This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

CaliforniaLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Canada:British Columbia /History /GeographyMid‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCanada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported byWikiProject History of Canada. This article is supported byWikiProject Geography of Canada. Cascadia This article is part ofWikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related toCascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia EarthquakesTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofearthquakes,seismology,plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale. OregonHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofOregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. The currentcollaborations of the month areWomen's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed atOregon Women of Achievement (modern) orWomen of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). United States:History /WashingtonMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited 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 Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject U.S. history (assessed asMid-importance). This article is supported byWikiProject Washington (assessed asMid-importance). Disaster managementMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDisaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Anthropology:Oral tradition This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAnthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology This article is supported byOral tradition taskforce.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theOn this day section onJanuary 26, 2005,January 26, 2006,January 26, 2007,January 26, 2018,January 26, 2022, andJanuary 26, 2023.

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 theTsunami article, in theother historical tsunamis section, there is reference to this earthquake and mention of "Awa, Japan". As noted atAWA, 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.Courtland00:55, 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?Skookum123:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

dino05:02, 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 thanTacoma. Or is it somehow expected that the quake would only affect the US?Cleduc08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else happen to see today'sOregonian, "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 latestJournal 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 theOregonian 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. --llywrch00:28, 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]

TheOregonian article would be aWP:Reliable source.BeenAroundAWhile (talk)20:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In all the research I did forOzette 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 toUser:Create a Pineapple: the comment on your recent edit is incorrect, as this earthquakedid 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 the2010 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 Andreasstrike-slip fault turns seaward into theMendocino 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 the2009 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 itscenter. 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., shouldevery quake in the California list also be included in the U.S. list?)

I see that none of the earthquakes listed inList of earthquakes in California were even atenth of the magnitude of the 1700 Cascadia quake. It could be argued that if it does not qualify, thennone 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 havewritten records. Which raises an interesting point (do readOrphan 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)—Precedingundated comment added00:52, 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 theContiguous United States in recorded history.^{[citation needed]}

For anyone interested in taking a closer look at the scientific thinking regarding recurrence rate: take look atUSGS 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 doesnot conduct studies; it is thepublisher 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]

• C-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• C-Class Canada-related articles
• Mid-importance Canada-related articles
• C-Class British Columbia articles
• Mid-importance British Columbia articles
• C-Class History of Canada articles
• Mid-importance History of Canada articles
• C-Class Geography of Canada articles
• Mid-importance Geography of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• WikiProject Cascadia articles
• C-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• C-Class Oregon articles
• High-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class United States History articles
• Mid-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• C-Class Washington articles
• Mid-importance Washington articles
• WikiProject Washington articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• C-Class Oral tradition articles
• Oral tradition taskforce articles
• Selected anniversaries (January 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2018)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2022)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2023)

• Pages using WikiProject Anthropology with unknown parameters
• Selected anniversaries articles