Talk:Pangaea

Maps

Are there any maps of Pangaea without the current day borders of the continents? Like a map with just the biomes of Pangaea, or don't we know enough to make a useful map from that? Wikifan153 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesosaurus inconsistency

The map depicting where fossils have been found shows Mesosaurus overlapping the southern tips of South America and Africa, but the text says Mesosaurus was localized to the east coast of Brazil and the west coast of Africa. SFT | Talk 03:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC) SFT | Talk 03:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Add Religious and mythological traditions to Pangaea article

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Please add a new subsection titled Religious and mythological traditions at the beginning of the Origin of the concept section. The text to be added is:

Some religious traditions contain descriptions of the Earth's primordial state as a unified landmass that was later divided. In Jewish mysticism, the Zohar Chadash (Hebrew: זהר חדש, "New Zohar"), a kabbalistic work largely composed in the late 13th century, includes the following passage:

וְתָאנָא, אֶרֶץ אַחַת מַמָּשׁ, הוֹצִיאוּ הַמַּיִם, וּמִמֶּנָּה נִתְהַוּוּ ז' אֲרָצוֹת, כִּדְאֲמָרָן.
The Tanna (sage) taught: There was truly one earth from which the waters were brought forth, and from it seven lands were formed, as we have said. The Book of Genesis contains a passage regarding the naming of Peleg, whose name is related to the Hebrew verb for "split" (נִפְלְגָה, niphlegah). The verse states that he was so named because "in his days the earth was divided." The dominant interpretation in traditional Jewish commentary, such as that of Rashi, understands this division as the linguistic and national scattering of humanity following the Tower of Babel incident.

The first documented scientific hypothesis for continental separation emerged centuries later. In 1596, the cartographer Abraham Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa" by events such as earthquakes and floods, after observing the congruence of the coastlines.

• Why it should be changed:

This addition provides valuable historical and cultural context on the idea of a single landmass, showing that concepts of a primordially unified Earth existed in religious and mythological traditions before the scientific hypothesis was developed. The proposed text sources these ideas and contrasts them with later scientific observations (like Ortelius), which enriches the "Origin of the concept" section and provides a more comprehensive overview for the reader.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The references are included in the text block above, formatted with <ref> tags as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Sliicy (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is potentially WP:UNDUE. SI09 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to add a section on "Religious and mythological traditions"

Hello everyone,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and am still learning the process, so I appreciate your patience. I recently proposed an edit to add a small subsection discussing historical concepts of a unified landmass found in some religious traditions. The edit was reverted by SI09 with the suggestion that I establish a consensus here first, citing concerns about potential WP:UNDUE. I'd like to open that discussion.

Here is the text I proposed adding to the "Origin of the concept" section:

Some religious traditions contain descriptions of the Earth's primordial state as a unified landmass that was later divided. In Jewish mysticism, the Zohar Chadash (Hebrew: זהר חדש, "New Zohar"), a kabbalistic work largely composed in the late 13th century,[1] includes the following passage:

וְתָאנָא, אֶרֶץ אַחַת מַמָּשׁ, הוֹצִיאוּ הַמַּיִם, וּמִמֶּנָּה נִתְהַוּוּ ז' אֲרָצוֹת, כִּדְאֲמָרָן.

The Tanna (sage) taught: There was truly one earth from which the waters were brought forth, and from it seven lands were formed, as we have said.[2]

The Book of Genesis contains a passage regarding the naming of Peleg, whose name is related to the Hebrew verb for "split" (נִפְלְגָה, niphlegah). The verse states that he was so named because "in his days the earth was divided."[3] The dominant interpretation in traditional Jewish commentary, such as that of Rashi, understands this division as the linguistic and national scattering of humanity following the Tower of Babel incident.[4]

The first documented scientific hypothesis for continental separation emerged centuries later. In 1596, the cartographer Abraham Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa" by events such as earthquakes and floods, after observing the congruence of the coastlines.[5]

My Rationale:

My intention is not to present these traditions as scientific theories, but to provide historical and cultural context on the idea of a single landmass. The "Origin of the concept" section seems like an appropriate place to briefly mention that similar concepts existed in pre-scientific thought before transitioning to the first scientific hypotheses like that of Ortelius. I believe this enriches the article by showing a broader history of human thought on the idea of Pangaea.

Addressing the WP:UNDUE Concern:

I understand the concern about giving undue weight. I tried to mitigate this by:

1. Clearly framing these as "religious and mythological traditions," not scientific precursors.
2. Including the mainstream Jewish interpretation of the Peleg verse (referring to the Tower of Babel) to avoid misleading readers into thinking it's an undisputed reference to geological division.
3. Keeping the section very short and using it as a bridge to the documented scientific history starting with Ortelius.

I'm open to feedback. Is there a way to rephrase this or place it somewhere else in the article that would be more appropriate? Perhaps in its own subsection for instance?

Thanks,

Sliicy (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The connection with Peleg (already mentioned on his page) is almost universally pushed by young-Earth creationists, who are 99% of the reason why mainstream science has conflicts with and mocks Christianity and conservatives from time to time. I would advise against adding it. ~2026-79355-8 (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sinus Borealis and Sinus Australis

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24927634 ~2026-40980-9 (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2026

For the section §Opening of the Atlantic, add this source for the "Sinus Borealis" terminology: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24927634 thanks ~2026-79355-8 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Theeverywhereperson talk here 16:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Centripetal force but it's centrifugal force i think

In the article it is represented as centripetal force but to split it requires centrifugal force right or want to know this Kutti10 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. Wegener proposed an outward (centrifugal) force not an inward (centripetal) force. Frames of reference also play a role. I have changed the article's text, replacing "centripetal" with "centrifugal" and I also added an explanatory note. GeoWriter (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)