A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 26, 2005, January 26, 2006, January 26, 2007, January 26, 2018, January 26, 2022, and January 26, 2023.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: British Columbia / History / Geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada. Cascadia This article is part of WikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Cascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia articles Earthquakes Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Oregon High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). United States: Washington Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance). Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Have there been speculations about what would happen if this zone were to produce a high-magnitude quake "early", say in the next 10 years or so? Seems like it would be pretty disasterous for the Pacific Northwest. Are there any efforts to prepare for such an eventuality? If you know anything about this, please expand the article.

I would advise you to prepare yourself, and not rely on any outside assistance. If a 9+ event happens, it will be every person for themselves. No infrastructure will remain standing, local and regional governments would disappear essentially. 68.144.78.184 ( talk) 23:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Can anyone tell me what would happen to eastern Vancouver Island (ie. the city of Nanaimo) if the Big One were to hit? Oddity- ( talk) 02:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

If the entire Cascadia subduction zone released in a 9+ event you can expect the land mass to sink into the ocean by a few metres around the central VI region. The entire region would be cast into the stone age as all power from the mainland (VI has almost no power plants) would be cut off for a time period spanning weeks. I lived in Nanaimo for 13 years and I was appalled at the lack of simple preparation (eg potable water on hand, radios, fire tools) by the residents there. 68.144.78.184 ( talk) 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

In the Tsunami article, in the other historical tsunamis section, there is reference to this earthquake and mention of "Awa, Japan". As noted at AWA, there are two cities, two historical provinces, and a present day district that could all be referenced by the phrase "Awa, Japan", and all of them could be coastal. Could someone look into disambiguating this reference? Thanks. Courtland 00:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Who came up with this name? I've seen coverage of the 9.0/1700 quake in papers up here (BC) and that name has never been used. Sure, it's fashionable, but since when does it become a proper name for other things than the geographer's fiction it started out as? Skookum1 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

If there's a better name, we'll move the article & make Cascadia Earthquake a redirect. Ain't no big deal. But I've never heard it referred as anything else. Anyone have input here?

dino 05:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

"most notably Seattle, Portland, and Tacoma," – is there a source for this? I'm guessing Vancouver or Victoria might make this list as well, possibly more importantly than Tacoma. Or is it somehow expected that the quake would only affect the US? Cleduc 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Did anyone else happen to see today's Oregonian, "Native American oral histories clarify what science hasn't revealed of a 1700 quake", p. C10? It tells of an article (or group of articles; the article is unclear) in the latest Journal of the Oregon Historical Society that both archeological findings and oral traditions tell of the cost in human life that this earthquake had on the people who were living in the area. There is the choice between using the Oregonian article (not authoritative, but available), or someone stalking the shelf of their local library until this issue arrives (authoritative, but not yet available).

Adding this, as well as the story of how the pieces of evidence about this earthquake were found and assembled, would make this a Featured Article IMHO. -- llywrch 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've added ^{citation needed} to that section as a reference would be really helpful. I've looked and found plenty of places that refer to the existence of such oral histories, but I've not found anything on them specifically. Ride the Hurricane ( talk) 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The Oregonian article would be a WP:Reliable source. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

In all the research I did for Ozette Indian Village Archeological Site, I never found specific reference to this quake, but it seems absurd that it could've been a different quake causing the damage. Does it seem like too much of an OR stretch to add a link to this article in the other? Murderbike ( talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Note to User:Create a Pineapple: the comment on your recent edit is incorrect, as this earthquake did occur in California. For sure, not the entire state, but there is more to California than Los Angeles. I don't have the citation at hand (I'll see if I can find it, but that may take several weeks), but I do recall seeing some study on subsidence somewhere around Crescent City. And a quake of this size was probably felt all the way down to mid-California. I would like to suggest that the links to California should be restored. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It occurred on the Juan de Fuca fault, didn't it? I thought it was based on the epicenters of the earthquakes; and even if so I'm not even sure why I added the 2010 Eureka earthquake onto the list. Create a Pineapple ( talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Two key points you should consider. First, what's involved here is not a fault in any usual sense of the word but a subduction zone. Sort of like a reverse fault, but on a massively greater scale. In this case the southern end of the subduction zone is where the San Andreas strike-slip fault turns seaward into the Mendocino Fracture Zone. (Which probably implicates your Eureka earthquake, and I could wish that all of these were tied together better.) Second, whereas most earthquakes have an area of slippage that is small enough in relation to global scales that is is not unreasonable to think in terms of a point source, in the case of the 1700 earthquake it appears that the subducting Pacific Plate slipped along the entire length of the subduction zone. That's why it was so monstrously big. And arguably the most significant geological event in Northern California in the last dozen centuries or so. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

By that reasoning, does that mean the 2009 Mexicali earthquake should be added onto the list because it affected the Imperial Valley part of California, even though the epicenter was in Mexico? Create a Pineapple ( talk) 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily. I would say that an earthquake (or any other event) that impacts a wide region should not be limited to the very small locale of its center. That would be like saying that the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 is local to New York. If the Mexicali earthquake had a significant impact in the Imperial Valley, then it might be covered in respect of the Imperial Valley. Which might, or might not, be significant to the whole of California. Which depends on what the selection criteria are. (E.g., should every quake in the California list also be included in the U.S. list?)

I see that none of the earthquakes listed in List of earthquakes in California were even a tenth of the magnitude of the 1700 Cascadia quake. It could be argued that if it does not qualify, then none of the others qualify, and there goes the list. Alternately, it could be argued that the list is only of "historical" quakes – typically meaning to have written records. Which raises an interesting point (do read Orphan Tsunami): is the documentation of this quake, including contemporary Japanese records and oral history of the local Indians, sufficient to take it out of the "prehistorical" category? There is no hard and fast answer. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC). reply

If you would like to add the Cascadia earthquake back into the list again, please do so. I'm not planning on reverting it back. I'm a bit busy with my real life stuff right now. Create a Pineapple ( talk) 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I am inclined towards the view the link should be there, but wary of jumping in to do that lest I mess up something else. I don't believe there is any rush, so if you can get to it whenever is convenient that is fine with me. Or we can have a slow-motion race to see who does it?  :-) - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Moved this to here. It has obviously no place in the future section.

As the subduction zone ruptured in a magnitude 9 earthquake, it generated a strong tsunami. The shaking lasted for four minutes or more, triggering landslides. Then the tsunami would have hit land, destroying coast structures and vegetation. This was probably the strongest earthquake to strike the Contiguous United States in recorded history. ^{citation needed}

For anyone interested in taking a closer look at the scientific thinking regarding recurrence rate: take look at USGS Open-File Report 2011–1310. It's the summary of a meeting in Nov. 2011 of the leading experts, and has links to the pertinent literature. They were particularly interested in multiple M 8 quakes that only partially rupture the zone, in addition to the M 9 quakes from complete ruptures. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I am going be tagging the paragraph that starts: "In 2004, a study conducted by the Geological Society of America ...." This is highly dubious, as the GSA does not conduct studies; it is the publisher of studies done by others. The reference includes a single url, which is not an adequate citation, and the link is to a website of a the Watershed Processes Group at Oregon State University, which does not list any related publication. Citations should contain full bibliographic details (such as the authors' names, where published, etc.) to enable finding of the source; a merely url is quite insufficient. And where the url fails, well, verification has failed.

The references/citations here are quite inadequate overall, and need work. I am almost tempted to take them on, but I would first want to know if anyone is going to have grievious objections. I suspect that verification will require some re-writing, with the prospect that the whole article should be rewritten. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• https://www.opb.org/news/series/unprepared/jan-26-1700-how-scientists-know-when-the-last-big-earthquake-happened-here/

--- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply