Talk:1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoeroros, 2003la, Amoreland22, Teddykoronios1234. Peer reviewers: Alee0046, Johnskae, Kratos11406, Alwyn2105, Dtkraft, Geol200 NB, Nateherbkersman, Btareen, Zafir Alolade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi, i am new to wikipedia posting. I would apreciate any feedback that anyone has on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreymcgrath (talk • contribs)   06:02, 10 February 2009


 * Hi there, I was quite sure that there were other eyewitnesses to this event, another 2 boats in the bay, the crew on 1 boat survived while the other crew did not.--Arrows98 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1720 feet
This bit is a little dramatic, isn't it? The CN Tower is bigger than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The degree of drama probably is proportional to how close you were to the wave... 24.196.81.229 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It says in the first paragraph that the wave was 524 metres tall, 76 metres taller than the empire state building, but a wikipedia page about the empire state building claims it to be only 381 metres tall. If both measurements are correct, then the mega-tsunami was actually 143 metres taller than the empire state building. ~Slaying350~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaying350 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1720 ft is the maximum height of water damage due to the wash. The actual crest of the wave would have been lower. The diagram is very misleading, as a wave of that height would wipe things out over 2000 ft with it's wash. BlueStraggler (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/tsunami.htm the wave height was 60 m. I don't see any citations for the above very large figure. Where did it come from? Metricmike (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is stupid, there was no 500 meter wave. This might be the most ridiculus myth on the internet spread by popular science. Yes there was a big landslide into a small isolated bay that made the water rush into the opposit side squeezing the water several hundred meters up the nearby cliff. There is no way you can define that as a wavehight! One can clearly see from the pictures that yes the water shot very high up the nearby cliff but that was right next to where the mountainside came crashing down, further down the bay the water did not reach anywhere near hundreds of meter up the side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.17.246 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a myth
(Re above comments), the tsunami is not a myth or an exaggeration by over-excited parties. It is well documented by reliable sources, including the Geological Survey of Canada. Also covered in the BBC's Ten things you didn't know about Tsunamis. The wave was the world's largest at 1720 feet / 525m, higher than any building on earth. The stats are not refuted or in question in any sources that I have found. Span (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The wave height was repeated in a TV show that aired today (Memphis ComCast Ch.107 CURRENT TV) called "Dangerous Planet - World's Worst Tsunamis" (but listed in the channel guide as "Tsunamis: Killer Waves"), including an interview with eyewitness Howard Ulrich. It featured an animated rendering showing the wave height relative to the Empire State Building, and a scale simulation in a wave tank by Swiss researcher Dr. Hermann Fritz, who found that the air pocket carried under the bay by the landslide helped generate a larger-than-expected wave.  His exact words, however, were that the water "ran up a half a kilometer" onto the opposite shore, which (to me) suggests he was NOT describing the running wave height. I don't know how to properly embed any of this info in the actual article, but I suspect information about the show can be found on IMDB. Steve8394 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The books I have linked specify that 1,720 feet was the actual wave height, not any kind of up-wash effect. Span (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, two of the sources directly contradict the megatsunami claim. None of the eyewitnesses estimate a greater crest height than 100 ft, and one of them (Ulrich) specifically states that the 1,800 ft figure is not the wave height, but how high the water splashed on the mountain sides. I suggest the article be renamed since it's obviously not dealing with anything remotely resembling a megatsunami event. Captain Adhoc (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steve8394 and Adhoc. I just read the book that you(Spanglej) quoted on Google Books, named "Tsunami!".  That book specifically states that according to Ulrich, the wave height was 100 feet, and in another section 50-75 feet in height.  The 1,800 figure is for damage from the wave inundation. Just like the the quote "forest was felled inland as far as 3,600 feet from the shore."  Again, that does not make the wave 3,600 feet tall. I am going to remove the incorrect references and quote the sources correctly.  A 100 foot high tsunami is a big wave, no reason to sensationalize it.  If you can find a source that actually says that the wave height was 1720 feet, instead of the sources you quoted that clearly state 100 feet, then by all means revert. Bobsd (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After attempting to clean up the article, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. After the rock slide, there was a hell of a splash, which cause massive destruction up to the often cited height of 1720 feet.  However, after that initial "splash" or "wave" depending on your preferences, an actual wave sped across the entire bay, which witnesses have said was 100 + feet tall.  Then there were subsequent oscillation waves that went back and forth with a 20 foot height.  So if someone wants to take on more clarification, then please do so, but please be clear about which part of the event you are talking about when editing.  Regards, Bobsd (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Lituya Bay

58.662700, -137.490745

—65.60.177.124 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The coordinates in the infobox (which is Infobox earthquake) are—now that I've emended them—those of the epicenter of the earthquake that caused the landslide, according to the cited source. The coordinates in the title position are correct for Lituya Bay. There seems nothing else to be done here. Deor (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's seems not only I think the Lituya Bay megatsunami coordinates should show the Bay. The second set of coordinates is very precisely described as epicenter. I'm adding ,,earthquake" to the Infobox earthquake to make it more clear. If the epicenter coordinates are too confusing they should be removed because the Lituya Bay megatsunami article is about the Lituya Bay megatsunami in the Lituya Bay not about another place somewhere else. More confusing is when a map linked by coordinates shows an area different then described in an article. PawełS (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the article is not titled correctly, and this needs to be addressed. For now, please leave the coords for the earthquake epicenter, as that is what triggered the landslide, and is what this article is about – an earthquake. The tsunami is secondary. The article needs to have content added about the shock first, then the landslide and tsunami. There are plenty of sources available to do this; most of it is not readily available. Dawnseeker2000  16:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've noticed similar articles were titled ,,x earthquake and tsunami" with coordinates of epicenter on the top. This article isn't titled earthquake so I propose no coordinates in the top and the bay coordinates in the text after ,, the narrow inlet of Lituya Bay, Alaska", so every pair of coordinates will be described. PawełS (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, I think we'll have to do something similar with the naming on this one. I am not settled with what would work best, but I do have some ideas. For now, I think your adding the second coordinates at the top is fine to help with locating the bay. I don't think coords in the body of the article works very well because it disrupts the flow of prose, so let's hold off on that for right now. Dawnseeker2000  18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I have resolved the issue that I mentioned three years ago by including the words "Alaska" and "earthquake" in the title (a few sources that I looked at labeled the earthquake the "1958 Alaska earthquake"). The move that I just made looks like this: 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami → 1958 Lituya Bay, Alaska earthquake and megatsunami. Dawnseeker2000 07:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Unclear number
In the lead paragraph, the article says the earthquake "triggered a rockfall of 2,000 feet (30 million cubic metres, 40 million cubic yards, and about 90 million tons) to fall from several hundred metres...." Just what is the 2,000 referring to? I looked at the ref, but didn't find that number mentioned. Is it the altitude of the head of the rockslide? It's not the height of the fall, which is stated immediately following. If anyone has a clue, please add some clarification. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be better now. I removed the unclear bit and retained the cited "30 million cubic metres", but the lead still needs work. Dawnseeker2000  22:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely better. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Problematic reference
I've removed one reference that was cited four times and am putting it here:

The problem is that this is a bibliography of publications dealing with tsunami hazards in Canada, and the single page that is referenced lists several abstracts of papers published in at least three journals or books; it is not clear which one is meant. Nor does that page support all the statements in the article for which it was cited.

I replaced the reference with citation needed in each place it was used.— Gorthian (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161004150402/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/catalogs/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/catalogs/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Kismetmiss (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)== dimensions of the waterway ==

The dimensions of the inlets at Lituya Bay are known to effect wave heights, like other inlets/fjords. It constrains the water and increases amplitude. I can't find an easy link to this fact for an online source although it's referenced on the page for Cumbre Vieja. So far I just know it off hand from oceanography but I'll look for something clearer.

dimensions of the waterway
Here's on the effects of narrow and/or shallow waterways on tsunamis. Lituya Bay's inlets are a case of this, increasing the wave. If anyone wants to add the information, that's why some question it being a mega-tsunami, it makes the wave more extreme than if it was in open oceanKismetmiss (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/tsunami.html

USGS magnitude
I checked the USGS event page 1 for this earthquake and the magnitude is at 8.3. I'm not sure if this is a proper revise of the magnitude because of so, there would be some indication that it was upgraded from the 7.8 magnitude, and some references. I come across two sources placing the magnitude at 8.3 here: and. Should this article follow the new USGS magnitude or it will remain at 7.8? --Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to know where that change in USGS magnitude came from. Looking at the USGS they show two "origin products" - the M8.3 attributed to KAN and M7.8 attributed to ISCGEM. I have been unable to find out what KAN stands for, the obvious possibilities are "Kansas", although that doesn't seem very likely or "Hiroo Kanamori", which seems most likely, but I haven't found anything published by him that seems to fit. We could just go with stating a range, a solution used in a lot of articles. Mikenorton (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL-122
— Assignment last updated by Bendoncaramel (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing Referents in Source [3]
The third referent in the third source links to a defunct archived USGS website. Clicking on the relevant file, it returns a 404 error. Clicking on the original also returned a 404 error. Should be considered for deletion and replacement with an actual resource to support the claims in the article where [3] may be referenced. Jwabeck (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)