A fact from 1896 Sanriku earthquake appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:28, July 16, 2024 (JST, Reiwa6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
Let me get over the concept that 75 years later they built nuclear power plants right where this wave hit. Okay. I have my doubts on the size of the wave. I think the figure of 34 meters is elevation of land not height of wave. Randall Bart Talk 00:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The url for source that I originally used does not seem to be working, however see the run-up heights for the tsunami as given by the NGDC/NOAA [1]. The maximum wave height given is 38.2 m. This is likely to be caused by the local shape of the seafloor, which can strongly amplify the wave - see also for example Iruma which was hit by a ~16 m wave in the 1854 Ansei-Tōkai earthquake although the general run-up values were about 6 m for that tsunami [2]. Mikenorton (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on 1896 Sanriku 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: