Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes/Archive 4

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

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

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


 * Given how close these values are, and the possible overlap, I guess it's a tie. (An average measurement of 8.0 does not imply that the true value was 8.0 or greater.) I suggest to say that the Gaziantep earthquake was about as strong as (and possibly stronger than) the 1668 North Anatolia earthquake, maybe with a footnote saying basically what you just said (giving the different measurements/estimates for both). Renerpho (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The two values for the 1668 event are alternatives, depending on the interpreted rupture length. The Ms7.8 matches to a 380km rupture, similar to the recent M7.8 earthquake. The larger value comes from the 600 km estimate, which is backed by trenching across the North Anatolian Fault, so keep that in mind; the values should not be averaged. Mikenorton (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Japanese earthquake expert, Professor Shinji Toda has said that this earthquake is, not just Turkeys, but one of the worlds largest land earthquakes. [NTV Japon Profesör Shinji: Türkiye'deki deprem dünyanın en büyük kara depremlerinden biri]
 * (Note: The article refers to the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes which is just a common name for how the 2 main earthquakes are widely referred to in the Turkish media. Both shocks were rougly in Kahramanmaraş) Gazozlu (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Title vs. content
The article appears to treat the 7.8 magnitude earthquake and the later 7.5 magnitude earthquake as two separate earthquakes, but there wasn't a consensus on the move. I haven't been following the talk page for some time, so I may have missed a past discussion if there was one, but was there a consensus on that this article should discuss two separate earthquakes, while the title stays singular? Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It was discussed somewhat as part of the most recent move request but no consensus was reached. Gazozlu (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards tweaking the article so that it suits its title. Another thing I noticed is that there are some instances in which the article mentions a single mainshock right after it talks about two separate earthquakes. In fact, just within the infobox, the second largest earthquake is treated as a separate one in the "Epicenter" section and also as an aftershock in the "Aftershocks" section. This is definitely misleading. Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We should probably reach a consensus on this. It was a point of contempt in the previous discussions, but they appear to have been largely derailed due to procedural reasons.
 * I think for clarity it's best to keep the main quakes as separate quakes and avoid using the aftershock terminology for them as appears to be the established convention outside the US, i.e. 1st, 2nd so that the reader can differentiate between the major quakes and their smaller aftershocks along the same faultline. Gazozlu (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding two magnitude figures + two depth figures + two epicenter coord.s and the aftershocks para is definitely misleading. They refer to the first >M7 so best to stick to one authoritative source. Adding the KOERI figure is just very try-hard. Can we keep it clean and remove the other one? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's the opposite, it rather clarifies that there were 2 major epicenters. Gazozlu (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox details (Magnitude, Depth) in this revision refers to one event. The only time info about the second >M7 event is mentioned is in Aftershocks and Location. The infobox proceeds to give two epicenters for two different events; where's the second event mentioned? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1st and 2nd needs to be added for every of those details. Gazozlu (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They've done it quite well here. tr:2023 Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş depremleri Gazozlu (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not use KOERI as primary? Gazozlu (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I rather like the edit they have made to my figure on the Spanish wikipedia. They've also corrected the location of Ekinözü. File:Terremotos de Turquía y Siria de 2023 - Epicentros.svg Gazozlu (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To focus more on the 7.5 event: "So now that the 7.5 is considered an aftershock per new scientific consensus" was one of the main discussions about keeping the second events' information. A consensus appears to have been reached to keep the second event in the article as an aftershock rather than remove the information outright.  "Seperate wikipages should be created -suggestion" was a discussion about splitting the two events into separate articles which was opposed.  ""Turkey-Syria Earthquakes", Not "Turkey-Syria Earthquake"", "Unverified statements", and "Multiple earthquakes, Not one." where three discussion from about the same time that kinda went nowhere other than to lead to a new Move Request which failed.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add on separately that Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake/FAQ was intended to be updated depending on the close of the last move request and on the rational for the decision. However, the only thing that the closer mentioned was that there was currently a consensus not to move.  Hence why the FAQ only discusses the Turkey/Türkiye discussion that came up three or four times and not the earthquake/earthquakes discussion that came up five to seven times.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox isn't meant to detail every observation of the event. It's not an info dump. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If the title says "earthquake", the infobox should only list the most major one. If the title says "earthquakes", the infobox should list all the major ones (there may be 3 at this point). The article itself should convey the information, as accurately as we can establish it, in a way which is as consistent as possible with the title. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 07:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Animals in and rescued from the earthquake
there was a lot of coverage about pets such as dogs and cats who were rescued from the earthquake, shouldn't we add some information about the effect of the earthquake on animals. PETA also sent in some teams to help. IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of deaths that appear to be from the second quake
Note: This is about the inclusion of deaths which appear to be from the Mw7.7 aftershock on the List of earthquakes in 2023.

Now I found a source saying that 924 people died in Elbistan, which I added to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake article. Another source in that article said that "3 buildings collapsed in the mainshock and over 2,000 others in the Mw7.6 aftershock in Elbistan". Although we don't know exactly, and they might be attributed to the mainshock for simplicity purposes, I think they should be attributed to the aftershock becuase of the stuff I just explained, even though there might be some original research here, which I try to add minimal of. I thought about adding the 924 dead to the aftershock on the List of earthquakes of 2023 article, but this time, there needs to be a consensus first. Quake1234 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what source you're talking about because there's no URL provided. The current source supporting 924 deaths in Elbistan does not explicitly state weather or not they were attributed to the second >M7 earthquake. Assuming these deaths were attributed to the second >M7 event without proper attribution is WP:OR and an absolute no no. There's nothing to discuss/argue because the source doesn't say anything about that. You even admitted to WP:OR ... Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dora the Axe-plorer here's the source for the 2,000 destroyed buildings and It makes sense why we would attribute the deaths to the mainshock if it's less specific. Quake1234 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the epicenter of 2nd quake was practically in Elbistan it makes sense that extensive damages and loss of life have been attributed to the 2nd quake specifically. Gazozlu (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a source that attributed the impact in Elbistan to the second >M7, there shouldn't be any assumptions. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is quite literally what that source says.
 * In case you have not understood the source they posted, it states:


 * Gazozlu (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've read the source. It still doesn't say 924 deaths attributed only to the second >M7; there's no specific number given. Who's to say there were 0 deaths when the first one struck. What we can add is the second >M7 resulted in hundreds of deaths in the city. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Nothing is wrong about that; and if the photo was showing this, I don't think anyone would complain. The problem is that the photo does not show the flags of most countries in the world. It shows only the Japanese flag, which may lead to confusion why specifically that flag is included. The event's connection to Japan is not obvious, especially since the photo is presented without commentary. I'd strongly support the inclusion of a photo that illustrates the international response/mourning. The flag of any one nation does not illustrate that very well, and neither does the flag of Turkey. Renerpho (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While it may not be obvious to the general public, Turkey and Japan have a long history of solidarity, especially when it comes to earthquakes. Both countries experience severe earthquakes and they have long worked together to study them. Japanese and Turkish geophysicists have worked together for a long time. Gazozlu (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's not obvious at all. But if you see a way to explain that in a few words, the image could again make sense. Are there reports of that "special solidarity" in relation to this earthquake, specifically? It's a question of context. Renerpho (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/cooperation-between-turkey-and-japan-disaster-management-be-enhanced This article gives some of the background of the special relationship when it comes to earthquakes and the history behind it dating back to The Republic of Turkeys first major earthquake. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gundem/japonya-turkiyeye-deprem-yardimlarini-artiracak/2812368 This is about them increasing cooperation for this earthquake specifically. Gazozlu (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case I think having 6 images of rubble is too much and doesn't add much. What I suggest is maybe have 1 or 2 or rubble, keep the fort, 1 of international solidarity (ex the Japanese flag), one showing rescue efforts, and one or two showing the affects on the landscape such as this.--Gazozlu (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the reader will understand that there's a lot of rubble after the first two images; four more won't change that impression. Your suggestion sounds good, but are such images available? A free image of this would be needed, which means someone would have to go there, take footage with a drone, and upload that to Wikipedia/-media. I don't know if that's advisable. Renerpho (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftershocks
Quoting the number of aftershocks is nearly meaningless unless the source specifies the time period and the lower magnitude cut-off. Mikenorton (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The most recent source that I could find that does specify in magnitude is from 21 February 2023. It does not specify the time period but it is assumed that period is between 6-21 Feb 2023.
 * ...toplam 7 bin 242 artçı sarsıntının olduğu kaydedildi ... 41 tanesi 5 ile 6 büyüklüğü arasında olurken, 450’si ise 4 ve 5 büyüklüğü arasında...
 * ... it was recorded that there were 7242 aftershocks ... 41 were between magnitude 5 and 6, 450 were between magnitude 4 and 5 ...
 * Source: AFAD in Urfa Pusula (21 February 2023) Gazozlu (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the tool provided by Kandilli Observatory we can see that in the month of February 2023 there were about 430 earthquakes (M4 or larger) so far that are along the main faults of the two >M7 mainshocks of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake. (450 if you include those that happened around Crete, Mosul, East Mediterranean and Lebanon, Amasya, Ankara, Niğde, Adana, Erzurum, Artvin and Van which are quite a bit further away from the main faults in question)
 * Of those, 45 are M5 or larger.
 * Of those, 5 are M6 or larger.
 * Of those, 2 are M7 or larger.
 * But this would be considered "Original Research" so I guess we have to use Urfa Pusula or similar sources. Although their figures are slightly different than what I could see from the Kandilli Observatory tool. Gazozlu (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Kahramanmaras earthquake name change.
Should we change the title of the article to Kahramanmaras earthquake? Like for many other earthquakes they have the name of the exact location of where it stuck. Like 1994 Northridge earthquake and 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake. Iwillhelpokay? (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Ref Iwillhelpokay? (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A move moratorium is in effect until March 22, 2023. This discussion shall be speedly closed. See Archive 3 Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023 (3)
change aftershock number to 8550+. source: turkey disaster and emergency management presidency (afad) earthquake general manager prof.dr. orhan tatar's speech (sorry for bad english) Çapulcu2 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Gazozlu (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Which part are you referring to and why 8550+? The source that you cited says " 7,242 aftershocks". M.Bitton (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a source citing AFAD that I had found 2 days ago. The person originally asking the question was referring to a quote by Orhan Tatar. I found a news source from today citing Orhan Tatar.

Gazozlu (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see the time frame they are referring to. Given we still see quite a few measurable aftershocks every day, this number would have to be dated at least to the day to be of any value. The number we currently have in the article comes with a date (12 February), so unless the new number is equipped with a date, too (for the number itself, not the statement), I suggest we keep the one we have. Renerpho (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just see that the "Aftershocks" section below probably contains the information I asked for. The question of whether this is WP:OR still has to be dealt with. Renerpho (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first part is quoting AFAD, so no WP:OR issue. The second part finds basically the same data manually through WP:OR. Gazozlu (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Foreshock
No source that I am aware of has mentioned any foreshocks as we do. The event we include is not on the Dead Sea Transform and, therefore, represents an unlikely foreshock to the initial rupture. I will remove it as unsourced speculation. Mikenorton (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Mike. Nice seeing you. I also think it is time to begin discussion on splitting this article into a few parts. 75kb and more than 500 sources is simply untenable in my opinion.  ceran  thor 16:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been discussions on splitting the article, with concensus against the most ambitious of the discussions. The only discussion to secede at splitting things was this discussion which led to List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake.  (Emphasis mine)  There were also past discussions on the foreshock, but I don't see a spot where a consensus was made to include the "foreshock" information in the article.  (There was a prior attempt to discuss the "foreshock", but the discussion ended up going over the earthquake or earthquakes debate again.   --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not urgent, but it is necessary to split up this article. I can think of very few articles that merit 75kb of text, and this is not one of them.  ceran  thor 00:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. I just wanted to let you know that there has already been a few discussions on splitting the article.  (While simultaneously pointing out that the only successful discussion was a list that currently claims there were foreshocks.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion on that list page. Mikenorton (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the current version of the article is a bit bloated and could do with trimming down before we get into any detailed discussions about article splitting. Mikenorton (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The aftershocks table can be removed; it duplicates the content in the separate list page; can be written in one line and a map already supplements that info. Will go through the article and remove what needs to be removed whenever I can. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

USGS preliminary analysis
I've added a link to the EL section for the USGS preliminary analysis of the earthquake sequence. In summary, they suggest that the earthquake initiated on the northernmost part of the Dead Sea Transform (called the Narlı segment, according to the Active fault map of Turkey, 2013). It then propagated unilaterally northwards until it reached the East Anatolian Fault before propagating bilaterally along that zone to both the northeast and southwest. This explains the lateral offset between the epicentre and the EAF. The second large shock that occurred on the Çardak-Sürgü Fault, they think was possibly a result of Coulomb stress transfer caused by the mainshock. Mikenorton (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Video translation from Russian
I don't speak Russian. I want to write subtitles for the video used in this article. Other than the "thank you. Thank you, Russia", what does the man say at the end of the video?

The video:

File:Russian servicemen in Syria provide humanitarian assistance to earthquake-affected residents of Aleppo - February 2023.webm

I'll google translate your translation back to Russian for the subtitle's timing. So, timing is not a problem. FunLater (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous victim count stated for Syria, please correct

 * 1) Please READ the original SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, syriahr.com) news item (February 19, 2023): On the 14th day | 8,248 Syrians kil-led by the earthquake in Syrian territory, and not just the headline. The victim count includes " 1,779 people whose bodies were transported from Turkey to Syria". I.e. these were already counted in Turkey and even though they are Syrians, that is, these 1,779 were not killed in Syria. The true number of Syrians killed in Syria, reported by SOHR on February 19, 2023 was 8,248 MINUS 1,779 equals 2,203+4,266=6,269. That victim count was later updated by SOHR, as stated below. It is suggested that the news article currently used as enwiki reference (UN Delegation Visits City in Northwest Syria to Inspect Damage Following Deadly Earthquake. The Herald and Weekly Times. 22 February 2023. Retrieved 28 February 2023.) is not reliable, as the author of that text of the The Herald and Weekly Times has not understood that the headline of the SOHR news is not exactly correct. It is very likely that he or she has not understood what the SOHR article actually says.
 * 2) Updated victim count reported by SOHR on February 24, 2023 was 6,760:  Catastrophic earthquake | 6,760 Syrian people dead since February 6. This supports what is said in 1.
 * 3) However, that figure does not represent true earthquake victim count (of found people) in Syria due to the Gaziantep–Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (February 6, 2023) before Feb. 19 (nor Feb. 24). It is quite likely that this statement by SOHR news (February 19, 2023) is true: "The total death toll does not include victims whose relatives buried them in Syrian territory shortly after the earthquake, even before the arrival of rescue teams." See Islamic funeral.
 * --Paju~enwiki (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the issue. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to say that SOHR is not a fully reliable source we should use alone without attribution. Always worth triangulating against other more reliable monitors such as Syrian Network for Human Rights, Violations Documentation Centre and Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets), who have access to better data. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Animals in and rescued from the earthquake
there was a lot of coverage about pets such as dogs and cats as well as other animals who were rescued from the earthquake, shouldn't we add some information about the effect of the earthquake on animals? PETA also sent in some teams to help. IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is far too long already, so I don't think that we should. Mikenorton (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PETA could be added to Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake without an issue. I also would support just a single sentence about the animals here if you can find a section that it would fit in.  --Super Goku V (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Given my second thoughts in the following section, a single sentence in this article should be fine, if there's a natural home for it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Article size
As has been pointed out before this article is much too big. It would be helpful if editors for now concentrated on reducing repetition and removing anything superfluous rather than keeping on adding yet more content. I rewrote the "Tectonic setting" section and I've been working through the "Earthquakes" section doing the same thing, which will hopefully give some reduction but won't really affect the article length significantly. Any proposals for ways of trimming the article down on a more major scale would be very helpful. Mikenorton (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Having said this, I re-read WP:Article size and noticed that we are more in "probably too long" ground rather than "definitely too long", based on the Page size tool, which gives 75 kB (11793 words) "readable prose size". There do appear to me to be an excessive number of citations, I note that Earth gets by with 291 compared to the 533 that we use on this article. So I would now say that trimming is good, but maybe no need at the moment for the major surgery that I suggested above (I've stricken some bits accordingly). Mikenorton (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Might be a good time for me to point out that the In Turkey sub-section of the Damage and casualties section uses over 100 unique citations at the moment. The Foreign casualties sub-section in the same section is the next highest that I can see, though most of that is due to the table.  (The table could be split off into a stand-alone template with references, like Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases was for the US COVID-19 article in this discussion.)  Additionally, the 20-30 references in the International humanitarian efforts section don't actually come from this article, so we technically use closer to 500 than 533 sources in the article.  The lede at Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake currently uses eight unique sources for just one paragraph which is the most for the International humanitarian efforts section here.  --Super Goku V (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After taking a second look, the entire Damage and casualties section is 253 citations which is 47% of the citations in the entire article. If I counted correctly, 31 of those citations are used elsewhere in the article, making the remaining 222 used only once.  (So 41% of the article's citations are citations only used once in the Damage and casualties section with 11% being table citations and the remaining 30% being standard citations.)  If the entire section was split off, that would immediately drop the article to just over 300 citations including those from the International humanitarian efforts section.  --Super Goku V (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that as time goes on and more thorough reports on the damage (and other topics) start to appear, we should be able to reduce the number of citations significantly. In my condensing of the two sections that I've worked on ("Tectonic setting" and "Earthquakes" - the latter is nearly ready to replace the existing text), I've kept most of the existing citations, but suspect that the number could be reduced with a bit of thought - I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the 150,000 deaths figure be mentioned somewhere?
The AKP estimates that the earthquake actually killed 150,000 people and that the Turkish government is covering up the true death toll from the quake. There are multiple sources stating this. Undescribed (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * These all seem speculative. We would need much better sources to include this. Mikenorton (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023
Please change "peak ground velocity was recorded at 2.15 cm/s in Hassa.[71]" to "peak ground velocity was recorded at 215.34 cm/s in Hassa.[71]" The source referred in the article and the paragraph I am suggesting an edit for records the peak ground velocity as 215 cm/s I think there is either a unit issue or a simple mistake. ToramanA24 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I removed the claim altogether, given that it failed verification. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrested contractors
I remember reading about contractors arrested in Turkey for investigation about building code violation, but can't find anything avout the arrests in the article. - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * True that. The contractor of the Rönesans Building and one of the Turkish Red Crescent would be notable ones in my opinion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first of those two is in the article about the building, Rönesans Rezidans. It could use an update with information like this about the arrested people, but also in general there has been more discussion since, about why the building collapsed in the way that it did. Gazozlu (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The list of aftershocks was listed for deletion, please weigh in.
Here's the AFD. Articles for deletion/List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

Please look at the article and read Talk:List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake to come to your own conclusion. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Castlecollapse.jpg

Intersaction of aid, jurisdiction, and sanctions
Hiya, there's a ton of information, which I think is great but I think some things are getting lost... I think more weight should be given to the difficulty of aiding Syrians because of the sanctions/the way the UN is set up -- and the jurisdictional/ethical issues that arose from aiding the rebels in Syria. I think that will be an enduring problem that will be discussed years from now. Peanut Gal·lery (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"February 6 earthquake" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=February_6_earthquake&redirect=no February 6 earthquake] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. The Night Watch    (talk)   18:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Title
I know that because the earthquake was harsher in Turkey the title is written as 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake. But isn't it better to write the country's names in alphabetical order? For example we have Afghanistan-Iran relations and Iran-Ukraine relations. Aminabzz (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)