operation, where should I write.

Revised casualty template

Greetings, all! I have taken the liberty of revising the casualty template because I have repeatedly noticed that the numbers listed do not correspond with the sources cited on the side. The misinformation arises over the course of many edits, so I have linked the number with the source that supports it. I have been forced to change some of the numbers that were supposedly based on those sources. Here is a summary of the mess of problems I found when verifying the numbers:

• October 19, [12] lists 79,000 casualties in the headline, but the article itself indicates that the headline is an approximation of 79,318 broken up into 37,958 in North West Frontier Province, 40,000 in Pakistani-held Kashmir, and 1,360 in Indian Kashmir. Whoops! We had the total 79,000+ (actually 79,318 in the article) listed under Pakistan alone, when it actually includes parts of India and disputed territory.
• October 16, [13] supercedes the previous article (although earlier), adding 1500 deaths. This source seems to be more up to date than the article in Yahoo news. I could not reconcile the sources until I split deaths between Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. This article does not include Kashmir. This source lists 1,329 dead in Indian Kashmir.
• October 11, [14] was an early report and does not match later numbers. It lists 20,000 deaths in Pakistan and Pakistani Kashmir and 900 deaths in Indian Kashmir.
• October 11, [15] was a better early report, listing 30,000 dead in Pakistan, 999 in India, and one in Afghanistan.

I had originally intended to simply clarify which numbers were from which sources, but I think I will update the table to resemble the figures listed in the summary at the top of the article.

The best part is that it's not only more accurate, but it's also better looking. --CheerfulPaul 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Injured in Pakistan are 100,000+

Last night, Geo news reported 100,000+ injured according to official stats. Please amend the casualities and injured stats table.

Here's a link dated 8th November which states it to be an estimate:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/MUZ318D.htm

However, yesterday night (9th November) , it was confirmed on Geo News (www.geo.tv).

Here is another link stating it to be 100,000+ injured:

http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/oct2005-weekly/nos-16-10-2005/she.htm#2

It's from the The News International, a widely circulated English daily newspaper in Pakistan.

I am having no luck in finding a working source that supports the above. (The links provided above are no longer good.) The numbers in the current article seem inflated compared to sources cited.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with other earthquakes

The article currently reads (in parentheses):

By comparison, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake had a magnitude of 9.15.

Other than the similar scale of media coverage, I see no reason to compare those two earthquakes; the 2004 one is qualitatively different because it happened under watddsadlksdsjajx sxkj dca; ksdaH kAJklsajd iwio2q0d dl dk lkser, and the devastation was caused by a tsunami rather than the earthquake itself. I think a recent earthquake on land should be used for comparisons. — Timwi 11:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)akdsajdsadA '

Agreed. --CompuWiz 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Changing Title

The earthquake killed more than 1,500 people in India. Therefore, the article should be titled 2005 Kashmir earthquake. The current title in misleading as it suggests that the earthquake affected Pakistan only which is incorrect. --Incman|वार्ता 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How Could The Damage Be Reduced For Next Time?

82.37.124.190 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Aaron...I wanted to know how the damage could be reduced for the next big earthquake e.g more structure to buildings and more health suplies for injured people

Some material appears to be based on heresay

The following was removed becuase it appears doubtful and based on heresay. If this is factual, it needs to be reinserted into the main article with credible supporting sources.

There were several reports that the Indian army used the crisis and dissaray in Pakistani Kashmir to send over several of its RAW operatives to gather intelligence and to penetrate previously unavailable areas of Pakistan's Northern Areas. According to eye witness accounts, after the earthquake, many of the victims say that they saw what they believed to be 'military' looking men in plain clothes who were slightly darker and/or Indian in appearance arrived to their village on foot. These men appeared to have arrived from an easternly direction (meaning from across the line of control in Indian-occuppied Kashmir). Rather than stopping to provide any assistance, the villagers noted that the men looked out of place, and extremely nervous and agitated, which they initially thought was due to the mass destruction as the entire area was in shock, the group of men hurredly left along the main arteries on foot towards Pakistans major urban centres, much to the dismay of the survivors. Later, Pakistani government officials and army spokesmen acknowledged that several Indian operatives had penetrated the several sectors of the Line of Control in which the Pakistani troops and border officials patrolling them had died as a result of the earthquake, thus leaving the border regions unsafeguarded.

-- Aylahs ^(talk) 01:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cuban doctors

Why there is no mention that according to the Pakistani government’s Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority, 73% of all the patients in earthquake-hit areas were assisted by the Cuban medical brigade.

Cuba also donated 30 mobile hospitals, 241 tonnes of medicines and 275 tonnes of medical equipment, and provided training to 600 Pakistani medical students.

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article2288

I'm not sure where the source gets its figures; I was there and didn't see a cuban "doctor" (who are actually medics, by the way) anywhere except for a small aid camp outside of Manshera and another in the Neelum, neither significant. Gtadoc 05:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

dfdfdfdfffsda'Bold text' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.16.149 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Version of english?

This is very muddled - it has Commonwealth English spellings (epicentre) and Amercian English (centered, neighboring). It should be all in one or the other, not a mix. 81.147.150.204 (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/iir/online/2006/11/the_pakistan_earthquake_of_oct.html
  • In 2005 Kashmir earthquake on 2011-05-25 08:01:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2005 Kashmir earthquake on 2011-06-12 01:59:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/5112/bio.html
  • In 2005 Kashmir earthquake on 2011-05-25 08:01:04, 410 Gone
  • In 2005 Kashmir earthquake on 2011-06-12 01:59:13, 410 Gone

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2005/eeri-pak-07nov.pdf
  • In 2005 Kashmir earthquake on 2011-05-25 08:01:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 2005 Kashmir earthquake on 2011-06-12 01:59:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. While there are sources that use "2005 Pakistan earthquake" there are also sources that use "2005 Kashmir earthquake". There is no convincing reason for the move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

2005 Kashmir earthquake → 2005 Pakistan earthquake – The name of the article is misleading because this earthquake occurred inside the state of Pakistan (in the heart of Pakistan, which affected Pakistan's capital Islamabad), Kashmir is not a country and only few people know of that region and its location. 80,000 Pakistanis were killed by this earthquake and 100,000 more Pakistanis were injured, and massive damage was done to Pakistan's infrastructure. An event like this should be recognized by country unless more than one earthquake occurred in the same country in the same year. This is part of Pakistan's history. Plus, majority sources named it 2005 Pakistan earthquake and should be the same here, the same as 2010 Haiti earthquake. The epicenter was Muzaffarabad, which sits inside Pakistan. 39.41.66.187 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose - the majority of sources in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks use "2005 Kashmir earthquake", although the position is reversed in a general google search, so I don't think that there is a clear picture there regarding WP:COMMONAME that would support such a move. There's no particular consistency about naming earthquake articles on wikipedia, for every year-country example there is a year-geographic district example e.g. 2001 Gujarat earthquake, although obviously the bigger the country the more specific they tend to become. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Gujarat is a state in western India but Kashmir is a disputed territory which sits inside Pakistan and inside India. The name of this article being 2005 Pakistan earthquake makes readers quickly understand that the earthquake and all the damage took place inside Pakistan. Not only Kashmir experianced the quake and damages but also other parts of Pakistan, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, Pakistan's capital Islamabad and Punjab, Pakistan.--39.41.41.85 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There were more than a thousand deaths in Indian administered Kashmir, so not all the damage took place in Pakistan. Mikenorton (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

1. That territory is disputed among China, India and Pakistan. Pakistan, which claims the territory as disputed, refers to it alternatively as Indian-occupied Kashmir or Indian-held Kashmir, while some international agencies such as the United Nations call it Indian-administered Kashmir. The point of the name change is that 95% of the earthquake happened inside Pakistan so it should be known in history as the earthquake that took place inside Pakistan.--39.41.122.216 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

2. The Wikipedia article is very inaccurate. This source gives a much accurate information and it also names it 2005 Pakistan earthquake because alot of other places inside Pakistan recieved major damages as a result of it. "Its main impact zone was in AJK and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. An area (mostly mountainous and rugged terrain) of about 30,000 sq. km approximately was affected by this earthquake. It damaged about 6,440 km roads. It damaged 50-70 % of services like power, water and sanitation etc. Approximately 400,153 houses, 6,298 schools and 796 health facilities were damaged and destroyed. UN 2006. Approximately 100,000 people were dead, around 138,000 people were seriously injured and 3.5 million people were displaced in this earthquake ..." [16].--39.41.114.65 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, leaving a redirect from 2005 Kashmir earthquake. The earthquake was very widely reported at the time in the UK as being in Pakistan. If it widely affected Kashmir there's no harm in leaving a redirect. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support because we favor accurate names whenever plausible and at least somewhat supported by sources. Certainly seems to apply here. Red Slash 04:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the proposed title would suggest that the earthquake affected just Pakistan, when in fact several countries were affected. A better option would be 2005 Muzaffarabad earthquake since that pinpoints the rough epicentre and avoids all the geopolitical debate about whether it is part of one country or another. 212.113.145.253 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the usage research done by Mikenorton. I'd also dispute the claim that "only few people know of [Kashmir] and its location", or that we should be using the most well-known names. Additionally, Azad Kashmir is not technically Pakistan, according to Pakistani law. The suggestion above of using the epicentre in the title is more practical. Osiris (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is only partially right; Azad Kashmir is not a province of Pakistan, yes. But it is an administrative territory that is governed under the jurisdiction of Pakistan and is part of the Pakistani federation. Thus your assertion that it is not technically Pakistan is incorrect in that regard. Mar4d (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

From Azad Kashmir: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is a self-governing state under Pakistani control, but under Pakistan's constitution the state is not actually part of Pakistan. It cites Britannica. Regardless, the most common name appearing on Google is Kashmir, and with more than a thousand deaths on the Indian-administered side, it's better left at just "Kashmir". Osiris (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support The proposer makes a logical argument. Most of the damages and casualties that occurred from the earthquake were in Pakistan. The earthquake epicenter itself was in the Pakistan-administered part of Kashmir. However, in addition to Kashmir, several other neighboring regions of Pakistan were also gravely affected. Changing the title would be an accurate move. Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose,Some casualities occured in Indian part of Kashmir although area under Pakistam was most affected.So naming it Pakistan earthquake is not appropriate.I am wondering people engaging with each other on these issues too.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 19:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Policy urges us not to be pedantic and to use the term most often used in reliable sources rather than what is technically correct. The earthquake is commonly referred to as the Kashmir Earthquake (Britannica uses Kashmir earthquake of 2005, for example). Regardless of the political position of the part of Kashmir in/administered by/occupied by Pakistan, since the effects of the earthquake were felt beyond that area, the alternative proposed is neither the common name nor the technically correct one. --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  You are wrong. The earthquake is commonly referred to as Pakistan Earthquake. [17], [18], [19]. Britannica is not a good example, it can be edited by anyone, it contains more wrong information than Wikipedia.--39.41.212.239 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/iir/online/2006/11/the_pakistan_earthquake_of_oct.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301233509/http://azfarrizvi.com:80/home/portfolio/earthquake-diaries/ to http://azfarrizvi.com/home/portfolio/earthquake-diaries/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/iir/online/2006/11/the_pakistan_earthquake_of_oct.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161004150402/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/catalogs/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/catalogs/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://azfarrizvi.com/home/portfolio/earthquake-diaries/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)