Talk:Plate tectonics/Archive 2

Mars section
The discussion of plate tectonics on Mars is far from the consensus of the planetary science community...especially regarding plate tectonics having any relevance to young (Hesperian) features like Valles Marineris or the Tharsis Montes. Probably someone more interested in doing extensive editing of this article than me should read some of the relevant background on Mars tectonics (e.g., http://explanet.info/Chapter06.htm) and fix it up.

--just sayin' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.116.88 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I will change the section. Awickert (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tracking the movement
Prompted by a query today at the Reference Desk: It would be great to have a short section that details the methods that have been used (past and present) for tracking plate movement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What we really need is an article on plate reconstruction and probably one on magnetic stripe (geology) and apparent polar wander too. Certainly the methods used in plate reconstructions should be summarised here as well. The former has been on my 'to do' list for a while now, so you've inspired me to start building something. Don't hold your breath though. Mikenorton (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you didn't mind me stepping in, but I've created a stub on apparent polar wander. Unfortunately I've only got the one reference book that covers the subject (and sparsely at that) so any additions and amendments you can provide would be great. Lancevortex (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't mind anyone stepping in, better than waiting for me to get around to it. I'll take a look at it when I get a moment. Regarding magnetic stripes, there's a stub called magnetic anomaly that could probably be expanded to include more on the stripes for now. Mikenorton (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Plate reconstruction article completed, just need to summarise it as a section in this article.Mikenorton (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Section added to article. Mikenorton (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Lyell - Uniformitarianism
This article contains no mention of early geologist Charles Lyell, who posited the possibility of continental drift as early as 1833 in his Principles of Geology. Why? (129.173.192.27 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Probably because nobody studied the book of Lyell in enough detail to cite the page where he talks about this. I'll see what I can do. But before stating that Lyell mentions continental drift, let's see what he actually said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpvandijk (talkcontribs) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Charles Lyell defended uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism blocked continental drift. Quote; Oreskes, Naomi. The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science, page 200: "Charles Schubert subscribed to a substantive uniformitarianism: the belief, expounded most famously by Charles Lyell, that the Earth today is more or less as it has always been". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

comment added by Jpvandijk (talkcontribs) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)): Oreskes, N. (1999); The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science. Oxford University Press, 420 pp.

Very interesting the opinion expressed by Oreskes, and it stimulates surely some discussion. As promised, yesterday I checked all three volumes of Charles Lyell in the original form. In fact, he rejects any type of specific process that does anything else than impose vertical movements upon the Earth crust, to make sea where once land was and opposite (so its not really the Earth which has always been as it was, it are the Processes and Agents that have remained the same) infinitely and without any clearly defined regularity, which is the basis of his type of uniformitarianism. He doesn't speak at all about anything related to shifting continents. The only thing I noticed he talks a little bit about is the resemblance between the directions like N-S on the Globe of some volcanic chains as was used by his forerunners to expose other ideas, but he assigns this to merely accidental. The argument can be exposed more in detail elsewhere, on the page dedicated to Charles Lyell. I would say that in terms of Plate tectonics, he, therefore, doesn't play a role in development or early proposals of the concepts. We must, on the other hand, not forget that also Plate Tectonics is a sort of uniformitarianism if we suppose that the Processes related have been active always in the same way. So it's not the problem of uniformitarianism that "blocked" the acceptance of continental drift I would say. Anyway thats not the question here. comment added by Jpvandijk (talkcontribs) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Tectonic Plate movement
The below paragraph is quite weak:

Tectonic plates are able to move because of the relative density of oceanic lithosphere and the relative weakness of the asthenosphere. Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to be the original source of energy driving plate tectonics. The current view, although it is still a matter of some debate, is that excess density of the oceanic lithosphere sinking in subduction zones is the most powerful source of plate motion. When it forms at mid-ocean ridges, the oceanic lithosphere is initially less dense than the underlying asthenosphere, but it becomes denser with age, as it conductively cools and thickens. The greater density of old lithosphere relative to the underlying asthenosphere allows it to sink into the deep mantle at subduction zones, providing most of the driving force for plate motions. The weakness of the asthenosphere allows the tectonic plates to move easily towards a subduction zone.[22] Although subduction is believed to be the strongest force driving plate motions, it cannot be the only force since there are plates such as the North American Plate which are moving, yet are nowhere being subducted. The same is true for the enormous Eurasian Plate. The sources of plate motion are a matter of intensive research and discussion among earth scientists.

Some objections:

1. Density is NOT the main issue; the issue is that the mantle is molten and the crust is solid.

2. If we look at the Mid-Ocean Ridge, we see that there is rising magma from the mantle. This pushes upward. So, it is CONVECTION that drives the movement.

3. "Sinking" is NOT the real issue here. We only see "subduction" zones where one plate goes under another. We don't see sinking, but instead a being forced downward.

So, the bottom line is, the above paragraph is a violation of common sense, and poorly sourced to boot. Ryoung 122 10:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not the whole story, if something gets more dense and sinks, something has to come up instead in a globus. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That paragraph can be improved. However, #1 is wrong on both counts (mantle is solid, and its convection is density-driven) and #3 is partially right (the reason one goes up and the other goes down is density). For #2, it is true that "ridge push" is important. But this is because of the dynamics topography produced at ridges which creates a gravitational potential energy high there. When considering oceanic crust, it's not that mantle convection pushes it along. It is the upper boundary layer of the convection system.
 * So I see your point that convection must be mentioned, and I agree, but it might be worthwhile doing a little more reading about the topic before changing it. Awickert (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ultimate driving force is the heat. If the subducted plate is not melted down, then the machine would stop. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Heat drives convection. But the subducted plate is not melted (a small bit of it may be); it does change phase, however. Awickert (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Use your imagination based on fluid dynamics and the fact that a fluid moving faster than the fractured surface crust will erode crust at the boundaries,this motion is ,of course,based on differential rotation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbXPKz-Zw&feature=related. It is not heat moving the crust,it is rotation,heat only allows the fluid to exist in a viscous state and no rotating celestial object with a fluid composition is exempt from differential rotationOriel36 (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the literature, you will see that it has been done. The crust at the surface is coupled to the mantle; in fact, it is its upper thermal boundary layer. This coupling is not perfect, and there is shear due to convection (yes, there is plenty of evidence for thermal convection, you can look at measured parameters and construct a Rayleigh number if you like), but (other than potentially the core) the whole Earth has not been shown to undergo significant differential rotation. This is largely because of the extremely high effective viscosities of the materials involved and the lack of significant low-effective-viscosity regions that can decouple one section of the Earth from the other; I say "effective viscosity" because the mantle is a viscoelastic solid, and behaves as a pseudo-fluid (power-law creep) only at extremely slow rates. In any case, it is very different from the contact between a low-viscosity-high-density fluid (water) and a granular solid, in which the boundary shear stresses are high enough to easily dislodge the sand particles. Please cite some sources and offer some reason for why you think that something in particular should be included, because this is not a general forum for this topic. Awickert (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what you do,remove every article relating to differential rotation in rotating celestial objects so you can have your 'convection cell' mechanism which amounts to a heat driven stationary Earth concept.If you can show observational evidence of thermal convection in any rotating celestial object with an exposed viscous composition without differential rotation then you are free to remove what I wrote there but the evidence for differential rotation is not only stronger,it is observed and that is the difference between the mechanism with the strongest possibility in accounting for the Earth's surface features as opposed to a conjectured mechanism which is not observed in other rotating celestial objects with exposed fluid compositions. You are right,this is not a soapbox so don't push it even if you are comfortable with a mechanism that has no links to planetary shape or rotation while differential rotation does.Oriel36 (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I won't do that, because differential rotation does exist. Second, you have only to read the scientific literature to find evidence of thermal convection in any high-Rayleigh-number body, rotating or no. I can offer suggestions if needed. But I have continued to present this, and you have ignored it, so I have little hope on this end. Third, your evidence is not stronger because you have given none and your hypotheses are in conflict with the entire published body of geodynamical literature. Fourth, the content I removed here had only to do with a misunderstanding of the Earth-Sun orbital geometry and not with the topic at hand. Until you come to grips with the fact that you are contradicting professional scientists, who just might know what they are talking about, or attempt to find WP:RS and make improvements to this article, you are not using this talk page for its proper purpose: namely, for discussing content to be added to the article. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but this is the way that things work here. Awickert (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Giant impact hypothesis
I seem to recall hearing something about the possibility that the hypothesized Mars-sized planet that impacted the early Earth and created the Moon may have something to do with plate tectonics. I haven't had a chance to do any research into this, but the idea I read about or saw on some documentary is that the impact could have cracked the crust of the early Earth like an egg leading to the plates. Has this been discredited? Does anyone know of any research into this notion? Mego2005 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never heard anything about it, and I doubt it. The impact would have been more cataclysmic than to just fracture the upper layers. Plus, oceanic lithosphere is the upper part of mantle convection cells, and that seems to be what drives plate tectonics. Google Scholar is a good first step if you want to give it a search. Awickert (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Giant impact hypothesis/ Theia (planet). It has something to do with the Earth's core and its magnetic field. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally had some hazy recollection of where I heard about the impactor leading to plate tectonics -- it was in an article or documentary regarding the Rare Earth hypothesis. The Wiki article mentions it briefly: "The impact that formed the Moon may also have initiated plate tectonics..." but doesn't cite any reference about this particular point. Mego2005 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A more likely suggestion (as I naïvely see it) is that the crust before the impact was all continental; the impact punched an ocean-sized hole, allowing movement. —Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammar
"Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building") is a scientific theory which describes the large scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. It is vital for the existence of life on earth because of the role that it plays in the global cycle that maintains the balance of carbon between the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere".

Logically, the "It" which begins the second sentence refers to the noun "theory". Thus the paragraph is telling us that the theory is vital for the existence of life on earth, which seems unlikely. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the "vital for..." sentence. Unsourced and nothing appears in the article body to support its place in the lead. Vsmith (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Development of the Theory
Is there a reference for the sentence "It was at this point that Wegener's theory became generally accepted by the scientific community", since it seems to be referring to the mid 1950's, which is at least ten years too early. Even one of the references (number 35) at the end of the paragraph indicates that the theory was only built upon after 1961:

"The result was the famous magnetic anomaly map (Mason and Raff, 1961; Raff and Mason, 1961) demonstrating the existence of bands of anomalously high and low magnetization having continuity over hundreds of miles-the fundamental building blocks of seafloor spreading and its successor plate tectonics."

It's not a major thing, but unless there is a reference, I think the sentence could just be deleted. Ersby (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree and removed the sentence. "At this point..." seems quite out of place and as Ersby says, a decade too early. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible flaws?

 * Earth Rotation related Driving Forces
 * Quote: "Global reghmatic shear patterns". Is this a typo or is there a simpler word for this sentence?
 * Mantle Convection related Driving Forces
 * Quote: "In that theory the mantle flows not in cells but in large scale channels, and the direction of the flow is strongly influenced by the Earth's rotation (see below)." Where is the see below?
 * Ridge spreading, Subduction rediscovered, and Plate tectonics were born
 * Quote: "(the former published the same idea one year earlier in Nature; However, priority belongs to Hess, since he had already distributed an unpublished manuscript of his 1962 article by 1960)" Capital letters and brackets is this allowed? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the first thing in parentheses; that word seems to be all but unused. Its paragraph may be quite a bit of WP:OR as well. The second issue is in a sentence about something that is fringe and physically implausible, so I saved us the trouble and just deleted it. That whole section though ("Mantle Convection related Driving Forces") will need quite a bit of work; it will go on my to-do list. For the third, the "However" should not have been capitalized, but I just reworded. Awickert (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx ;) You are quite a roadrunner (Geococcyx velox) :D --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A "lesser roadrunner"? Well, isn't that a backhanded compliment :). I finally took a paleontology course last Spring, but still don't know much about life, so thanks for the link. Awickert (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:
 * The surge tectonics theory is still much quoted. Its not physically unplausible, as it was tested against mantle tomography models and maybe its not to us to bother about physical plausibiliy, there are lots of models and mechanisms cited here that are seen by many as plausible and by others as unplausible. Jpvandijk (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its actually strange there is not yet a Wikipedia page on the surge tectonics model, which was quite popular in a certain time span during the ninetees and certaintly not less important than the latest mantle plume models. We could say that it is just one of the variations of mantle flow and delamination modes. We should put back the references. Jpvandijk (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will give some more information on the regmatic patterns. They are used a lot by Storetvedt, and also others revived them in their 21st century models. There is quite some literature on this subject refering to the first half of the nineteenth century, but this is out of the Plate Tectonic concepts page I would say. It is only cited to show the relationship between the observed kinematics and the later developed ideas. I will give some more information. Jpvandijk (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Plate tectonics is at 75 kBytes, quite a lot I'd say. A page needs to be kept manageable in order to be able to achieve a good quality. Surge tectonics theory and Global reghmatic shear patterns might be out of scope of the broad view of this page. I liked that you showed the link between hotspot, mantle plume, plume tectonics and plate tectonics. We have geos on Wikipedia, they might help reach a consensus: User:Awickert, User:Vsmith, User:Mikenorton, User:Geologyguy, User:DanHobley. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of the info, Jpvandijk! I will stay out of your way for the moment, as you clearly know more about the history of this than I do. I had never heard of surge tectonics (in spite of doing quite a bit of geodynamics), but that may just be my young-ness. Awickert (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feed back, and actually the page plate tectonics is getting a little long, but its also quite an important issue in Earth Sciences, a sort of unifying theory everything is linked to nowadays. As many call it's "a paradigm". Well the link between all the items related to mantle dynamics is actually one of the main issues nowadays amongst us geoscientists, and the request to create some order is therefore justified. I'll try to do something here, so that also some of the background information can be transported to other pages more dedicated to the arguments.Jpvandijk (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gravity- and Mantle-related driving forces
In response to a message from Chris, I took a look at the driving forces section. I don't know how exactly "convection" and "gravity" related forces should be separated, since it is gravity+density-driven convection, so they are all one in the same in my mind. The one possible exception is ridge push, which is a matter of gravitational potential energy, but the elevation of the ridges is derived from the density structure of and motion within the mantle.

For at least one or two of the "citation needed" tags in the gravity section, I could easily find a ref... but perhaps we should think of a better way to organize this before I try to go ahead (at a snail's pace, as always).

Thoughts on how to structure the sections would be appreciated! Awickert (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Segev (2002) seems to speak of upwelling, continental volcanic floods & flood basalts, updoming, rifts 120° apart as a common view.
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the Stadler et al. one a couple of weeks ago; it would be a good and newer perspective to glue the section(s) together. Email me if you want a PDF. Awickert (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to get a copy of Kearey (2009), Chapter 12: The mechanism of plate tectonics. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of that chapter is available in preview on google books for ISBN 1405107774 if that helps. Alternatively there are full-text versions available through EBSCOHost, ebrary, etc. Or you can probably get it from your local university library. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Missing two pages on google books, might be the important ones ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the Stadler et al. one a couple of weeks ago; it would be a good and newer perspective to glue the section(s) together. Email me if you want a PDF. Awickert (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to get a copy of Kearey (2009), Chapter 12: The mechanism of plate tectonics. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of that chapter is available in preview on google books for ISBN 1405107774 if that helps. Alternatively there are full-text versions available through EBSCOHost, ebrary, etc. Or you can probably get it from your local university library. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Missing two pages on google books, might be the important ones ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Other possible sources
 * The generation of plate tectonics from mantle convection, Bercovici 2003
 * Great earthquakes and slab pull: interaction between seismic coupling and plate-slab coupling,
 * (Very nice introduction about symmetrical suction from lower mantle slabs (slab suction force/ back-arc basin/ frictional resistance to subduction) and asymmetrical pull from upper mantle slabs, slab pull force/ plate-slab coupling --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
 * On the relationships between slab dip, back-arc stress, upper plate absolute motion, and crustal nature in subduction zones
 * Testing hypotheses on plate-driving mechanisms with global lithosphere models including topography, thermal structure and faults Bird 1998
 * Slab pull and the seismotectonics of subducting lithospere, Spence 1987
 * I don't think that all of the story is in place yet, although slab-pull as the dominant force seems to be generally agreed as does plate edge forces over basal traction. Mikenorton (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup & thx, slab pull, back arc basin and "ridge-push" seems common view to me. Email me if you want a PDF of Kearey (2009), Chapter 12: The mechanism of plate tectonics. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the info, Mike. As GSA is this weekend, I won't be able to contribute much until afterwards (I still owe you on Lithology too...), but I am getting fired up about improving this article. I will troll the booths for good figures, etc. that I might be able to upload here.
 * Regarding slab pull, I was just reading something about temperature variations in the mantle, and how that could potentially locally reduce near-slab viscosities and increase plate velocities. Awickert (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With 1237 citations on Google Scholar seems to be important too ("ridge push force").
 * The other important paper seems to be the change from Richter scale to seismic moment, Mw
 * 829 citations
 * 1063 citations
 * 165 citations. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know what to do with this sentence: "Slab pull is especially invoked in areas where remnants of older lithosphere become trapped along convergence zones e.g. as relicts in collisional belts, which, sinking into the mantle and rolling backwards, exert a pull on the overlying crust." Does it refer to the Himalayas? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unreadable crap. It goes into too many specific details. You should delete it.  W oo dwa lk er talk 08:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oki doki, done :D Thx Woudloper. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know what to do with this sentence: "Slab pull is especially invoked in areas where remnants of older lithosphere become trapped along convergence zones e.g. as relicts in collisional belts, which, sinking into the mantle and rolling backwards, exert a pull on the overlying crust." Does it refer to the Himalayas? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unreadable crap. It goes into too many specific details. You should delete it.  W oo dwa lk er talk 08:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oki doki, done :D Thx Woudloper. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Media

 * I think that his page should have the plate movement animation on the Azerbaijani page for Natural sciences. --Mij1941 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The animated reconstructions for the whole Phanerozoic that we already have in the article do the job even better in my view, but perhaps others will disagree. Mikenorton (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The one in this article, in my opinion, fails because it tries to do too much with too little time and too little resolution. It just looks like planetary mud. The Azerbaijani one does not cover the same time span, or even realistically, but a reader can learn something from it. Is it possible to find someone to modify this one or the Azerbaijani one to accomplish what the one in this article claims to do? I would rather have the Azerbaijani one if either, others, of course, may feel differently. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think both aren't good enough. The sea level brings confusion in it. Only the positions of tectonic plates, cratons, shields and terranes should be shown. The time should go backwards (now n known to unknown). The image should be centered on Gondwana. One pole, the equator n the Tropic of Cancer n Capricorn should be shown for the reader's orientation. With stop n go the time in Ma should be readable, with only some (a dozen?) frames, no continuous course of events. References:
 * n
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * n
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Are you going to volunteer to do it or find someone who will? --Kleopatra (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I never did a GIF animation, no Inkspace installed, no drawing skills. I was hoping User:Aineias or User:Mij1941 would like the challenge :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can, of course, slow the animation down, but otherwise someone (and I'm not volunteering) will have to construct a new one. As to the direction of the reconstruction, I always prefer to move forwards in time personally. Mikenorton (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, forwards in time is better. But the continent and its shelf should not change is form. U can't follow it, if u take sea level changes into account. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GMT mapping software package (Wessel, P. & Smith, W. H. F. 1991, Free software helps map and display data, EOS Transactions, AGU, 72, 441). Needs Linux, it is not available on Windows. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this seriously without acknowledgement? http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html I thought this was a know fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.174.70 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice joke. Expanding Earth was a hypothesis based on an expanding Universe by a lowering the gravitational constant; there would be no orogenies. Geophysical global cooling at this rate was a hypothesis before radioactivity decay was discovered; there would be no openning of the Atlantic Ocean. Satellite GPS tells us otherwise. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

plate tectonics
what is plate tectonics? this is a question that will come up on my end of quarter assessment for science. i need help finding information that will help me study for 6th grade exams by posting them on answers.com. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.246.135 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the article. Let us know if you have any unanswered questions after reading the entire article, and we can hopefully clear up confusing issues from the article. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre referencing
If I'm not mistaken, every citation in this article is given in two styles one after the other. Is there any reason why we can't just commit to one or the other (footnotes, probably, since that's more commonly used than Harvard)? Also, the article's very long. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First point: User:Jpvandijk did it so and nobody complained. Second point: every contribution adds some more Bytes to it :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

earthquakes in countries
eartquakes- do u know that trinidad and tobago lies on 3 plates why is it that other countries have more earthquakes than we(t&t) do yet we are esupposed to be more prone to them.

Evidence of Continental drift
Another evidence of continental drift is that coal, normally formed only in warm and damp conditions, are found in Antarctica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamimemomu (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Tidal torque on plates
The rate that tides despin the Earth and hence the torque from tides on the Earth is known at present. It is easy to compute that this torque is about 10 orders of magnitude less than the known buoyancy forces and resisting forces involved in plate tectonics. Hard constraints that preclude a 10 order of magnitude error are readily available. The total torque on average cannot be greater than that to despin the Earth over geological time from a hypothetical state where it is marginally at rotational stability. The amplitude of lunar tides scales inversely with the cube of lunar distance so tides dissipated energy rapidly when the Moon started near the Earth. The Earth despun and the Moon moved out quickly. So the typical torque over the last few billion years is less than the average torque. Jordan (1974) demonstrated these facts. Renalli (2000) explained the modest net rotation of the lithosphere in terms of known plate forces. Sleep (2006) provides review of pro-tide literature from which this comment is abstracted. He discusses real forces associated with rotation that couple somewhat into plate tectonics.

Jordan, T.H., 1974. Some comments on tidal drag as a mechanism for driving plate motions. Journal of Geophysical Research 79, 2141–2142.

Ranalli, G., 2000. Westward drift of the lithosphere: not a result of rotational drag. Geophysical Journal International 141, 535–537.

Sleep, N. H., 2006 Mantle plumes from top to bottom, Earth-Science Rev., v. 77(4), p. 231-271.

Wegener many considered pole fleeing force not tides. The pole fleeing force is real and and over 7 orders of magnitude greater than the force from tidal torque. It is a factor of the ellipticity ~1/300 of the forces from buoyancy and ordinary gravity. This force may drive motion on large outer planet satellites that have internal oceans. Sleep (2006) provides more references. Norm Sleep

This paragraph should be deleted as in gross error or a caveat needs to be added that the tidal torque people persist in being orders of magnitude off base:

Re: In 1973 George W. Moore [22] of the USGS and R. C. Bostrom [23] presented evidence for a general westward drift of the Earth's lithosphere with respect to the mantle, and, therefore, tidal forces or tidal lag or "friction" due to the Earth's rotation and the forces acting upon it by the Moon being a driving force for plate tectonics: as the Earth spins eastward beneath the moon, the moon's gravity ever so slightly pulls the Earth's surface layer back westward, just like proposed by Alfred Wegener (see above). In a more recent 2006 study,[24] scientists reviewed and advocated these earlier proposed ideas. It has also been suggested recently in Lovett (2006) that this observation may also explain why Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, since Venus has no moon and Mars' moons are too small to have significant tidal effects on Mars. In a recent paper[25] it was suggested that, on the other hand, it can easily be observed that many plates are moving north and eastward, and that the dominantly westward motion of the Pacific ocean basins derives simply from the eastward bias of the Pacific spreading center (which is not a predicted manifestation of such lunar forces). In the same paper the authors admit, however, that relative to the lower mantle, there is a slight westward component in the motions of all the plates. They demonstrated though that the westward drift, seen only for the past 30 Ma, is attributed to the increased dominance of the steadily growing and accelerating Pacific plate. The debate is still open.

171.64.173.102 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)norm@stanford.edu

The energy required to give the planet its 26 mile spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters is many,many magnitudes greater than required to cause the surface crust to evolve and especially the global feature of the Mid Atlantic Ridge with the symmetrical generation of crust both East and West off that Ridge.Why invoke an external cause when the main issue is adjusting the viscosity of the fluid interior to suit differential rotation as opposed to the lackluster viscosity favored by those who propose a stationary Earth thermal 'convection cell' mechanism.I have seen the rise of lunar influences on crustal development with dismay when it is possible to utilize the Earth's spherical deviation as a grounding principle for rotational dynamics of the fluid interior and then the short leap into evolutionary geology therefore researchers will eventually discover that they will run into the spherical deviation of the planet should they wish to consider a rotational mechanism for crustal evolution.Gkell1 (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right on--this is sheer junk science yet it remains (never trust Wikipedia). Note the only quantification we see is in the above critique. The critic correctly notes that tidal friction has greatly decreased since the moon's formation. I would add that current (negative) acceleration is nearly an order of magnitude higher than the average of the current aeon, evidently due to continental configuration (spread out--more shoreline) and low sea level (ice age exposed land surface with increased shoreline). According to this spurious theory we would expect greatly increased tectonic activity since the Cretaceous, and of course there is no evidence for such. Yet the paragraph remains. (I second that motion.) 67.128.133.10 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)AGF

Somehow I missed Gkell's paragraph, which is sheer nonsense. No energy whatever is expended to make the earth an oblate spheroid, no more than is required to make a planet round. So the Stanford prof tries to edit the nonsense, and the complete know-nothing puts it back in. I guess that's how Wikipedia works. 67.128.133.10 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)AGF

Your assertion that no energy is expended for the planet's spherical deviation is false but you can work it out yourself - Venus has no spherical deviation and geological activity is restricted to volcanism due to the lack of any real rotation whereas the Earth has a 26 mile spherical deviation with both volcanic activity and a very active surface crust due to the Earth's rotation moving around at a fair clip.This is simple housekeeping,nothing more or less,so before contributors make rash assertions,let them first consider planetary comparisons insofar as Venus and Earth are roughly the same size but with entirely different rotational characteristics.Orion216 (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, well, it's true that if Earth had no rotational kinetic energy it would also have no oblateness, so the oblateness can be indirectly attributed to that energy; but I doubt that's what 67.128.133.10 meant by "no energy is expended". —Tamfang (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are slight real effects with the rotational ellipticity (oblateness) of the Earth. The Earth's shape measured by gravity is near but not exactly at that for a fluid body in hydrostatic equilibrium, that is, it is near the minimum energy state. The rotational ellipticity has decreased over geological time as the spin rate of the Earth decreased. This effect adds a velocity to the flow in the Earth of order of magnitude 1 km per 1000 million years. Plate and slab motion are 10-100 km per million years, so they are 10^4 to 10^5 greater than the motions from despinning the Earth. Thus the energy of the rotation bulge has a trivial effect on mantle motions. Rotation is not what causes Venus and Earth tectonics to differ.

Gkell's comment is an example where a well meaning semi-quantitative argument can end up way off base. Historically, the excess ellipticity of the Earth (the slight measured amount above that predicted for an idealized hydrostatic object) was used to argue that the Earth's interior could not flow. It turns out that density variations in the mantle like sunken slabs cause the excess and that true-polar wandering causes the axis of excess ellipticity to be the rotational axis. So this anti-plate argument died ca. 1970. Like a bad phoenix, it sometimes rises from its ashes. Norm Sleep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.173.102 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have plenty of assertions there Norm,what you do not have is the 100% observational certainty that all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions display differential rotation or what amounts to the same thing - an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes.You would be required to make the fluid interior of the Earth an exception to get a stationary Earth hypothesis such as 'mantle convection' to work  but most sensible people already find the rotation arguments attractive in linking planetary shape with crustal evolution/motion using a mechanism that is already observed and researched, and besides,the comparison between Earth which has a 26 mile spherical deviation and Venus which doesn't have any due to its lack of rotation would follow as a matter of course.Of course,the people supporting 'convection cells' organized the viscosity of the fluid interior to suit their lethargic mechanism whereas differential rotation is supported by observations of low viscosity fluid pouring out of every volcano and crustal boundary.Chanting voodoo at rotation is not going to make it go away ,dithering around with assertions or the irritating 'debate is still open' excuse - rotation and specifically fluid rotation has the highest probability as the cause of crustal motion and the 26 mile spherical deviation.So,this makes it easy for you - when you can show me a rotating celestial object with an exposed fluid composition that doesn't display differential rotation,then and only then and only then can you dare direct comments at me and the proposal linking planetary shape and geological evolution using a common mechanism.

The issue is not one of debate but of the peer review process,apparently the only thing that moves slower than the Earth's crust itself and the difficulties are compounded by what is going on in other areas such as astronomy ,civil timekeeping and terrestrial sciences that rely on the rotation of the Earth.No matter how many times it is repeated within the main article,I have yet to see any substantive debate and flinging wild assertions do not constitute a debate,also - please remember that Wikipedia is meant to explain these topics to students rather than justify stuffy academic positions so these 'talk' sections must also maintain the vernacular of students and interested adults where the issues are discussed in a transparent way.Orion216 (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on the articals reference, "from early speculations..."
Please consider being more specific in your article about those "early speculations." In his Codex Leicester, Leonardo da Vinci speculated as to "why fossils can be found on mountains. Hundreds of years before plate tectonics became accepted scientific theory, Leonardo believed that mountains had previously formed sea beds, which were gradually lifted until they formed mountains." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Leicester) This showed remarkable insight and linking the Wikipedia articles on da Vinci and his Codex Leicester to the one on plate tectonics seems appropriate. --Walter Wright (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If there should be a link, then the appropriate article would be History of geology, as Leonardo's observations have no direct bearing on Plate tectonics or its predecessor Continental drift - the uplift of rocks to form mountains was known long before these later theories were developed, even if the mechanism was not well understood. Mikenorton (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The objection by Mikenorton is unfounded,biological evolution and crustal evolution,at least as it is contained in the geological fossil record,go hand in hand.Alfred Wegener who first proposed plate tectonics as a concept in the most hostile intellectual environment clearly states that a wide range of topics cover the investigation of geological structures based on a global phenomena where the fractured crust evolves and moves - "Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Alfred WegenerGkell1 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Such background info should only be included if directly noted as significant by a reliable source. And the connection would need to be explicitly stated in that source. Of course plate tectonics was not created in a vacuum and as with all science is built on earlier works as background. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly easy to see why the ancients in many cultures believed in an ancient global flood as they observed marine fossils on mountains far away from the sea so they reasoned that the Earth was covered with water hence the stories woven around their conclusions.It was the great Nicolas Steno who first reasoned a historical trajectory for rock strata and then Wegener added to that evolution.The trajectory of geological discovery went from local to global and now astronomical so multiple science disciplines are involved one way or another.Gkell1 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede is way too long, too much detail
Can't some of that be summarized and the details moved into the article, or something? AlbertBowes (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is better? The lateral relative movement of the plates (presently), or The relative lateral movement of the plates? Ward20 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to find where that part is in the article, so I don't know off hand. In general, the lede should briefly summarise the article and the details go in the rest of the article. But this article is so long and complex, and I'm not familiar enough with the subject to understand it very well. AlbertBowes (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Aslo, does the movment have to be lateral? can't it be converging or diverging and combinations of lateral, and converging, or diverging? Ward20 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, from the little I know, in general teutonic movement can be all of the above. Are you talking about a specific case? AlbertBowes (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes where the lead states, "The lateral relative movement of the plates typically varies from 0–100 mm annually."(Read and Watson 1975) I don't have the ref so I don't know if it is talking about an edgewise grinding movement (presumed lateral) or just a relative movement. Ward20 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that statement: "The lateral relative movement of the plates typically varies from 0–100 mm annually." is way too specific for the lede. The lede should just generally describe what teutonics are and briefly mention the different kind - in other words, the lede should very generally summarise the article so that an amateur or a person not familiar with the topic can understand it. Then the rest of the article could get into the details. Right now, I can't even understand all of the lede, and I do have general knowledge about teutonics. AlbertBowes (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you. Ward20 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Plate tectonics on other celestial bodies (planets, moons) - move to another article?
since this article starts out by saying:

Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the τεκτονικός "pertaining to building") is a scientific theory that describes the large scale motions of Earth's lithosphere.

should not Plate tectonics on other celestial bodies (planets, moons) be movee to another article? AlbertBowes (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Under that section it states, "The appearance of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets is related to planetary mass, with more massive planets than Earth expected to exhibit plate tectonics." so I believe the lead needs to be changed. to reflect the article. Ward20 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article tries to cover too much? Some of the info could be moved to other articles and linked to this one, perhaps. AlbertBowes (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012 / Tectonic map which preserved the surfaces


82.234.61.246 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don't use copyright violations. Vsmith (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012
LibbieBerenice (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC) plate tectonics are extremely interesting
 * If you say so, but that's not exactly a comment you would expect to find in an encyclopedia-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Snider-Pellegrini
Why not mention the one who promoted continental drift at the time? Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, "Le Création et ses Mystères Devoilés", Paris, 1859. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See continental drift, plate tectonics is long enough ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Antonio Snider-Pellegrini wasn't very good, his map was good but his text was scrap.
 * Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction needed
In Development of the theory, Summary, "geophysisists" should read "geophysicists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.204.20 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! RockMagnetist (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mars
According to this article, there's new evidence for plate tectonics on Mars, so the article needs to be updated -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say, wait for peer reviewed publication. There is no rush. There is evidence for faulting on a large scale and other tectonic movement, but plate tectonics is more than that and peer review through publication is needed to clarify and tone down the headline news hype. Vsmith (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Enceladus
According to various sources, fractures in Enceladus have shown to be a result of tectonic activity caused by tidal forces. Should we add Enceladus section too? --Artman40 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Geology side bar addition
I disagree with the addition of this side-bar. It is not well developed and seem to add nothing but clutter. I would like it fixed or removed. -Fjozk (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no qualms about you removing it, but please don't involve me anymore because I really had nothing to do with the creation of the sidebar and its placement in other articles besides this one. Cadiomals (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
Please understand that I believe that the plate tectonics theory is correct, and I understand quite well why the article is locked. :)

Shouldn't the 'See Also' in this article include links to WP articles about opposing views (such as Flood Geology)? That page has been the subject of inappropriate edits  that are apparently because of objection to opposing viewpoints having no mention here. Revent (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, we don't need links to fringe articles just because some true believer objected there. Flood geology is not an opposing view - it's religious pseudoscience. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of it's status as religious pseudoscience, it is a set of opinions held by many people (hence it's worthiness for a WP article) that directly contradicts the content of this article. IMO, not at least mentioning it in the 'see also' (which is the least 'significant' way to mention it) is essentially inappropriate. The fact that a large number of people hold an opinion that contradicts this theory is itself notable, and a member of the public reading this article would probably be interested in that. If you read Flood Geology, you'll see that it is mentioned in the lead that the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience.. History_of_geology also links to flood geology, and discusses that it's development as a 'theory' was a direct stimulus for the increased research into the Earth's age that led to the development of plate tectonics. Revent (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To be more specific, from History_of_Geology, 'To prove the Bible’s authenticity, individuals felt the need to demonstrate with scientific evidence that the Great Flood had in fact occurred. With this enhanced desire for data came an increase in observations of the Earth’s composition, which in turn led to the discovery of fossils. Although theories that resulted from the heightened interest in the Earth’s composition were often manipulated to support the concept of the Deluge, a genuine outcome was a greater interest in the makeup of the Earth.' Revent (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not worth putting on the page, because the folks you talk about have no actual evidence, just opinion. Its the same reason we don't have a section devoted to Alchemy on the Chemistry page, or Astrology on the Astronomy page. 74.132.252.16 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

error in estimate of thickness of oceanic lithosphere?
The article currently states that "average oceanic lithosphere is typically 100 km (62 mi) thick; its thickness is a function of its age: as time passes, it conductively cools and become thicker." In general, things do not expand upon cooling (one exception is water from 0-4˚C), and I think the above statement, and possibly the thickness estimates, are not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chouwawa (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What could perhaps be made clearer is that the thickness increases as the lithosphere cools because more of the mantle becomes part of it - the base of the lithosphere is determined approximately by the temperature, as this affects the strength, with marked weakening at temperatures above about 1300°C. Mikenorton (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reworded a bit "its thickness is a function of its age: as time passes, it conductively cools and subjacent cooling mantle is added to its base" to (hopefully) clarify the confusing wording. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014
Alfred Wegener's name should be linked to his wiki page in the summary of the development of the theory:

Summary

Detailed map showing the tectonic plates with their movement vectors. In line with other previous and contemporaneous proposals, in 1912 the meteorologist Alfred Wegener amply described what he called continental drift, expanded in his 1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans[28] and the scientific debate started that would end up fifty years later in the theory of plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

A low-carb high fat dieter (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

❌ This would contravene WP:OVERLINK which states:- Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Alfred Wegener's name is already linked twice in the article - so for strict compliance, one of those links should be removed, but that is rather petty. - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary missing original text?
Looking at the summary section, I was somewhat surprised not to see Antonio Snider-Pellegrini's work as the original theoretical text behind plate tectonics. Is this an omission or was it specifically left out? Ckruschke (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * He's mentioned in the Continental Drift section "Wegener was not the first to note this (Abraham Ortelius, Snider-Pellegrini, Eduard Suess, Roberto Mantovani and Frank Bursley Taylor preceded him just to mention a few)". The lead section just mentions that the theory "builds on the concepts of continental drift", which seems like a sufficient summary to me. Mikenorton (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak agreement - Wegener's work is the foundation and I guess it is ok if none of his predecessores are listed in the section summary para (it isn't the lede).
 * Follow-up question - this sentence is just following the sentence you cite above "but he was the first to marshal significant fossil and paleo-topographical and climatological evidence to support this simple observation." with italic emphasis on the statement that he was the first to note fossil evidence supporting his theory. Snider-Pellegrini's work also notes fossil evidence as the basic proof behind his theory. Is the hair that is being split here is the word "significant"? I have not read the works of the other authors (Suess, Mantovani, et al) so am unsure if Snider-Pelligrini is the only one that made the fossil - plate tectonics connection prior to Wegener's work. Ckruschke (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

who is David Pratt?
I keep seeing websites by this geologist (?) who says that there are serious issues with plate tectonic theory, making it sound like there is a sizable voice in geology against plate tectonics. Why are they not included in the article? Givethemahug (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * He expresses a decidedly WP:FRINGE view. Most of his work is either self-published or appears in New Concepts in Global Tectonics, a newsletter whose editorial board he is on. His ideas have not been picked up by geologists in general and I see no reason to mention them here. Mikenorton (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Grand Canyon part
Hello everyone. I'm D011235813d. i would like to remove the "grand canyon" section from the page plate tectonics because I think it is not related, in any way, to plate tectonics. Please give any suggestions, answers, or tips to me as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. D011235813d (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Grand Canyon" part is simply the illustration for the template Key topics in Geology and is not implying a relationship, altho' the development of the canyon is definitely related to the tectonics of western North America. (note: I've removed the template from this talk section.) Vsmith (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

George Plafker and the '64 Alaska quake
There is a good article in the NY Times  that has some material that might be worth incorporating here or in the article on earthquakes; apparently, before the '64 quake, the connection between plate tectonics and earthquakes was still controversial. Paulmlieberman (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: removed the reference tags and formatted as inline link. Vsmith (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fix for description of Types of Plate Boundaries: Convergent Boundaries
The text uses the phrase "continent-to-continent subduction ". Shouldn't this be "ocean-to-continent subduction", since the two examples given are of the Nazca oceanic plate subducting under the South American continental plate, and the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate subducting under the North American continental plate. Continental collision is described in a separate set of sentences. 192.4.0.12 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done - thanks for pointing that out. Mikenorton (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Driving forces related to Earth rotation
For point #5, I suggest reference to the Earth ellipsoid, because more than 99% of georadial adjustments resulting from secular axial motion (i.e. polar drift) accrue from deviations of the reference ellipsoid from a sphere. Less than 1% accrue by gravitational differences from mass related variations. The change in emphasis is important as more is being accomplished, lately, by utilizing 'ellipsoidal demand'. Ref: Please select latest draft: http://www.celestialgeodynamics.org/content/los-angeles-san-francisco

Thank you for your consideration, Douglas W. Zbikowski

75.171.52.16 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When your work has been published in a peer reviewed journal and had a significant impact - then perhaps ... Vsmith (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Plate tectonics and rotation circa 2005
The main article in 2005 contained absolutely no details relating to a rotational mechanism for crustal evolution/motion even though this mechanism was being considered using specific reasoning in that year.The mechanism based on an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes known commonly as differential rotation is almost a 100% certainty for all celestial objects with rotating fluid compositions so it is really no stretch of the imagination to apply it to the Earth's interior and look for clues on the surface crust and the 26 mile spherical deviation of the Earth relating to this mechanism.The Wikipedia article as in now stands amounts to flinging every assertion possible using rotation without the neat reasoning which actually requires researchers to consider fluid dynamics via the spherical deviation of the planet or the necessity to explain the Mid Atlantic Ridge using the global lag/advance mechanism arising from differential rotation where there is a symmetrical generation of crust either side of the Great Ridge.This is not a matter of priority or attribution,it is most certainly about wrecking an approach to a rotational mechanism in a measured and reasoned way as it was done long before rotation was inserted as wild and indiscriminate assertions years later.78.137.181.121 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Without a source, it's difficult to comment on - not that I entirely understand what you're asking for. Mikenorton (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You are fine,eventually they will discover that it is impossible to exempt the Earth rotating fluid interior from the 100% certainty of differential rotation and even if they do apply it to evolutionary geology and specifically oceanic crust generation/destruction without proper attribution they will sooner or later run into the spherical deviation of the planet from the same cause.How many times have they to repeat 'the debate is still open' when academics should be handling the rotational principles with confidence and competence.Orion216 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that CME's expose the Venutian bow shock due to the residual rotation of Venus as opposed to the magnetic field created by the Earth's rapid rotation which protects the surface from such pronounced bow shocks, the person who removed all content relating to rotation and plate tectonics  because it interferes with  a stationary Earth notion of 'convection cells' and a flawed notion of a high viscosity fluid in contact with the fractured crust is basically sledgehammer editing. Obviously researchers haven't looked at the viscosity of the fluid pouring out of every volcano and boundary in order to work with a lower viscosity and differential rotation across latitudes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmCJSS2YAP0

Orion216 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion about a rotational mechanism based on differential rotation across latitudes shouldn't suffer from the concerns of an academic curia so perhaps it is better to just isolate the approach and leave it for what it is. The geologically active and very volcanic Venus has no plate tectonics, no spherical deviation and only residual rotation whereas our home planet rotates at a fairly decent clip, has a noticeable spherical deviation and a very active crust. It is only a matter of drawing comparisons and creating a narrative suitable for the evolution and motion of the surface crust on Earth along with observations of the viscosity of the fluid pouring out of every volcano and boundary. It is a shame that a rotational mechanism is going to be smothered by the academic curia who expect and invoke reference warfare as a 'debate'. No complaints here as I enjoy the challenge of advancing the geological puzzle as the facts present themselves.Orion216 (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting driving forces related to Earth rotation
There are quite a few problems with this section of the article, and at one point I removed the entire section, only to see an avid editor restore it. I don't have time to go into all of it, but the main and most explicit problem is the assertion that the Coriolis force is actually a significant factor in plate tectonics. It isn't. Plate motion is, ultimately, driven by mantle convection, and the important factors affecting that convection are viscosity, thermal buoyancy, and pressure. Inertia and the Coriolis force are not important. This is explained very clearly in two authoritative references that, yesterday, I inserted into the article. See page 36 of Ricard, or page 149 of Glatzmaier. Another problem with the section is the mistaken notion that the centrifugal force is important for plate tectonics. Once again, it isn't. The centrifugal force for mantle convection is, yes, larger than the Coriolis force, but still relatively small compared to viscosity and thermal buoyancy. There is an interesting introduction to these sorts of issues starting on about page 11 in Bercovici. Generally, the centrifugal force just distorts what would be an approximately spherical gravitational potential into a gravitational+centrifugal potential with a shape that resembles an oblate spheroid, resulting in convection that is only slightly different from a spherical convection, see page 36 of Ricard. Now, yesterday I tried to insert some of these sourced concepts into the text of the article. I also removed the unsourced and erroneous material that has, I understand, been in the article for years. Unfortunately, I've been reverted. So, here I am justifying what I did: I removed unsourced material and substitute sourced material. The sourced concepts I've explained above should be, in my opinion, restored. The erroneous material should be removed. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue is differential rotation displayed by all rotating celestial bodies with exposed viscous compositions and not an appeal to Coriolis. The ideology of 'convection cells' ignores the rotating Earth hence a high viscosity fluid was thereby asserted to account for convection effects on the evolution and motion of the surface crust whereas a lower viscosity and differential rotation across latitudes produces clues on the surface crust consistent with a rotational mechanism such as the Mid Atlantic Ridge. The biggest planetalogical feature is actually the 26 mile spherical deviation between Equatorial and Polar diameters and this meshes nicely with the uneven rotational gradient between Equator and poles. I imagine this is why the tendency is now towards the rotation of the fluid interior impacting on the surface crust and why editors are now reluctant to see a hatchet job done on the speculative rotation mechanism by invoking a stationary Earth notion of 'convection cells'. In short, if you can exempt the Earth's fluid interior from differential rotation of the fluid across latitudes even though it is attested for all rotating celestial bodies with viscous states then and only then can you posit 'convection cells' for plate tectonics.Orion216 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've restored the referenced content as added by User:Isambard Kingdom. You will need to supply references directly relevant to the article to support your concerns above. Please also see WP:synthesis. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I must conclude from the vivid discussion that my original statement that the discussion is still open stands. Any force related to Earth Rotation has since long been debated and I think it is therefore correct to leave the Article in some form here. It needs to be mentioned with the correct references to the articles that both promote certain forces and others that deny their existence as relevant in Plate Tectonics. Wikipedia has even entire articles related to highly discussed Earth Science and does not position itself necessarily. I thanks everybody so much for contributing and adding references. Jpvandijk (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The references below manage to exempt the Earth's rotating fluid interior from differential rotation across latitudes even though every observed rotating celestial object in a viscous state will display that dynamical feature.'Convection cells' are basically a stationary Earth notion hence the decision to move forward will be a choice between differential rotation or convection cells. If the contributor can find a rotating celestial object in a viscous state that displays only convection then and only then can the debate be closed but they would still have to account for the spherical deviation of the planet using those cells. Orion216 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015
The article should be revised to reflect the latest tectonics understanding based on:

Swedan NH. Ridge Push Engine of Plate Tectonics.Geotectonics, 2015, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 342–359. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2015.

The tectonic plates are driven be forced convection of the upper mantle, which performs as a thermodynamic cycle. Midocean ridges enclose a magma chamber that acts as engine chamber. The latent heat of solidification of the new ocean crust is released inside this chamber and it is converted into mechanical work that drives the tectonic system. The tectonic plates perform as pistons and piston rods. Mechanical energy is thus transported from the ridges into oceanic trenches.

Ridge push and slab pull cannot explain the rise of colossal mountains such as the Rockies or Hamalyians. On the other hand, the thermodynamic engine at pressure of 5,000 bars at midocean ridges can explain continents building.

Nabilswedan (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia is not here to promote your work. Vsmith (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016
In section "Types of plate boundaries" "3. Convergent boundaries" delete "and as the subducted plate partially melts". Begin a new sentence and replace with "The mantle above the subducting plate partially melts as water is driven off the dehydrating subducting plate". This is a very common misconception among students that is not helped by being repeated here. Only in rare cases does the subducting plate melt.

137.113.101.15 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ultimately the subducted plate does melt as it becomes entrained into the convecting mantle. Still, it is as also true that there is partial melt associated with dehydration. Do you have a standard source we can cite?Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Partial melting of the mantle below volcanic arcs is caused by the release of volatiles (mainly H20) from the descending slab. This paper is pretty comprehensive - maybe too detailed in fact. Some other sources The subduction factory and Turcotte & Schubert. Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article is wrong and it should say that the magma that comes up originates in the mantle wedge, not so much the descending slab, and that the actual melting is from changing the melting the point of the wedge, not by heating the slab. That's something that gets emphasized in Earth Science 101 curricula but which is also counterintuitive for most people, and it's tricky to describe melting point depression to a non-technical audience. Is everyone happy with this edit? . Thank you for noticing that, IP editor. Geogene (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed some text a bit further down that section that said similar stuff to your edit - the text of this whole section still needs tightening I think. Mikenorton (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: So has this SPER been fulfiled? Or should this remain open? Ping me with repsonse, thanks. --allthefoxes (Talk)  03:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closed for now --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Downward suction???
Lede claims downward suction is a significant force. Risible.173.189.79.137 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I know neither you nor Lede, but indeed, slab suction is a significant force, greater in magnitude than ridge push. That's why the atlantic ridge that is solely driven by ridge push spreads at a speed of approx 2cm/y when the pacific that has bothe the western american and eastern asian subductions to push on it moves at approx 10 cm/y
 * Quite not risible 140.77.130.227 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Figure Suggestions
I think that this article could really benefit from some additional figures such as one that shows the different layers of the Earth. I also think a figure that demonstrates plate boundaries by showing a map of the world where earthquakes occur or something to that effect could also add to the article.Cadotc (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cadotc, thanks for your suggestions. I have added a diagram to the Introduction section showing the Earth's internal layering. The "Floating continents, paleomagnetism, and seismicity zones" section of the article already includes a map of the distribution of earthquakes. I've added some text to this map's caption to relate it to plate boundaries. GeoWriter (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes 11 and 12
They were both retrieved June 2010. It seems that this site is outdated and just links back to this article and some other map visual. . 12 just needs to be updated since that site was also updated September 15, 2014.

Artugade (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Driving Forces
The section on driving forces is rather confusing. The subsection on driving forces due to mantle dynamics discusses Slab suction and notes parentheses that this is a gravitational force. How does "slab suction" differ from "slab pull" that is then described in the next subsection on driving forces related to gravity. Indeed, since mantle convection is driven by gravitational forces, it does not make sense to divide the forces up this way. Finally the subsection on Driving forces related to Earth rotation is pretty obscure and might give many readers the impression that they are a significant contributor to plate motions. It would make more sense to have subsections on "Slab Pull", "Ridge Push", "Basal Drag" and possibly "Other forces thought not to be important" William Wilcock (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

common.js
hi ,where is common.js page in wikipedia? tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siya2020 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about other celestial bodies
Why is there not as much information about the plate tectonics on other celestial bodies? is it because we there are not enough references to fill it out more? Thanks. Cdshel14 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the publications around this topic but in general yes, Wikipedia articles have a bias toward the human experience. Wikipedia summarizes existing publications and most publications will be about earth. Wiki encourages anyone to establish articles on plate tectonics for other planets if there are reliable sources to cite in those articles. It is an interesting idea. I checked around a little and I think no such content exists.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just found and added a source on plate tectonics and alien life. I hope that helps.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

New article - Plate Tectonics Revolution

 * Tectonic Plates Revolution

Tectonic plates as a theory probably might have had more influence as a cultural phenomenon than it did in its own field of geology. I started an article on the social side of the theory.  Blue Raspberry  (talk)  16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just wondered why the geologist and cartographer Marie Tharp is not mentioned in the history of the development of theory of continental drift, nor is she credited for having discovered the Mariana Trench, (in fact, she is not mentioned ANYWHERE on this entire subject.) I just now edited the heading, "Continental Drift", doing just this, and including several references to her work. Not sure if I did it correctly. (Guess I'll find out!!) Pegasus Matrix (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo   13:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018
I find it hard to believe Leonardo Da Vinci, was not mentioned in this article at all. He was the first person in history to develop theories on plate tectonics, his name should be mentioned. 104.188.97.138 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Plume tectonics?
(Disclaimer: My geophysics days (late 1970s) are long behind me. But I did retain a little interest over the years and sometimes assisted the IT side of "mantleplumes.org", so have a rough idea of the outline of the plumes vs. lithospheric-extension debate.)

Earlier today I stumbled across the Plume tectonics page. I had never heard of this. That article seems very poor. And doing a little reading around suggested that it was developed for ancient Archean tectonics, not really for present-day tectonics.

Then I saw that that article was referenced from this (much, much better!) "plate tectonics" article. But the section here on "plume tectonics" completely lacks citations and its writing quality seemed below the usual standard here.

So a few questions for those more familiar with present-day study of tectonics:


 * Is "plume tectonics" a plausible explanation for present-day tectonics?
 * Is it a plausible explanation for Archean tectonics?
 * Could the plume tectonics article be significantly improved?
 * Could the text here about that topic be clarified (not necessarily expanded)?

Thanks.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * After over six months of inactivity, I've removed that subsection. If it is relevant, then please first improve that "plume tectonics" article to a point where it makes sense for this article then to link to it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019
Change everywhere it says "Plate Tectonics" to "Tectonic Plates". Fallen Flow X (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done. I can't see anywhere in the article that would be improved by making the change that you suggest. Mikenorton (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Driving forces section
This section needs a complete overhaul and update. Incredibly, it does not cite the ground-breaking work of Forsyth and Uyeda (1973) that provides an evaluation of the relative importance of the various proposed driving forces. Mantle convection, which has received legendary status as a driving force, is not one. The references are many to back up my statement, but here is the latest.. As this is a protected page I'm not sure how this section can be modernized. BrucePL (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

PT has been debunked
I didn't include the many references for other information that debunks PT as they would be considered 'unreliable' as they are not mainstream, such as the Meyerhoffs, Storetvedt, and Pratt. In fact, all 20 or so claims of PT are contradicted by the evidence, especially the indisputable fact the continents have deep and ancient roots, making any movement impossible.

There are always excuses for reverting an edit that doesn't conform completely to orthodox extremism and its fantasies. Either it's the artificial and arbitrary rule of 'reliable' sources, which are actually mainstream sources, most of which are unreliable, or avoiding giving due weight to fringe theories, most of which are right, rules made to shut out truth and reason. And most or all of the administrators are orthodoxers. So the jury is rigged and the deck is stacked. And the pillar of neutrality is systematically violated. Orthodox extremist 'science,' which is a culture of abuse (which is a sign of a mental imbalance), obstinacy, close-mindedness, dishonesty, repression, hypocrisy, and incompetence, does the same.

Wikipedia, like science, the media, show biz, and society at large, is run by the extreme left, which is addicted to orthodoxy and obsessed with the status quo. Wikipedia has changed its entry on Jeffrey Epstein, since his criminal and perverse activities have become more well-known, from 'friends with Clinton' to 'friends with Trump.' No surprise there. And Epstein is a CIA and Mossad asset. There may be no surprise there either.

Shame on official science, shame on Wikipedia.

--Capt. Ciel (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If this is your view of plate tectonics, perhaps you should not be editing this article. Wikipedia is not a place for debating fringe theories, true or otherwise; it is a place for presenting mainstream understanding along with alternative views that have significant and credible support. Conservapedia reportedly sees things differently, and may be more to your tastes.  --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a double standard because Wikipedia science articles and some other articles are used as a forum to do propaganda for orthodoxy. And the alternative views on PT do have significant and credible support. For instance, Lowman was a professional geologist with NASA, and Beloussov was a highly respected and much honoured geologist. Please do not ignore the evidence. And Conservapedia is misnamed. --Capt. Ciel (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are expected to present the mainstream view, and there is no non-fringe view within geology that rejects plate tectonics. It's a clear standard, not a double standard. But try this thought experiment: If this article was written to reflect mainstream views, and not give undue weight to fringe views -- which is Wikipedia's standard --  how would it look different from "a forum to do propaganda for orthody"? If you can formulate a clear, coherent answer, then you will actually have identified something in the article that should be changed.


 * Kind of tangential, but Conservapedia is indeed badly misnamed. It does not reflect any conservatism I recognize, and I'm well to the right of most editors at Wikipedia. But it's willing to treat fringe views on scientific topics like plate tectonics as deserving equal weight with the scientific consensus, if not greater weight, so there's that.


 * Beloussov has been dead for thirty years. And if Lowman is the same Lowman I found on Google search, there is no mention in his bio of any controversial views on plate tectonics. But it's kind of irrelevant. Wikipedia does not mention Halton Arp in its article on the Big Bang, because even though Arp was a Caltech Ph.D., on the staff of Palomar for decades, and with the Max Planck Institute, his views of cosmology were ultimately rejected because they simply didn't match the observations. It's the same with Beloussov. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Liberapedia is also misnamed and Conservapedia is creationist. That a person is deceased is irrelevant. and Lowman is against continental drift.

Lowman, P. D., Jr. 1985. Plate tectonics with fixed continents: a testable hypothesis--I. Journal of Petroleum Geology 8: 373-388. Lowman, P. D., Jr. 1986. Plate tectonics with fixed continents: a testable hypothesis--II. Journal of Petroleum Geology 9: 71-87. Lowman, Paul D, Jr. 1985. Mechanical obstacles to the movement of continent-bearing plates. Geophysical Research Letters 12: 223-225.

And this is a quote from Meyerhoff et al (1992, in New Concepts in Global Tectonics, edited by Sankar Chatterjee 	and Nicholas Hotton III,  Texas Tech U. Press, p. 320-21), "Thus, the deep roots of continents are a major and very likely fatal obstacle to any hypothesis requiring continental movements."

Also, Arp, like Beloussov, Lowman, Pratt, Storedvedt, etc., is based on observations, PT and the Big Bang are not, and the planetisimal hypothesis has been falsified by exoplanetary evidence, and I could go on. The Big Bang, in fact, is based on Hindu mythology and Catholic creationism, and is so bizarre and nonsensical that more and more physicists are opposing it.

And I for one will leave it at that. --Capt. Ciel (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PT may have started 400 million years earlier than we thought?
I don't see a specific subhead here for this (but it's late, & I'm tired). So here goes with a SN article from last week: It's a preliminary result -- and a LONG time ago! -- but interesting. --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Plate tectonics may have started 400 million years earlier than we thought, Science News, April 22, 2020


 * Not sure how new that is - the suggestion that Plate tectonics has been active since then has been around since at least 2008. Other people suggest that it didn't properly get going (i.e in its current form) until the Neoproterozoic. To some extent it depends on exactly how you define Plate tectonics. Mikenorton (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Overprecision
In it is stated: Average oceanic lithosphere is typically 100 km thick

This is coded as. Please reduce the precision by substituting "|-1" for "|0", which would give "100 km". Since this is a typical measure, it makes no sense to have an exact conversion: "typically" and the single digit of precision (100) imply "approximately". Thanks 84.236.27.182 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me ✅. Mikenorton (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Marie Tharp's Contributions
Shouldn't we include something about Marie Tharp where we talk about Heezen? It was her topographical map that first showed the Great Global Rift and it was she who convinced Heezen that it was real. When he published about it, her name was left off the paper simply because she was a woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salocin.nosjack (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added a short piece of text to show her contribution. Mikenorton (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Plate Tectonics Revolution into Plate tectonics. I think that the content in the Plate Tectonics Revolution article can easily be explained in the context of Plate tectonics, and the Plate Tectonics Revolution article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Plate Tectonics Revolution will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - there may be something useful to be salvaged from the "Revolution" article and I think that the relevant section, Plate tectonics, should be able to cope without causing issues. Mikenorton (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe I support either of these two options
 * Merge of the Plate Tectonics Revolution in entirety into the relevant section, Plate tectonics. I wish to keep all the citations which use the term "plate tectonics revolution" and try to avoid deleting content.
 * If there is wish to cut content from the revolution article because of space limits in the main article, then I wish to remove the length constraint by spliting the entire Plate tectonics section into a new stand alone article, History of plate tectonics, which would contain the revolution content as described in #1.
 * "Plate techtonics" is 48k when per WP:TOOLONG, 40k is the point at which editors begin considering the splitting of a long article into multiple other articles. The revolution article passes GNG and although there is not much prose content for this in Wikipedia, it is a concept with sources which could be expanded. I would not want possible discussion of social impact impeded for the sake of keeping the Plate techtonics article short, and that article is approaching the point for a split. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection. Klbrain (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021
Change "The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s." to "The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the mid to late 1960s."

Basis: The geoscientific community most certainly did not consider seafloor spreading to be validated in the late 1950s to early 1960s. Seafloor spreading was not only widely accepted and "validated" (in a way) around 1966. A sprinkling of work beforehand and afterward could also be said to contribute to this validation. 70.24.149.131 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

✅

Split proposal - History of the theory.
I would suggest splitting the section on the history of the theory into its own article. The topic is both big and interesting enough to warrant an article of its own. Amphioxi (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Possible support: I can see the value of considering this idea, especially as the article is already very long. But also note that there is already an article  "Timeline of the development of tectonophysics" linked at the top of that section.  This suggests that a wider overview to work with that article might be prudent.  This might, for instance, be a reworking of the material from this subsection and that article into a single place. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it's fine as-is. I don't think we need three articles: the main article, a history article, and a timeline article. BirdValiant (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; History of plate tectonics could also assimilate Continental drift and possibly Plate Tectonics Revolution (see also: ). fgnievinski (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Publication 2020
You can use this publication, if you find it interesting: Breaking Earth’s shell into a global plate network Sciencia58 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's interesting enough, but probably too new as yet to include. Looking at papers that cite the above publication, I came across this paper by Lu et al. 2021, which is a good up-to-date review of the possible processes around the initiation of plate tectonics. However, this remains a highly dynamic field of research, with multiple papers appearing regularly and no clear consensus on what the tectonics of the early Earth were. I started a draft on this topic, but quickly ran out of steam. Mikenorton (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Tidal forces
What's with the mention (unsourced) of tidal forces as a contributor to plate motion? Is this anything but a fringe theory? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The material in the body of the article looks reasonable from the perspective of its historical consideration. But it is clearly a minor aspect, and I think should be removed from the lead, which should focus on main, simple summary. On the WP:BOLD principle, I'll remove it from the lead. Thanks for raising the issue. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chenhy12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022
In the first sentence of the intro pls remove the word 'generally accepted' or the word 'generally', because that part is kinda misleading, as the word generally would suggest it is disputed in some case when it isn't,as plate tectonics is a scientific fact.

Hence kindly make the changes. Thank you!! 2409:4071:E82:BAE1:C957:D580:2CD0:3AD5 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Without 'generally accepted ' it becomes '... is the scientific theory that ...', making it sound theoretical, not factual. Qwerfjkl  talk  20:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: looks like a consensus needs to be established for this alteration. Please garner the needed consensus before using the template again. For me, the phrase "generally accepted" is warranted by the fact that there always seem to be dissenters even in the face of strong empirical evidence. See for example flat Earth & modern flat Earth beliefs.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 11:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A scientific theory is different from a regular theory

This is also elaborated in scientific theory article. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

It would be appropriate to call it "accepted scientific theory" instead of "generally accepted". It would also be appropriate to call it "well-established scientific theory".

The main purpose is to remove the word generally because as mentioned earlier it is misleading and would suggest it is disputed when it isn't. It is an established fact just like anthropogenic climate change and evolution.

Also as for the dissenters, their denial of reality shouldn't be counted. They are real facts regardless of what they say.

Hence kindly make the necessary changes 2409:4071:4E94:3117:2600:C5F4:C06A:AF9A (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Took a brief look at some sources and didn't see plate tectonics described as a "theory" of science anywhere, so it's possible that the concepts of a "generally accepted scientific theory" and "came to be generally accepted by geoscientists" are indeed incorrect. However, as I'm not a geologist, any change will require a consensus of editors who are involved with this article. Suggest you begin an RfC to change it.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 17:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Took a longer look and find that many sources do call plate tectonics a "theory" that unites seafloor spreading with continental drift. Wikipedia seems to be the only, or perhaps one of a very few, sources that uses "generally accepted" for the theory, so again it may very well be that there is little to no controversy about the overall theory, while there is still much to learn in some aspects of it. So it only remains a "theory" because while it provides information that explains some geological phenomena, it is still difficult to take measurements of many of its aspects. What we should do is what we always do, we go with the sources. An RfC might uncover sources that show significant argument over the main, basic premises of this theory. And if such sources are not found, then a wording change would be needed.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Generally accepted"
So generally accepted you felt the need to lock the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.38 (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, why is the page locked? Please remove the page "protection". 86.166.82.152 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Future positions
Should the future of the tectonic positions be looked at? Or is it overally speculative? FireInMe (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think only if there are unusually solid sources on this. Speculative future positions by a single author, even a recognized expert, are not enough; the reconstruction needs to be accepted by multiple reliable sources. We have to be more than usually careful about it, since any such reconstruction is inherently speculative. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Reconstruction of former geography/continents
I did search information about the continents and position of plates in former times. Where could I find that? -- Universal-Interessierter de (talk (de)) 21:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Try scotese.com Plant surfer  21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023
Under subheading “Mars” The word “fail” in this sentence needs to be changed to “failed” to match the past tense of the verbs used in the paragraph:

However, their data fail a "magnetic reversal test", which is used to see if they were formed by flipping polarities of a global magnetic field.[96] Philinsydney (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ small jars 07:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023
The first sentence of the "history of the theory" section is a garbled mess of words. It needs to be changed. I'm not sure what the original writer of that phrase was trying to say, bit of you can interpret it then you'll have a good idea of what to change it to. Archaeologik (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks you are absolutely right this happened when someone all of a sudden introduced that concept just to insert a reference and it was adjusted only partly. I hope it is better now. Jpvandijk (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking request as complete! — Sirdog (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

New map
[[File:Tectonic plates 2022.svg|upright=1.4|thumb|Map of Earth's principal tectonic plates:

]] I would greatly appreciate a review of this new map (a derivative of a map that was published in 2022). Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add it to the article. Suggestions for improvement are more than welcome. M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Need an additional view of the current plate boundaries.
It would be very useful if there was a second map of the current plate boundaries, 180° opposite to the existing one; it is very hard to visualize the geometry of the boundaries around the western Pacific ocean. Zvmphile (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The current map was hand-drawn by a user many years ago. I am preparing a series of images with different views. But it will take some time to finish them during the next months. Jpvandijk (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ok 104.219.26.116 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Continental
earth does not move 129.0.205.210 (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Weasel words
Plate tectonics is as certain as Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. It is not a "generally accepted" idea among scientists. Plate tetonics is directly measured, in real-time, by geopositioning satellites. Phrases, such as "it is thought", "generally believed", "accepted by most", are Weasel words under Wikipedia guidelines, and I removed as much of these phrases as I could. They will give a false impression, to readers who do not know better, that there is ongoing debate about the validity of Plate Tetonics, when theere is none.

This entire article is woefully out of date. Most of the references are to books or articles that are over twenty years old. Out of 108 references only 8 are less than 10 years old. I read Science and Nature every week and they have published a lot on plate tectonics over the last 10 years. Someone in the field needs to assign one of their students to upgrade the references, and discussion of the driving mechanism. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * - taking a look through the recent literature on this topic, I came across Palin and Santosh 2021, which looks to me like an excellent starting point for a rewrite. Mikenorton (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Geology
Why earth have plate tectonic in the universe known while others planet have no plate tectonic 14.139.183.121 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Mercury
Why is Mercury not added to the list Other celestial bodies (planets, moons) even though it contains tectonic activity?

https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/tectonically-active-planet-mercury/

https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/mercury-joins-earth-tectonically-active-planet Clerk18890 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)