Talk:Oceania

Stupid

If New Zealand isn't part of the "continent" of Australia, then what continent is it a part of? Oceania. Of course. Oceania is the continent. 128.210.12.36 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't part of any continent. There seems to be a misconception that every piece of land has to be part of a continent, but this isn't true. There are many island nations that aren't part of a continent. Adding New Zealand to the continent of Australia (or Australasia) is unnecessary. It would make sense to do so if NZ was on the continental shelf of Australia, as New Guinea is, but NZ isn't on the continental shelf. So then you may wonder, what is NZ? Simple. NZ is the dry-land portion of the submerged Microcontinent of Zealandia. Oceania is a geopolitical region, not a true continent, as it doesn't comprise a unified landmass (which is how geologists describe a continent). Although Wikipedia should include that some people in various countries (especially in Europe) consider Oceania a continent, but note that this is not the most widely held definition, but merely a subjective and ambiguous identification. Walterego (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Its suppoesed to be called Australasia and Ocenia Dance-pop (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Indonesia

The ONLY part of Indonesia that should be included in Oceania is the island of New Guinea and its continental shelf. Adding in the Maluku Islands, which by the way is now cut in half into North Maluku and Maluku, complicates things. If needed, Indonesia's information here is steadily growing, with its provinces divided into kabupaten (regencies), and its regencies into kecamatan (districts). We should use that information to get a better picture. Doseiai2 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

• Europe (current)
• Asia (former)
• South America (current)

I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:

• It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
• New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
• As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Requests submitted. I'd like to reiterate that I have no intention of enforcing these new maps on articles - if there is any objection I'll understand. My intent here is to make uniformity possible, not to enforce it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two navbars reverted

Editor Gadfium: The following templates, {{English dialects by continent}} and {{English official language clickable map}}, were added earlier to all the continents excluding Antarctica. Why is Oceania the only continental area that is not allowed to benefit from these two extremely useful and highly relevant Navbars? If you'll give them more than a glance, you'll find, for example, that the map template shows the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Australia, New Zealand, Palau, Nauru all as showing English as one of their official languages with a significant population of English speakers, as well as Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea showing English as their official language but with only a small number of English speakers. In addition, that template shows readers where other anglophone states are, so both that template and the "English dialects by continent" template are excellent focusing tools for general readers of this encyclopedia. I'm here on the talk page because I abhor edit wars. However I truly believe in the validity of these templates and their definite relevancy to the articles in which I have posted them.

Unless you can come up with a much better reason than "irrelevant", which just isn't true, then I do want to reinstate these highly useful Navbars!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

English is not the only language spoken in Oceania. Unless we also have a similar template for Spanish and French, this would appear to be selective information. Since as you say such templates apply to every continent. they appear to be bloat, and so I will remove them from all continents. Thank you for pointing this out.-gadfium 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove them if you must, that is certainly your preogative; however, no other editor seems to mind the new Navbars added to the other continent pages. I suggest you ask yourself why you are the only editor who wants to remove these Navbars from articles. All the other involved editors either agree with me and support their inclusion or are acquiescent and don't have strong feelings either way. Why are you the only one?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Nobody would challenge your point about Spanish and French and other languages. But don't you think there are readers out there who might be interested in the present spread of English throughout the globe? As difficult as it is to learn (right up there with Russian and German) English is still managing to be spoken in more and more places. And many of the new English speakers are learning to handle the English alphabet and reading the language better and better. In any case, this is the English Wikipedia. How do you know there aren't already such Navbars on the French and Spanish Wikipedias?

This is the English Wikipedia, but that gives it no special privilege with regard to the coverage of the English language vs other languages.

Any navigational template should link an article to other articles on closely related topics. Oceania is a continent (or geopolitical region). It should be, and is, linked to other continents. However it is not a language and such language templates are not relevant.

According to Wikipedia:Navigation templates, a "navigation template, navbox or topicbox is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." How is Cameroon English related to Oceania?-gadfium 01:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gadfium, by pointing out that this is the English Wikipedia, I was merely alluding to the fact that there are other Wikipedia's in other languages. I would have thought that my question about the Spanish and French navbars would have made this apparent. There was no bias intended and I am sorry if you thought so. As a member of the WikiProject countering systemic bias, including language bias, I hope you will accept that my motive was merely to show that the Navbars that you suggested ought to exist might actually already be in place.

Oceania is indeed a continent in its own right. It is, however, so much more than just a geopolitical region. It is a continent of people, and people speak, write and read. They communicate. The closely and strongly related topic of anglophone states and the perhaps more politically defined "anglosphere" bring together both those states where English is an official language and there are a significant number of speakers, such as the Marshalls and Micronesias, and those states where English is an official language and yet there are but relatively few who understand English, such as the Solomons and Fiji. This makes the Navbars highly relevant.

Cameroon in West Africa is a country where English is an official language, just like all the states in Oceania that are either dark blue or light blue on the map. It is also a state where relatively few people speak and understand English, just like in Papua New Guinea and the other light blue areas in Oceania. I'm surprised you didn't get that important relationship without my aid. These are very valid and relevant navigational aids, and readers of the Oceania article really ought to have access to them when they finish reading this article.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why we should link to English speaking countries but not French or Spanish speaking ones. Saying that there are French and Spanish Wikipedias is missing the point. There are also Chinese-speaking people, etc, although as far as I am aware Chinese is not an official language of any territory in Oceania.

Readers of Oceania are not particularly likely to be interested in Cameroon English, any more than they might be interested in a bird species that occurs only in Newfoundland, even though there are also bird species in Oceania. Is there a difference between the templates on English-speaking countries and a hypothetical template listing bird species by continent? I'm sure you are not suggesting that we link to every article that has something in common with something that occurs somewhere in Oceania, but this appears to be where your logic leads.-gadfium 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're on the subject of logic, I find it fallacious to simply dispose of a navigation bar on the grounds that not all languages of relevance are represented. If we followed that logic on wikipedia - that all facets must be represented equally or not at all - we'd obviously run into the problem that either we'd have no articles at all or that we'd require someone with god-like writing speed. Either way, personally, I see such a nav-bar as helpful and not a hindrance. If Oceanic people disagree with this notion, I encourage them to speak up and disprove its utility ;). -User talk:Anonymous 5:31am, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(out). I will not get into it with you about linking to English and not others, for the argument smacks of bias, except to say that one has to start somewhere. Instead of depriving readers of useful and relevant information, maybe you should be looking into how you can provide the information you think is necessary to balance things out.

You have NO idea what readers of Oceania are particularly likely to be interested in. How could you? People's interests vary far and wide. You sound like you're judging a whole lot of people whom you don't even know based upon your own apparently myopic views about what they should or shouldn't like. My logic leads toward improving this encyclopedia for readers all over the world. When I'm wrong, I am not afraid to admit it. However in this case I feel very strongly that I am correct, and that it is you who are wrong. You seem to be raising red herring arguments and searching for more. Getting back to basics, this is a highly relevant template, and it's very sad that you feel you must deprive the many and varied readers of this and the other continental articles of educational information.

I'm done here except to say that you missed a continental article, Anglo-America, which you could have easily found had you opened the clickable map template. But you seem to rather close your eyes to good solid knowledge and information. Best of everything to you and yours!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Something for you to read, or reread as the case may be. If you cannot fathom the great importance of the Anglophone states template to the spread of the English language, the expansion of the Internet and the growth of Wikipedia, then you just might need to add that to your personal list of challenges.

samoan house of worship

The Samoan Bahá'í House of Worship in Tiapapata, 8 km from Apia, Samoa, was completed in 1984 making it the 1st house of worship on an Oceanian island off mainland Australia. Considering there are only 7 Baha'i houses accross the world, i think it would be appropriate to demonstrate 1 of these on this Oceania article as a picture. Even though i agree Baha'i is a fringe religion, it has consistently been at the top of fastest growing religion statistics and also ranks as the 2nd or 3rd largest religion on many Oceanian islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: until 2007 the Samoan head of state was a Bahá'í convert.

However, there's currently very little in the "Religion" section, and the only image is of the Samoan Bahá'í House of Worship. I'd suggest this does give undue weight to Bahá'í at the expense of other faiths. In particular, I'm concerned that the text doesn't cover Bahá'í at all.

I'd suggest expanding the section, noting that Christianity in all its forms is dominant, but that there are a wide-range of religious beliefs. Bahá'í, Malietoa Tanumafili's conversion, and the Samoan Bahá'í House of Worship could be used to demonstrate the scope of faith in Oceania.

I'd also suggest trying to get a few Christian images - as a Kiwi I'm biased but I'd suggest that images of Rātana churches might be good, but other images too.

This is pretty much a "drive-by" comment, but I have this article (and its talk page) watchlisted, so if I can help do let me know.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 11:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the three photos of temples (two Bahá'í, two in Australia) that were initially added, because they seemed to make our coverage skewed very disproportionately away from more mainstream religions (and irreligion), and probably put too much emphasis on Australia. I would not object to the reinserted Samoan Bahá'í photo staying if the Religion section is expanded somewhat, with some mention of Oceanian Bahá'í followers, and preferably also including a more "mainstream" house of worship. As it stands, I think this photo's relevance is unclear and it may give the Bahá'í faith undue weight, but I won't delete it again just yet. It is a nice photo, and I agree that it could help illustrate the diversity of faiths in the region, especially alongside some explanatory text along the lines suggested above. --Avenue (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much agree fully. I take your point about "mainstream" houses of worship: my thinking is/was that "quirky images" are interesting - a beautifully carved Rātana church would be more interesting than a plain Anglican church in Ponsonby, for example. Thinking it through further, though, you're quite right - the "quirky" images should supplement the "mainstream" images. TFOWR^propaganda 11:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly good to pique the reader's interest, and quirky images are one way to do that. I think distinctive yet reasonably representative images are even more useful, if we can find them. A homegrown minority religion like Ratana would be more informative than an import, I think, although I'm wary of Australian and New Zealand content tending to smother other aspects of the topic. --Avenue (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not wedded to the Rātana idea - and I take your point about too much Kiwi/Aussie stuff ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 12:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Bahai religion warrant a (written) mention in the Oceania article? --Merbabu (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it could do, if it serves as an example of the diversity of faiths in Oceania. I certainly think that without any text, the image should go. As it stands right now it's unclear to ordinary readers why the image is there. TFOWR^propaganda 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's diversity in faith in any large region - can anyone name a region/continent or even a country that does not have diversity? Surely it's trivial, and thus the pic is irrelevant. In fact, i don't think a symbol of any house of worship is all that useful to the article, even for the large religions. Such buildings exist all over the world. Can anyone suggest why a picture of a house of worship (of any religion) helps readers' understanding of Oceania? --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the images (if any) should illustrate the text, and in that respect may be useful. An image of a place of worship that appears unusual (to non-Oceanian eyes) could certainly be useful (hence my comment about a beautifully carved church compared to a plain church - it's nothing like the typical church in Glasgow, for example).

That said, I took a look at other large regions: Asia, Europe and North America. Asia has images illustrating two major religions (Buddhism and Islam), Europe simply has a map indicating which religions are predominant in which areas, and North America has no "religion" section at all. I do think it's worth spelling out religious diversity - we can't assume that the reader will know about this - but whether or not we supplement this with images isn't quite so clear-cut.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think photos can be useful to illustrate the text, as TFOWR says, when they are fairly distinctive to the region. Maybe a locally decorated church would work well here, or maybe churchgoers in the local formal attire. I'd also like to include a video of choral hymn singing (e.g. like this, but in a more religious context). But the section needs some expansion before more than one item will fit. --Avenue (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This and this may be useful, though I didn't notice any photos that matched our requirements (except, maybe, this one (anyone more familiar with Tonga than me care to comment on how representative this picture is? My experience of Tonga is all within NZ...) I've not gone much further in Commons; Fiji, PNG, the Solomons and Vanuatu were going to be my next port of call, if anyone fancies taking a look at Micronesia and the (large) part of Polynesia I've thus far ignored?

Regardless, I agree that the first step is to expand the text.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics heading

Aloha! I added a Demographics heading for the redirect page Demographics of Oceania, as requested on "Special:WantedPages". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&limit=50&offset=98. Retrieved September 28, 2010.  Peaceray (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Map

We've gotten into a revert war between a map of all of Oceania (Malay Archipelago thru Polynesia) and a map of the Australasian part of Oceania (Melanesia, Australia, & New Zealand). Personally, I think that an article on Oceania should be headed by a map of the entire region, and that maps of Australasia should be placed in that article, or given here with a description of being a narrower conception of Oceania. Another map to have would be the UN conception of Oceania, which matches neither map, including as in does Hawaii (currently excluded) and excluding West Papua (currently included).

The argument for limiting the map to Australasia is that this has been stable for years, but that is not a valid argument for retaining inaccuracies. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument you appear to be making is that the Malay archipelago should be added to the territories we currently list as part of Oceania. It would be preferable if you put forward your reasons for this, rather than simply asserting that the map should cover it.-gadfium 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the broad definition of the term, as look can find by checking a dictionary or doing a search online for the hundreds of books which use the term that way. There's a narrow conception of Oceania that excludes Australia and perhaps New Guinea, a middling conception that includes them, and a broad conception that includes the Malay Archipelago. There's the UN geopolitical modification that follows current national boundaries. The EB mentions that even Japan might be included as part of the Pacific, but I've never seen a definition that broad in actual use. The current map is identical to Australasia: it doesn't even include not-Australasian Polynesia, and so fits no-one's conception of Oceanic. It's simply wrong. Since we have different articles on Oceania and Australasia, I would think our maps should distinguish them. To be complete, we should probably have four maps: narrow, middling, broad, and geopolitical, plus perhaps ecozone and others. But if we have only one, it should be the full extent of the region, not a subset that happens to be synonymous with a different article. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the article should adopt the broad definition of the term? If so, please actually put some arguments forward. At the moment, you appear to be arguing that neither map is perfect, which I entirely agree with. However, both maps fail because they don't display the full area of Oceania, which extends over the horizon to the east. The actual territories of Oceania are mostly too small to appear on the maps. Adding territories which are not part of the definition of Oceania as actually used in the article does not help at all.-gadfium 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that we should cover the various uses of the term, both those that include the Malay arch. and those which exclude Australia. We could have multiple maps, but IMO a general map should include all the areas included in the region, not just a particular narrower conception. — kwami (talk)

Recent sources that include the Malay archipelago as part of Oceania

Here are some sources which include the Malay arch. Most, but not all, also include Australia. (There are also many sources which exclude both.)

• OED (2008): (A collective name for) the islands and island-groups of the Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas, including Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, and sometimes also Australasia and the Malay archipelago.
• Merriam-Webster (1996): the lands of the cen & S Pacific including Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia (including New Zealand), often Australia, & sometimes the Malay Archipelago.
• EB (2010): The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. [I can find no such usage.] A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, and Aleutian islands and the Japan archipelago. The most popular usage delimits Oceania further by eliminating Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Philippines ... Oceania then, in its most restricted meaning, includes more than 10,000 islands, with a total land area (excluding Australia, but including Papua New Guinea and New Zealand) of approximately 317,700 square miles (822,800 square km).

So the EB excludes Australia as well as the Malay arch. from the land area, but there are reasons (below) to think this is not a RS.

• Douglas & Ballard (2008) Foreign bodies: Oceania and the science of race 1750-1940: They "recuperate" the term and apply it to Indonesia-Hawaii-Australia-New Zealand-Easter Island, and cover the history of the term. Its coinage as the "Fifth part of the World" included Bornea, Indonesia, Timor, Singapore, Philippines, New Guinea, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, and specifically excluded Japan, Formosa, Luchus, Aleutians, pace the EB. They note that "By the 1970s ... in French, Océanie had contracted in conformity with the international geopolitical norm that puts the Malay Archipelago in Asia and divides Asia from Oceania along the arbitrary colonial border which cuts the island of New Guinea in two."

We cover both the regional and the geopolitical conceptions noted in Douglas & Ballard, but neither are illustrated by our map: at the least we would need to include Polynesia and exclude Indonesian Papua. I would exclude the EB as an outlier I've been unable to verify even with this very detailed history. (We don't use encyclopedias as sources anyway.)

• The Diagram Group (2006) Environment: An Illustrated Guide to Science, p 18: "Oceania comprises the islands of the southern, western, and central Pacific Ocean including Australia, New Zealand, and the Malay Archipelago."
• Luck (1998) The American desk encyclopedia: It includes the islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia and, sometimes, Australasia ... and the Malay Archipelago.
• Kerr (2003) Tourism public policy, and the strategic management of failure, p 64: "Oceania refers imprecisely to the lands of the Pacific Ocean such as Australia; New Zealand; the Malay Archipelago; Micronesia; Polynesia; Melanesia; New Guinea; and Papua New guinea"
• Pendergast & Hermsen (2004) Fashion, costume, and culture: clothing, headwear, body decorations, and footwear through the ages, v 2, p 333: "To most geographers the lands that make up Oceania include Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, New Zealand, and often Australia and the Malay Archipelago."
• Bulkeley (2008), "Religions of Oceania", in Dreaming in the world's religions: a comparative history, NYU, p 233: The nineteenth-century French term "Oceania" ... is a collective noun denoting the kindred cultures of Australia, New Guinea, the Malay Archipelago, New Zealand, and the hundreds of Pacific islands ...

The broad conception is used in some surprising places, such as,

• Leibs (2004) Sports and games of the Renaissance p 173: "Oceania refers to the myriad of islands ... in the central and southern Pacific Ocean, ranging roughly from Australia to Hawaii, including the Malay Archipelago, Melanesia, Micronesia, New Zealand, and Polynesia."
• McEvoy (1988) Knife & tomahawk throwing: the art of the experts, p 139: Oceania, the islands of ... Australasia, Polynesia, and the Malay archipelago, were all peopled with hunters and warriors who used spear-throwers of various types.
• DP Sen (2005) Advances in Fish Processing Technology, p 631: "In Asia (Japan and China) and Oceania (Malay archipelago), several species [of seaweed] are eaten raw"

The last was published in India, and so might be expected to have a clear idea as to what "Asia" is.

It's not even the case that Australia is always included when the Malay arch. is. In Blackwood William and Sons' Fifth Geographical Reader, Standard VI (can't find a date, but old), "Oceania" is the Malay arch, Melanesia (New Guinea, Fiji, etc. but not Australia), Micronesia, & Polynesia. The islands are commonly defined to include up to the Bonins in the N.

Australasia, BTW, is commonly defined to be almost exactly what we have on our map: Australia, Melanesia, & New Zealand, with the only difference being the common inclusion of the Moluccas / Wallacea in Melanesia and Australasia. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article then needs to be expanded, especially the interpretation section, before all the map debate. I think the common interpretation of Australia+Pacific w/o Malay archipelago is due to atlases using Oceania as a 7th continent I reckon. That's personally how I've always seen it. If the sources elaborate on this definition, and why, that'd be useful. For now more acknowledgement and explanation would be useful.

In regards to the map, maybe if we shift the current globe northeast, showing the pacific with australasia in the southwest? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these descriptions all seem to consider Oceania a geographic region rather than a continent; the continent tends to be Australia or Australasia. The geopolitical conception is the most common when fitting this into political boundaries, as in atlases & the UN. Most of our article is about geopolitical Oceania, but the current map is not. We should at least have a map that matches one of the two. — kwami (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Douglas & Ballard (2008) also acknowledge the typically more limited scope of the term in English (i.e. excluding the Malay archipelago and Australasia). Here is a link to the most relevant section: Naming spaces. I think our map should also distinguish between "core" and "broad" definitions of Oceania, e.g. by showing them in two different shades of green. --Avenue (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we mention that. I don't know if it would be very easy to make a bicolored map, since much of the core area is too fine grained to show up, but we could try. (I'll have to read them again, but I assume they only remove continental Australasia, not things like Fiji.) — kwami (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Both of the two maps that have been tried are far from ideal. They are centred over mid-Australia, so Hawaii is perched on the edge of the globe, and I'm not sure if Easter Island is even visible. India is given much more prominence. And the maps do not show small islands well (or at all?), which is a big defect for this region. I think a better map would be centred around the intersection of the date line and the equator, or a bit to its west, and would show EEZ outlines as well as coastlines. --Avenue (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, apart from Hawaii, they don't show Polynesia or Micronesia at all. Impossible, really, given the scale of the maps. I added the EEZ map back in to at least outline where they are. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the map of Australasia and South East Asia with one that shows the full extent of Oceania. It would be nice to find a map in a similar style to the previous one, but it seems everyone agrees that a map centred on Australasia and omitting much of the area of Polynesia is inappropriate.-gadfium 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that that wasn't the full extent of Oceania. I moved it to the top of the page and labeled it 'Pacific Ocean'. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Aleutian Islands

Aleutian Islands are not the americas oceania that term is used or is not correct ecjo to hawaii geographically belong to the americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.178.214 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what you mean here. The article explains that the Aleutian Islands are not normally considered as part of Oceania, except by the very broadest definition. They do not share cultural origins or ecology with the rest of Oceania. Hawaii is certainly part of Oceania, as it is a part of Polynesia. This is not a denial that it is a part of the United States, but it is not part of the continent or continents of America.-gadfium 19:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks cleared my doubts but for me hawaii america should be, not what oceania both politically and geographically is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.178.214 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mauritius?

Is it possible to consider Mauritius a oceanian country? Geographically, it looks like its within the range of oceanian countries, since it sits in the middle of the indian ocean. Wikipedia suggests here that its an african country but i would disagree, since its not near Africa. Someone65 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oceania is the land beyond Southeast Asia. The furthest west it goes in any conception I've seen is Sumatra. The one exception was a very old source that included Madagascar, but that was because the people came from Borneo, which is in Oceania, not because of the geography. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretive details

• In its widest sense, the term may embrace the entire insular region between Asia, thereby including other islands in the Pacific Rim such as the Ryukyu, Kuril, the Japanese Archipelago and Taiwan.

has been changed to

• The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, Aleutian islands and the Japanese Archipelago.

multiple times. This is pointless. The whole reason that bullet point was there was to describe the widest definition. Of course a more common definition excludes them, thus the entire point of placing it in an Interpretative details and controversies section. The common definition is the one used in the demographics section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the "entire insular region between Asia" mentioned in the first example?Moriori (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It should say and the Americas, sorry, don't know why that's out. That sentence is directly taken from britannica, and the IP is actually making it a complete COPYVIO. I've rewritten. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Aleutian islands, the Japanese archipelago

in the British dictionary says that these islands are excluded but included taiwan if you put the opposite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.47.215 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, Aleutian islands and the Japanese Archipelago. from the Encyclopædia Britannica

• The widest definition of Oceania covers the entire region between continental Asia and the Americas, thereby including islands in the Pacific Rim such as the Japanese Archipelago, Taiwan, and the Aleutian islands????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

is wrong then place what it actually says the Encyclopedia Britannica please .... it is unclear what it says there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.242.174 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't exactly copy what is in Britannica as it would be a copyright violation. As it stands that bullet addresses the wider view. I've moved it, if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

but does not specify the Encyclopædia Britannica that these islands are included, just says they are all islands between Asia and the Americas so the rest did not because it is wrong to put —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.242.174 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

is more consistent and understandable so please dejalo.The WIDESTAR definition of Entire Oceania region covers the continental entre Asia and the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify/explain? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

on a map of the great oceania lack taiwan because it also incorporates the continent place it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanediaz (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan is usually in Asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The term, in its widest sense, embraces the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas. A more common definition excludes the Ryukyu, Kuril, and Aleutian islands and the Japan archipelago. The most popular usage delimits Oceania further by eliminating Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Philippines, because the peoples and cultures of those islands are more closely related historically to the Asian mainland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.244.203 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Many definitions are discussed in the beginning of the article, and the sections after this focus on that most common definition you mention above. This obsession to try and make one bullet point show this entire point is unproductive and detrimental. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)