Talk:Indian subcontinent#Alternative Terms

It has become my sad duty to once every five years reduce this article to its more precise meaning shorn of random imaginings from old grandiose histories. The Indian subcontinent is not the Indian tectonic plate. The term predates the notions of tectonic plates, mid-ocean ridges, seafloor spreading, and continental drift.

(There is a very special meaning used in geophysics for the very northern region of the Indian continental crust that (I believe) has either subducted under Eurasia, or a mid-layer that has pushed into Asia and added to the crustal thickening of Tibet; pardon me my memory is failing this minute. But this is specialty usage and belongs to a note of a two sentences at best.)

"Indian subcontinent" is a very basic term, one among those on whose precision WP's credibility hinges. It is important not to turn this page into a blog, and thus Wikipedia into a laughing stock. Could someone also help with fixing the infobox? I am pinging Remsense, Fylindfotberserk.

Pinging also RegentsPark to please keep an eye. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{{Ping|Fowler&fowler}} if you want to call my writing "garbage", maybe you should do so to my face? Where in Wikipedia policies and guidelines does it say that articles on geographic regions should omit coverage of geology? Its not exactly universal, but looking at other articles like North America and Europe, these also cover geology. Your comments here show your complete ignorance of geology, as tectonic plates are not equivalent topics to the continents/landmasses that are situated on them, given they also cover oceanic crust. I see it as entriely appropriate to cover the geology of the Indian subcontinent in this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP:Content fork is a big concern. I do know a thing or two about geology, having written Himalayas#Geology. I'm afraid this article cannot be expanded further. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not to mention the sections India#Geography and India#Biodiversity of the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country FA, now 20 years old. I wrote both in collaboration with Saravask. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's a complete misreading of CFORK. "Indian subcontinent" and "Indian plate" are not identical topics (which is what is covered by Wikipedia:Content_forks#Pages_of_the_same_type_on_the_same_subject, but clearly Wikipedia:Content_forks#Related_articles, which means that some overlapping content is acceptable and arguably inevitable. It makes sense to briefly cover some geology of the Indian subcontinent on this page, given that many sources discuss the geology of the Indian subcontinent [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Indian+subcontinent%22+geology&btnG=]. Why is this article "high importance" for Wikiproject Geology then if it's not going to discuss geology at all? Where is the policy or guideline that geographic region articles aren't supposed to discuss geology other than your say-so? Where is the evidence that your viewpoint for the contents of the article represents the consensus of past discussions rather than just your strongly asserted viewpoint? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm afraid I don't engage in Wikilawyering. Deferring to admins of South Asia related content: RegentsPark, Abecedare, and Vanamonde. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Hemiauchenia}} The Indian subcontinent and the Indian plate are not geographically equivalent. The subcontinent extends beyond the plate in the north and east while the plate extends well into the Indian Ocean in the south. To say that the subcontinent is located on the plate is not totally correct and an extensive discussion on the plate in the lead is not really warranted. Finally, of course, Indian subcontinent is a geopolitical term while the plate is geological. I agree with what Fowler says though he should have expressed this more temperately. RegentsPark (comment) 12:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I am aware they are not exactly geographically equivalent I explicitly stated that, and it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss the boundaries of the Indian plate or similar in this article. The Indian Shield, one of the oldest pieces of the Earth's crust ( having existed for billions of years longer than the Indian plate has), is entirely located within the subcontinent (sources include e.g. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarajit-Sensarma/publication/340000184_IUGS043-01-02/links/5e720d2c4585152cdbfabebc/IUGS043-01-02.pdf]). Almost all geographical terms for regions are to an extent geopolitical in nature, but the "Indian subcontinent" is widely used in geological sense. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:How does Indo-Australian plate affect things? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 15:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• The term "Indian subcontinent" was created offhandedly if not also a little vainly by the British to refer to the landmass of their Indian empire (both British India and the Princely states), commonly "India" in contemporaneous usage. Burma was never included, despite being administratively part of British India from the late 19th century until 1937. For this reason Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka are not included in the subcontinent (they were not part of the British Indian Empire. It is an imprecise term, used loosely to refer to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, today. It is used most often in India. The Indian Shield is not the Indian subcontinent. Neither is the subcontinent Greater India a term used to refer to the postulated northern extension of the original Indian plate that has contributed to the crustal thickening of Tibet. This page is now essentially about a term, whose history and usage is described in section 1.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:PPS It can be a useful term. For example, the Kashmir page says in its lead:

:"... is the northernmost geographical region of the Indian subcontinent." It is convenient to use in this context, especially of a region whose boundaries hearken to British times. We can't say the northernmost region of South Asia as parts of Afghanistan are higher. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion and the "Name" section of the article have given me the impression that some editors think that the Indian subcontinent is various combinations of (1) not a physical geographic/geological entity, (2) did not exist before it was invented by people such as empire builders and bureaucrats, (3) its significance lies only in geopolitical, social, or cultural senses. This ignores the physical geography/geology aspects of the the Indian subcontinent; it would still be a thing, a physical object, a geological entity, even if the region had never been inhabited by people. The term "Indian subcontinent" predates the terms "tectonic plates, "mid-ocean ridges", "seafloor spreading", and continental drift" but the geological objects and processes existed long before humans. The geological entities would still exist even without e.g. the Republic of India or cricket. The politics and culture of the Indian subcontinent exist because it was a place created by geology that humans could eventually inhabit. The comment that "Indian subcontinent is a geopolitical term while the plate is geological" ignores the fact that the term "subcontinent" has a meaning in physical geography, physiography, geomorphology, and geology – it is a region geographically isolated from a larger continental landmass. In this context, the Indian subcontinent is an example of a subcontinent. Therefore, it would be very appropriate to include an accurate summary of the physical geography, physiography, geomorphology, and geology of the region in this article. —GeoWriter (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:+1. This also well summarises my views on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:The problem is that the term is not a well-defined region. In contemporaneous usage, it was equivalent to the underlying continental crust of the British Raj. The OED seems to think it is Peninsular India. In that case, the northernmost geographical region of the Indian subcontinent would not be Kashmir. (Britannica, also defines Kashmir to be: Kashmir, region of the northwestern Indian subcontinent. It is bounded by the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang to the northeast and the Tibet Autonomous Region to the east (both parts of China), by the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab to the south, by Pakistan to west and Afghanistan to the northwest. The subcontinent on Britannica is certainly not peninsular India. So, you see, the term is not well defined. It would be akin to working out the geology of the Mughal Empire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no shortage of recently published papers and books on the earth sciences aspects of the subcontinent, e.g. [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-42845-7_1 Tectonics of the Indian Subcontinent: An Introduction, Jain et al. 2020], [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarajit-Sensarma/publication/340000184_IUGS043-01-02/links/5e720d2c4585152cdbfabebc/IUGS043-01-02.pdf The Geodynamic Evolution of the Indian Subcontinent- An Introduction, Fareeduddin et al. 2020] and [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216302136 Hydroclimatic variability on the Indian subcontinent in the past millennium: Review and assessment, Dixit & Tandon 2016]. Why would we not cover this aspect of the area? Mikenorton (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:They are all Indian authors. It is not a term widely used outside of India any more. Indian authors also overwhelmingly use "Ganga" for the river, but on WP we call it Ganges. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of geology from this article since geology is obviously significant to the Indian subcontinent. Without any geological processes, this subcontinent would not exist. Volcanoguy 16:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not a reason. Without any geological processes Central Park, New York would not exist. The park is a well delineated geographica region, but we don't write an article on its geology by writing the history of tectonic plates (as was the case on this page: see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1282391463#Geology here]). We do so (see here) by being very specific about the kinds of rocks it has and so forth. Darjeeling is a much larger region. See its Darjeeling#Geography_and_geology, which I wrote. It is particular to the Darjeeling Hills region. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sure it's a reason. It's a subcontinent which is totally different from a park, although I've seen park articles with geology also. The Indian subcontinent article how it currently stands is not very useful; it needs more context other than about its name. Volcanoguy 02:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I should also note that comparing a park to a subcontinent is silly because parks are manmade whereas subcontinents are natural regions. With that being said, Central Park, New York has a geology section. Volcanoguy 02:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Please read what I have written above carefully. I refer to the geology section of Central Park there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, but part of the geology of the Indian subcontinent has to do with Insular India colliding with Asia which involves plate tectonics. India is no doubt a major portion of the Indian subcontinent. Volcanoguy 16:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That page, Insular India, was created by a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insular_India&oldid=845272935 banned user]. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you guys are so gung ho, please tell me what the boundaries of the Indian subcontinent are and how they are geological boundaries not political? Why is Namche Barwa, the eastern syntaxis of the Himalayas not on the Indian subcontinent, but the western, Nanga Parbat is? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The eastern frontiers of Europe are not defined either - yet we clearly have Europe#Geology because it is a continent, just as this is a subcontinent. These are physiographic regions. If geology is not to be covered here, you must demonstrate with secondary sources that "Indian subcontinent" is not a physiographic region and merely a dated term. The lead sentence of this page must be changed and it should be removed from the scope of the Geology WikiProject. 91.73.118.70 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Europe is a continent. Continents have been described for a very long time. There is a longstanding Geography of Europe page. The minor modern anomaly in its eastern boundary is described there. Please write an independent Geography of the Indian subcontinent page, not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1282391463#Geography Indian subcontinent#Geography] I ran my red pen through. How poor a text was that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:If the Indian subcontinent existed before the India-Eurasia collision, as some of you have implied, what was its postulated northern extension whose (a) lower layer subducted into the asthenosphere, (b) middle layer contributed to the crustal thickening of Tibet, and (c) upper layer caused the nappe formation of the Himalayan orogeny? How is it different from the same extension of the Indian plate? How is it different from the Indian Continental crust? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:This article certainly should include some information on geology, as should any article on a large geographic region. Because of the tectonic plate article (with significant overlap in geography), there should be a short explanation of the difference of the terms. There should be an overview of the geology of the "subcontinent" with links to the articles where more detail can be found. Certainly content written by Indian authors should not be dismissed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with the idea of a generously written dab page in prose, with a section or two, which in effect is what you are suggesting, and in fact what section 1 should be if it were written better. The term, "Indian subcontinent," is a useful term, but inexact, as I have indicated above. We use it in the lead of Kashmir. I used it in India#Geography as an alternative term for readers who might not be familiar with the Indian plate. It is used in history and some topics such as monsoons. Perhaps the best approach right now would be to open a separate discussion thread here and come to a consensus on the geological boundaries of the subcontinent. Thus far, no one has answered my question about the distinction between the Indian subcontinent and continental crust of the Indian plate. It is not enough to simply list sources, most of which have been authored by authors based in India, where the term "Indian subcontinent" is popular. Britannica is a good example to model on. It says,

The region was called simply “India” in many historical sources, which used the term to refer broadly to the regions surrounding and southeast of the Indus River. Many historians continue to use the term India to refer to the whole of the Indian subcontinent in discussions of history up until the era of the British raj (1858–1947), when “India” came to refer to a distinct political entity that later became a nation-state in its own right. The term “Indian subcontinent” thus provides a distinction between the geographic region once broadly called India and the modern country named India.

:::PS For reference, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1282391463 this was the version] that I had drastically reduced. It had emphasized geology from the get-go. It seemed to make the claim that the subcontinent was indeed the continental crust of the Indian plate. But the Indian plate does not include Ladakh, Kohistan (Pakistan) and a significant portion of Balochistan (Pakistan), the results of earlier rifting from Gondwana (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himalayas&oldid=1292335190#Geology Himalayas#Geology] from the bottom of paragraph 4 to the end of 5. See also figures 2 and 3.) The subcontinent, however, generally has included these regions. See the lead sentence in Britannica: "Indian subcontinent, subregion of Asia, consisting at least of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh." ( see [https://www.britannica.com/place/Indian-subcontinent here]) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Please do not edit this section

"Due weight" means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that reliable sources have published on a topic. Alternatively, it means including as far as is possible only scholarly consensus, or, when consensus does not exist among scholars, to report on the controversy.

Wikipedia policy on due weight is described in WP:TERTIARY, which states: {{tq|Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.}}

• "Indian subcontinent" is not a geological term of due weight:

:*For the search [https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Indian+subcontinent%22+intitle:%22Geology%22+inpublisher:university+%7C+inpublisher:Blackwell+%7C+inpublisher:Wiley+%7C+inpublisher:Routledge+%7C+inpublisher:Macmillan+%7C+inpublisher:Pearson+%7C+inpublisher:Brill+%7C+inpublisher:Elsevier+%7C+inpublisher:Springer&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+2000&num=10 "Indian subcontinent" intitle:"Geology" inpublisher:university | inpublisher:Blackwell | inpublisher:Wiley | inpublisher:Routledge | inpublisher:Macmillan | inpublisher:Pearson | inpublisher:Brill | inpublisher:Elsevier | inpublisher:Springer ] turns up nothing among books published in the last 25 years. (Here "|" means "OR") In other words, among the textbooks published by major academic publishers over the last 25 years that include the word "Geology" in their title, not a single one uses the expression "Indian subcontinent." What appears in the Physical geography and geology section is a fringe viewpoint.

• In addition, the most widely used textbook on Plate Tectonics: {{cite book|last1=Frisch|first1=Wolfgang|last2=Meschede|first2=Martin|last3=Blakey|first3=Ronald|title=Plate Tectonics: Continental Drift and Mountain Building|location=Heidelberg|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-540-76503-5|doi= 10.1007/978-3-540-76504-2|year=2011}} with [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13784813217546907542&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en Google scholar citation index 406], i.e. it has been cited 406 times among publications listed on Google scholar, makes ''no mention" of the word "Indian subcontinent."

• Neither is the term "Indian subcontinent" a Physical Geography term of due weight

:*for the search: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22India%22+intitle%3A%22Physical+Geography%22+inpublisher%3Auniversity+%7C+inpublisher%3ABlackwell+%7C+inpublisher%3AWiley+%7C+inpublisher%3ARoutledge+%7C+inpublisher%3AMacmillan+%7C+inpublisher%3APearson+%7C+inpublisher%3ABrill+%7C+inpublisher%3AElsevier+%7C+inpublisher%3ASpringer&sca_esv=28c65404b98a2d3e&udm=36&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3AJan+1_2+2000&ei=yQI9aKTXFr6Ew8cPoZywmQU&ved=0ahUKEwjk35Sez9GNAxU-wvACHSEOLFMQ4dUDCBI&oq=%22Indian+subcontinent%22+intitle%3A%22Physical+Geography%22+inpublisher%3Auniversity+%7C+inpublisher%3ABlackwell+%7C+inpublisher%3AWiley+%7C+inpublisher%3ARoutledge+%7C+inpublisher%3AMacmillan+%7C+inpublisher%3APearson+%7C+inpublisher%3ABrill+%7C+inpublisher%3AElsevier+%7C+inpublisher%3ASpringer&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIv0BIkluZGlhbiBzdWJjb250aW5lbnQiIGludGl0bGU6IlBoeXNpY2FsIEdlb2dyYXBoeSIgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6dW5pdmVyc2l0eSB8IGlucHVibGlzaGVyOkJsYWNrd2VsbCB8IGlucHVibGlzaGVyOldpbGV5IHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6Um91dGxlZGdlIHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6TWFjbWlsbGFuIHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6UGVhcnNvbiB8IGlucHVibGlzaGVyOkJyaWxsIHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6RWxzZXZpZXIgfCBpbnB1Ymxpc2hlcjpTcHJpbmdlckgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQzIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwCgBwCyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-books "Indian subcontinent" intitle:"Physical Geography" inpublisher:university | inpublisher:Blackwell | inpublisher:Wiley | inpublisher:Routledge | inpublisher:Macmillan | inpublisher:Pearson | inpublisher:Brill | inpublisher:Elsevier | inpublisher:Springer] turns up empty among books published in the last 25 years.

• I now feel comfortable in templating the article with a "Disputed about" undue weight template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not edit this subsection. Start a new section if you must. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

These are the sources I could find at a cursory glance: [https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Making_of_India.html?id=BtsLCwAAQBAJ Springer], [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-42845-7 Springer], [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-99341-6 Springer (Chapter 12)]. Clearly the Google Books search results are faulty and this approach to assigning due weight in tertiary sources is inappropriate. If we are doing this, a far more rigorous and nuanced analysis is required.

Further, the following quote from Frisch et al. (2011) in Plate Tectonics: Continental Drift and Mountain Building. Heidelberg: Springer: {{blockquote|A smaller but significant fan occurs also on the west side of the Indian sub-continent adjacent to the Indus River which drains the Karakorum and a smaller part of the Himalaya. It has only one third of the volume of the Bengal fan.}} This is from page 56. I haven't looked ahead. I know you mean well, but as it stands, both your claims are misleading. When a bunch of well-intentioned editors don’t see it your way, it’s probably worth pausing to consider if they have a point. 2A00:F28:48A:5180:49EF:F263:7E73:A102 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello User:2A00:F28:48A:5180:49EF:F263:7E73:A102. None of the Springer books are introductory textbooks. There is a big difference. Please read Wikipedia policy on due weight described in WP:TERTIARY. Using advanced books, monographs, and journal articles with the help of a Google search to create text of undue weight, even fringe texts, is the bane of Wikipedia.

:As for your quote from Frisch, Meschede, and Blakey, the authors are describing a location in a modern political configuration. It is the fan created by sedimentation at the mouth of a Himalayan river, one of the two bounding rivers of the Himalayas, a river that flows through both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and then continues into Pakistan. What other modern term are they going to use but "sub-continent?" Please don't say, "I haven't looked ahead," and absolve yourself of the responsibility of checking whether the authors use the term in a geological sense in the context of plate tectonics. They don't. I challenge you to find it. Your quote is the only instance of the use of the word "subcontinent" or "sub-continent" in the 207-page book. Please don't play "gotcha." I have used the book extensively in Himalayas#Geology. The authors use "Indian plate" or "India." As I have explained, the term "Indian subcontinent" is not a term of due weight in Geology. It is used in historiography, climate, politics, or in coffee-table contexts. Peter Molnar used it in the coffe-table context in Plate tectonics: A very short introduction, OUP, a book I have used in the introduction of Himalayas#Geology. But that is because an ordinary lay-person does not know the word "Indian plate.' An author has to set up the context. Molnar's coffee-table book is not what fits the bill in WP:TERTIARY for matters of due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Atleast two of the highlighted sources should have been included in your filtered Google Books search result, if all things were working as intended (Geology in title, and Springer publications). I do not claim these sources are the basis for inclusion of any information on Wikipedia, nor that they are the only other books that fit the narrow criterion for this search; I haven't spend more than 2 minutes on this browse. The existence of these examples simply highlight a major flaw in this methodology and demonstrate why it cannot be any basis for concluding that the Indian subcontinent "is not a geology term of due weight".

::*To prove my point, here's the search for just 'Indian': [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Indian%22+intitle%3A%22Physical+Geography%22+inpublisher%3Auniversity+%7C+inpublisher%3ABlackwell+%7C+inpublisher%3AWiley+%7C+inpublisher%3ARoutledge+%7C+inpublisher%3AMacmillan+%7C+inpublisher%3APearson+%7C+inpublisher%3ABrill+%7C+inpublisher%3AElsevier+%7C+inpublisher%3ASpringer&sca_esv=28c65404b98a2d3e&udm=36&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3AJan+1_2+2000&ei=yQI9aKTXFr6Ew8cPoZywmQU&ved=0ahUKEwjk35Sez9GNAxU-wvACHSEOLFMQ4dUDCBI&oq=%22Indian%22+intitle%3A%22Geology%22+inpublisher%3Auniversity+%7C+inpublisher%3ABlackwell+%7C+inpublisher%3AWiley+%7C+inpublisher%3ARoutledge+%7C+inpublisher%3AMacmillan+%7C+inpublisher%3APearson+%7C+inpublisher%3ABrill+%7C+inpublisher%3AElsevier+%7C+inpublisher%3ASpringer&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIv0BIkluZGlhbiBzdWJjb250aW5lbnQiIGludGl0bGU6IlBoeXNpY2FsIEdlb2dyYXBoeSIgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6dW5pdmVyc2l0eSB8IGlucHVibGlzaGVyOkJsYWNrd2VsbCB8IGlucHVibGlzaGVyOldpbGV5IHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6Um91dGxlZGdlIHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6TWFjbWlsbGFuIHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6UGVhcnNvbiB8IGlucHVibGlzaGVyOkJyaWxsIHwgaW5wdWJsaXNoZXI6RWxzZXZpZXIgfCBpbnB1Ymxpc2hlcjpTcHJpbmdlckgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQzIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwCgBwCyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-books "Indian" intitle:"Geology" inpublisher:university | inpublisher:Blackwell | inpublisher:Wiley | inpublisher:Routledge | inpublisher:Macmillan | inpublisher:Pearson | inpublisher:Brill | inpublisher:Elsevier | inpublisher:Springer] is also empty among books published in the last 25 years.

:: One would expect multiple mentions of the Indian Plate at minimum, yet we have this. Obviously, this is a fairly ridiculous finding. The bulk of your argument rested upon (1) the search results and (2) the absence of any mention of the subcontinent in Frisch et al. (2011). Both of these were not true to some degree. I stand by my earlier remark: {{tq|If we are doing this, a far more rigorous and nuanced analysis is required.}} I will look at some tertiary sources now. 2A00:F28:48A:5180:B86A:292F:B166:18DB (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::PS Worse yet, the current text does a very poor text of interpreting and paraphrasing in summary style. Thus the first sentence of the third paragraph,

::

The core of the Indian subcontinent was formerly part of Gondwana, a supercontinent formed during the late Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic, around 650-500 million years ago.

::: The description of the geology of any region is a legitimate topic for any Wikipedia article about any geographical region. There should be no dispute that every part of Earth's surface has geology. Any place would not exist otherwise. The inclusion of geology in any geographical article, per se, is not a matter for undue weight but if the geology description did occupy a disproportionately large amount of an article's text then, I think, too much geology text could be regarded as undue weight. For example, the New York City article includes a single two-sentence paragraph about the geology of New York City with two source reference citations. It is not undue weight to include this brief mention based on only two sources, even if they were the only two sources that existed about New York City's geology (there are actually more sources available). Undue weight would be writing one hundred very long paragraphs about the geology, so that it was unduly overemphasised in the article. Undue weight in terms of geology content is more likely to be about the favouring of one theory or interpretation of the rocks and the ignoring or downplaying of other theories or interpretations. Undue weight is about giving inappropriate prominence to one view in a spectrum of alternative views.

:::The undue weight policy is defined at WP:UNDUE. WP:TERTIARY does not define the policy on undue weight. The "Policy" statement at WP:TERIARY is the policy about the use of tertiary sources in Wikpedia. WP:TERTIARY states: "{{xt|Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.}}" I emphasise that tertiary sources MAY help evaluate due weight. This means that tertiary sources may also not help to evaluate due weight. It merely indicates a situation where tertiary sources may have some use in Wikipedia. —GeoWriter (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@GeoWriter do you think the current amount of geology=related text in the article is excessive enough to be undue weight and violate NPOV? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I found nothing unacceptable, e.g. in terms of undue weight or NPOV, in the version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1293605226]] (as of 17:48, 2 June 2025) which was the current version when you posted your question to me. Although it was not an exhaustive account of every aspect of the geology, I think it dealt fairly with what it did mention. I see, however, that the geology content of the article has been replaced by Fowler&fowler in the hours since you asked me for my opinion, so we are dealing with a moving target. The new version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1293632105] (as of 20:57, 2 June 2025) also seems reasonable to me. It is, however, also incomplete but in ways different from the earlier version. I think the more recent version is not less undue weight and not more neutral point of view than the older version. I think what Fowler&fowler has been describing in terms of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV seems to me to be more a case of (inevitable) incompleteness, an incompleteness that is the default state of Wikipedia articles. GeoWriter (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::user:GeoWriter I will fix the text cited to fragmented sources currently in place with a clearly written text in summary style prose. I will cite it to just one widely used book. You can then tell me what is wrong with my text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Meanwhile, user:GeoWriter please examine the section below for the "Geodynaymic evolution ..." source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

After I WP:BOLDLY restored and expanded the geology section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1293485089], F&F, after initially trying to remove it entirely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1293477853], has made a number of changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&diff=1293517149&oldid=1293505493], including removing the images as "{{tq|they make no mention of the subcontinent}}" (though see the guidance at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Acceptable_media ) and has added "neutral point of view" and "factual accuracy" tags. Pinging previous discussion participants {{Ping|RegentsPark}} {{Ping|Mikenorton}} {{Ping|GeoWriter}} {{Ping|Volcanoguy}} {{Ping|Graeme Bartlett}} to see if there is consensus for removing the images and adding the "npov" and "factual accuracy" tags, as well as for other comments to improve the section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:F&F has now removed any reference to the actual geology of the Indian subcontinent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&diff=1293624751&oldid=1293620670]: For reference, the concerned removed text is as follows: {{quote|The Indian Shield which forms the core of the subcontinent, includes several cratons which are some of the oldest remaining parts of the Earth's crust, dating to the Archean over 3 billion years ago. The central-west region is dominated by the Deccan Traps, a vast large igneous province covering {{Convert|500000|km2|abbr=on|sigfig=1}} formed at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, approximately 66-65 million years ago. The Indo-Gangetic Plain in north is covered by Cenozoic sediments, with the northern, eastern and western terrestrial boundaries of the subcontinent being composed of orogenic rocks formed during the Himalayas collision.{{Cite journal |last1=Fareeduddin |last2=Pant |first2=N.C. |last3=Gupta |first3=Saibal |last4=Chakraborty |first4=Partha |last5=Sensarma |first5=Sarajit |last6=Jain |first6=A.K. |last7=Prasad |first7=G.V.R. |last8=Srivastava |first8=Pradeep |last9=Rajan |first9=S. |last10=Tiwari |first10=V. M. |date=1 March 2020 |title=The Geodynamic Evolution of the Indian Subcontinent- An Introduction |journal=Episodes |language=en |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=7–18 |doi=10.18814/epiiugs/2020/020001 |doi-access=free |issn=0705-3797}}}} I strongly disagree with this, even by your F&Fs mandate that the sources mention the phrase "Indian subcontinent" (which I again disagree with) , the source clearly mentions the Indian subcontinent by name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::You can ask at WP:RS/N in particular user:S Marshall and user:ActivelyDisinterested if your cherry-picked sources meet due weight on Wikipedia. In contrast, I have just rewritten the Geology section (Geography is not needed repetitively as the lead covers it) using one standard introductory text

:::

::*{{cite book|last1=Frisch|first1=Wolfgang|last2=Meschede|first2=Martin|last3=Blakey|first3=Ronald|title=Plate Tectonics: Continental Drift and Mountain Building|location=Heidelberg|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-540-76503-5|doi= 10.1007/978-3-540-76504-2|year=2011}} with [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13784813217546907542&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en Google scholar citation index 406], i.e. it has been cited 406 times among publications listed on Google scholar.

::How often have your mixed bag of citations been cited on Google scholar? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Apparently your "Geodynamic evolution ... " source has [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13552898008648324632&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en failed to rise to double digits on Google Scholar] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping. I'm interested in this, having researched it years ago for the List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs. In partial support of Hemiauchenia, I do feel that this article should contain a geology section, and I think any section on the geology of the Indian subcontinent should include mention of both the Indian Shield and the Deccan Traps. I rather like [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-89698-4_1 this source] for the geological history.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :That seems like a highly specialized book of readings. How do you define the Indian subcontinent? How is your IS different from the India plate, or its continental crust? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: I think of the geological Indian subcontinent as the land area of the Indian plate.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks. But that is not the definition here. This is part of the problem. IS here is India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It includes Ladakh, Kohistan, the Karakorams and everything south or west (depending on the location) of the Great Himalayas. The accretion of the first three predated the India-Eurasia collision, the nappe formation, and the Himalayan orogeny. The version I have written describes all. The continental crust of the Indian plate should belong to the plate's article, not here (in my view).

::::As I understand it, IS is primarily a term used in historiography to distinguish between the pre-Partition India and the Republic of India. It is used in the context of monsoons, probably biodiversity, and some other topic areas in which the boundaries between modern nation states are not relevant, but the underlying nation states are, nevertheless, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in their entirety.

::::This is what I have understood. But as I have great respect for you, I'm happy to listen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well. I think our article on the Indian Plate is quite specialized and focused on that plate's interesting movements over time; whereas what we seem to need here is a description of the geology as it is now.

:::::Perhaps the best approach might be to precis and summarize Geology of India and the other relevant geology articles, rather than Indian Plate? We likely should have a sentence on Earthquakes in Pakistan too.—S Marshall T/C 07:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{re|S Marshall}}

::::::I don't disagree with that. Why don't you write something, please? Please. I know you are very likely busy, but your contribution will be a comprehensive and accurate text of due weight.

::::::The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&oldid=1282391463#Geology version of Hemiauchenia] that I had removed initially and reworked was anything but that. It was only about the continental crust of the Indian plate and monumentally OR-ridden, based essentially on the principle that, as you can find sources of the craziest of assertions, let's define the Indian subcontinent in an eccentric fashion. The Indian Shield material was something they had randomly added, trying to engage me in a slippery-argument-like discussion. It was not there in the original text they had added.

::::::So long and short, please add a concise paragraph or two. I would be happier if it is cited to a broad-scale textbook, of which I am sure many exist, rather than a collection of narrow-scale article. The main reason for this is that, given the article's history of POV battles, it may dissuade other editors from adding their interpretations of narrow-scale articles and diluting your text, or worse, infesting it. Looking forward. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::PS for the plate-tectonic evolutionary history of Deccan traps etc, if you think it needs to be included, chapter 6, section "Hot spot tracks in the ocean," page 81, of Frisch et al referred to above should be sufficient, don't you think? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think I'll start with a map, actually. All we seem to have at the moment is the utterly ghastly :File:India Geology Zones.jpg.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sounds good Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::On the topic of cite count in Google Scholar for potential sources, such counts need context because e.g. 3 cites in 2 years in a niche field seems to me to indicate more influence than would e.g. 20 cites in 20 years in a "high-activity" field. The amount of activity in a field is difficult to quantify exactly. Until the context is accurately quantified, cite count is not as useful an indicator of e.g. undue weight as it may first appear. GeoWriter (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The source, Geodynamics Evolution of the Indian subcontinent is a very poor one. Four-fifths of its first two pages comprise direct quotes from over a century-old British and British Raj accounts. The source was published in March 2020. It has garnered three citations in five years.

:::::Frisch et al (2011) had garnered 71 cites when it completed five years in 2016. (see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0%2C22&cites=13784813217546907542&scipsc=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2016 here])

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Geographical map of the Indian subcontinent S Marshall 1.png

On the right you'll see my first draft. This map is meant to show what I propose we decide are the principal geological features of the subcontinent. It doesn't show the cratons, because when I try to overlay the cratons on top of this, the result is confusing. To follow shortly: a separate map of the same area showing the cratons.

This map of the principal geological features is simplified from various sources but primarily The Dharwar Craton and the Assembly of Peninsular India by Dr John J. W. Rogers of the University of North Carolina, published in [https://www.jstor.org/stable/30062142 The Journal of Geology, vol. 94, no. 2] (March 1986), maps on page 131 and to a lesser extent page 130.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I love this map, I love its gentle colors, its labels, and the choice of words in the labels. My admiration and my thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::PS Today is a busy day, but I look forward also to reading the Journal of Geology article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, thanks for mentioning the colours. You've made me realise that those colour and font choices need to be accessible for people with colour blindness and dyslexia. There's probably not enough contrast, and also the Dravidian Shield colour is too similar to the Himalayas colour. Will fix.—S Marshall T/C 21:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I forgot I have the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909, all 26 volumes, including the atlas. I have just uploaded the third map in the Atlas, which is "India, Geological Features." 1909 predates modern geological knowledge, tectonic plates and the like, though continental drift was around. How beneficial if will be here, I can't say, but J. G. Bartholomew and Sons, supervised by the Edinburgh Geographical Institute, were master map makers of the day, aware of the aesthetics of color choice, although color blindness and other modern concerns probably did not factor in their enterprise.

::::Himalayas are left out here, although they are shown in another map I had uploaded a few years ago, :File:India Orographical Features Plate 4, Imperial Gazetteer of India, Atlas, 1909.jpg

::::File:Imperial Gazetteer of India 1909-India-Geological-Features.jpg]] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Geological map of the Indian subcontinent S Marshall 2.png

• On the right, you will see my second draft, with colours that I hope are more red-green colour blindness friendly, although I'm no expert on that. I also hope it's low-contrast enough to be dyslexia-friendly as well.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. I like it. If it is the final draft, it has my vote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::As a good source for such a map I would like to point out Figure 1 in [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarajit-Sensarma/publication/340000184_IUGS043-01-02/links/5e720d2c4585152cdbfabebc/IUGS043-01-02.pdf The Geodynamic Evolution of the Indian Subcontinent- An Introduction: Fareeduddin et al. (2020)] probably somewhat simplified for our purposes. Mikenorton (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I think that's also a good source. I want to put the cratons on a separate map from the landforms, because I think it's less confusing that way. I've promised a separate craton map but I've yet to post it.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a page that has been riven by various controversies, including a major one regarding its very name.  The "Geodynamics" article is the introduction to a special issue presumably on Indian geology in which mostly geoscientists based in universities and research centers in India were invited to contribute.  Two-thirds of the citations in this introduction are to the articles of the special issue.  At first glance, some of those articles appear to be much better written than this introduction, but even they often cite articles written by their fellow geoscientists in India.  There are certainly others that are nationalistic, POV-ridden, such as [https://www.episodes.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.18814/epiiugs/2020/020034 The Lost Saraswati River of the Northwestern Indian Plains].  Contrast the nomenclature with what we say in Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Etymology.  As for Figure 1 in Geodynamic Evolution, who but geologists based in India call the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the "Indo-Ganga-Brahmaputra Plain?" Whether the reviewing standards were lowered as they sometimes are for invited special issues, I can't say, but the introduction is not a fluent overview.

:::Mikenorton and S Marshall have expertise in Geoscience can quickly extract the encyclopedically appropriate hard science from such a Figure, which the caption says is "Geology and tectonics of the Indian Sub-continent, showing its main characters (compiled by AK J from various published sources)," but the average Wikipedian is not.  I would much rather prefer the Rogers article, which has stood the test of time. It will greatly help those of us who will be left to pick up the pieces when the page descends again into chaos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:S Marshall subcontinent cratons draft.png

• As promised, I have uploaded a proposed map of the principal five cratons, plus the Eastern Ghats fold belt, the Deccan Traps, and the Pandyan mobile belt. I feel this two-map arrangement is clearer and less confusing than the single-map version, although sources do like to try to put all the information on one.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you S Marshall, I like your choice of colours, both generally and for the contrast they offer with their neighbours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, that's very kind of you. It would of course help if I spelled Singhbhum correctly. I'll fix that in the next draft.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::With apologies for the slight delay, I've corrected this. If anyone has any objections or concerns about these maps, please could you raise them?—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a map of the cratons of India should show the cratons, not other random geological units that are not cratons e.g. the Deccan Traps and mobile belts. If such non-cratonic geological units are included, the map is actually a map of cratons and other geological features. I recommend that a map of cratons should exclude the other non-cratonic units. GeoWriter (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:My problem is that my source maps, for the cratons, don't show some of the boundaries under those features. I suspect that the craton boundaries can't be identified where they lie under the Deccan Traps or the mobile belts.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Are we stuck?—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}