A fact from 551 Beirut earthquake appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that movement on the newly discovered Mount Lebanon thrust is the most likely cause of the 551 Beirut earthquake and resulting tsunami, which left all the coastal cities of Lebanon in ruins?
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles 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.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the lede, the article refers to "Antoninus of Piacenza", later on, under "Damage, the same testimony is ascribed to "the anonymous pilgrim of Piacenza". In the article on the anonymous pilgrim of Piacenza, it is written that "This anonymous pilgrim was erroneously identified as Antoninus of Piacenza[2] or Antoninus Martyr out of confusion with Saint Antoninus of Piacenza, who died in 303 and is venerated as a martyr."
Therefore, the reference to Antoninus of Piacenza in the lede should be changed to the anonymous pilgrim of Piacenza, both for reasons of factual accuracy, and because the current situation implies two different sources. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
If a repeat of this earthquake is overdue, as the cited sources suggest, then the risk of a tsunami over the relatively near future (next 50 years?) is likely significant. Mikenorton (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
