Talk:Oceania/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hawaii and Easter Island?

Should Hawaii and Easter Island get their own entries here? They are both geographicly in the Oceania "continent" even if they're integral parts of mother countries that are in other continents.Inkan1969 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's interested in this issue? Inkan1969 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in Hawaii's classification myself. It's highlighted in green on the Oceania map linked in the main article. And yet the table excludes it from the list. Unless I'm missing something again, one of two must be wrong? This whole area is incredibly confusing. Orichalcon 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Geographically I think it is clear the Hawaiian Islands are part of Oceania, even if politically they are a US state. This is not an unusual circumstance- look at Turkey (Asia and Europe) for example. I suppose the same would apply to Easter Island. 66.183.217.31 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If all the overseas territories of Britain and France which are culturally and geographically part of Oceania are included in the chart, then so should the all overseas territories of every which are culturally and geographically part of Oceania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.32.100 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, they are both Pacific Islands and both Polynesian. Hugo999 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just passing through, but I agree these two islands which define and are included in the Polynesian triangle should be listed in the Pol section of the table. Politically they are parts of other countries but the same applies to other islands in this table. Geographically, historically and culturally they are part of Polynesia. Mhicaoidh 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears no one is objecting to Easter Island being included in the table, although Corticopia removed it when it was added an hour ago. Since he hasn't contributed to this conversation, and may not be aware of it, I'll add it back in.-gadfium 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks as though there was originally a list of countries and territories in Oceania which included both Hawaii and Easter Island. In March 2006 a table was added with populations and areas but which didn't include these two, and some months later the list was removed as redundant.
Hawaii should be added to the table too, but I'll wait a few days to see if anyone objects.-gadfium 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I do object, somewhat: notes already summarise why Hawaii and Easter Island are not included because, politically, they are possessions of the United States and Chile in the Americas. And, despite efforts to correct totals, the note addressing this wasn't changed, which amounts to willful blindness (IMO). The table more or less follows the UN scheme for regions/subregions, and I see little reason to change that. Before more recent edits, and for a good long while, they were not included. But ...
If these areas must be added here, they must be removed (from a numerical perspective anyway) from North and South America and noted appropriately. Nothing exists in isolation. Corticopia 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
From an arithmetical point of view, you are correct, Corticopia. However, from an ethnological and indigenous linguistical point of view, both are indubitably part of the Polynesian triangle and, since Polynesia is the major component of Oceania, there is an irresistible case for inclusion. Regimes can change overnight; language and culture and "national" feelings change more slowly. Alice✉ 06:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That may be the case, but notes already account for this. There is little reason why the same territory should be listed in multiple tables for regions that may be mutually exclusive. Corticopia (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oceania certainly overlaps the continent of Asia (and, you have argued earlier on this page, the continent of Australia and the political divisions of the Americas - since it includes both Easter Island and Hawaii), so these are not "mutually exclusive" regions. And I'm by no means convinced that the discrete and "black or white" nature of tables and infoboxes always add to our readers' understanding; sometimes they just coarsen nuances and gradations in the text. Alice✉ 08:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In some contexts, Oceania may overlap the continent of Asia, but in most others it does not: many reputable atlases will reveal this distinction. The notes currently account for this, and (conversely) there is little reason to not be discrete when grouping countries by region. In summary, if Hawaii and Easter Island are included herein (which I am not wholly opposed to), their areas and population should be removed from the respective tables in North and South America and notes added. Corticopia (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It would indeed be logical to change those tables - but I'd advise discussing it on the talk pages of those articles first. Good that we're agreed on some things. Alice✉ 08:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian population

This is odd... In the table on this article, it says that Indonesia's population is 4 million. However, a census in the year 2000 (Saw it on the Indonesia page, in the infobox) reveals that the country's population was well over 200 million (206264595 to be exact) at the time. So, what's going on here? CeeWhy2 08:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is because while most of Indonesia is in Asia, a small portion is in Oceania. The listing of Indonesia in the table has a footnote, which explains this. I've added (part only) in the article; does this make it more clear?-gadfium 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. So, what you're saying is that this article only counts Indonesian residents who reside on the Indonesian islands considered part of Oceania, and does not count those on the islands considered part of southeast Asia? I guess that makes sense...CeeWhy2 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, remember: there are various interpretations of Oceania (e.g., geopolitically, New Guinea is often split between Oceania (Papua New Guinea) and Asia (Indonesia)), but I believe the current table accurately reflects a common reckoning. However, I think I will retrofit the note added by Gadfium into an edit note: it's not as obvious but other similar entries in other tables are not so tagged. :) Cogito ergo sumo 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I also found this to be unclear, even with the footnote. Perhaps rather than saying "Indonesia - 4,211,532", which seems as if you're talking about - well - Indonesia, perhaps it could say something like "(Oceanic) Indonesia". kabl00ey 11:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I've added a qualifying note along those lines. – Avenue 13:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Population updates

The population table needs to be updated. Australia's population currently stands at 20,683,504 and New Zealand is over 4.1 million now. We should start updating the population figures for all countries and states listed in the Oceania table.--Just James 21:37, 17 October 2006 (GMT+10:00)

Australia - Country / Oceania - Continent

Going through the whole English side of Wikipedia you will understand that one of the 5, 6 or 7 continents is called Australia, just as the country. In my opinion, this is due to the large presence of people writing from that country. But this is a Synecdoche and in this case is a unfair behaviour. If I'm in New Zealand why should I be in Australia (continent)? For this reason the term Oceania (3 oceans) exists. Confront also Wikipaedia in other languages, or read for example https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html. I would like to remember the case of people from the US calling America their country. Gelpiac 17:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest there is also a problem of classification in this article: if Oceania is a region, why does it contain territories and regions again?

Why should a region not contain other regions? I don't understand what you are trying to say. I also don't understand why you added the claim that the article was too Australia-centric, when it is clearly about the region and not about the country.-gadfium 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see from the history page that most of the people watching this page are from Australia. Some are also from NZ. You are doing a good job, but I would like to focus to the fact that also other parts of the world have opinios about this topic and their opinion counts as well. In that point of view, Australia is not a continent and Oceania is. Gelpiac 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the exact problem with this debate, people from NZ and various other pacific nations, think that somehow if the continent is called 'Australia' it excludes them because Australia is a 'country', or that they are being considered 'Australian'.. This is wrong, this problem only exists because the continent name, and country name, are both Australia.. Here is an example to think about, the UK is not connected to Europe, but it is part of the European continent, that is accepted, but if Europe (continent) only had 1 country on it also called Europe, would the UK not be part of the continent named Europe still? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.19.33 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
You are Australian (IP location) so no wonder. But have a look at the CIA World Factbook and the Canada National Geography Institute. There is a need of precision and this is what the term Oceania stands for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.94.13.99 (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Please take care - the CIA World Factbook has some rather problematic assertions and should not be taken as a template for understanding geographic information - you need to look further afield, and perhaps a source from the UK or europe seeing that somebody seems to have an aversion to Australians in on the subject - please note that some of participants in the above conversation in this section need to understand WP:Civility and take care!SatuSuro 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am from New Zealand, and Australia is, in fact, a continent. I have not properly researched this yet but i believe you will find that a continent is any land mass of a certain size (stemming from the term continuous land). New Zealand however, is not a part of that continent. It has nothing to do with the numbers of people from Australia displaying a bias (which i don't think they did.). A continent is a large landmass (Of which determinant size i am not aware) and Australia happens to be large enough to qualify as one. The reason that it differs from other continents is that it is occupied by a single country. By this definition i believe that the United Kingdom is not geographically a part of the continent of Europe (Hence British people commenting that they are going to "the continent") but are a part of the geo-political area known also as Europe. So to respond to earlier comments.1. If you are in New Zealand you are not in Australia you are on the island state of New Zealand. 2.Of course you can have regions within regions, New Zealand is itself divided into regions which subsequently have regions within them as i believe is the case with any part of the world. A region after all is merely any defined area. 3. Australia is a continent and Oceania is not (It is a region). 4. New Zealanders do not (in general as far as i know) feel left out by Australia being a continent, but we are not a part of that continentGuavafruit 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Continents are typically identified by convention rather than adherence to the ideal criterion you mention. Likewise the criterion that each be a continuous landmass is often disregarded by the inclusion of the continental shelf and oceanic islands. As such, it is proper and generally accepted to say New Zealand is part of the Australian (Oceania) continent just as the Arctic archipelago and Caribbean islands are part of North America, etc. 66.183.217.31 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an Oceanian continent. There is the Australian continent and the Oceanian (geographic) region. New Zealand is not part of the former, but both Australia and New Zealand are considered parts of the latter.--cj | talk 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Your statement doesn't refute the comment above it. Your comment is akin to saying Baffin Island or Hispanola are not part of the North American continent. This would be absurd! 66.183.217.31 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As we have now (see above) finally been able to discard the somewhat ridiculous example of "newspeech" of the term of Autralasia, time may indeed be mature to question the term Oceania, being a geopolitical unit, whose scope basically extends eastward from Australia. As was remarked above the term does not make sense, since in analogy we would have to refer to Italy as Mediterranea, Europe as Atlantiania and the Earth as a part of Galaxiania, which appears a bit awkward. //Copywriter March 4th

It is not possible to apply the argumentation given by Copywriter because it appears to be invalidated by a serious slippery slope fallacy. Also the assumption of "There is no such thing as an Oceanic continent", as given by Cyberjunkie, cannot be regarded as a definitive standpoint because it does not quote its sources. Please add more to contribute to the discussion. Finally, why should the quotation of the website of the CIA be a mistake? Gelpiac 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The key point I have been seeking to advocate is that as a geopolitical entity, Australasia is not quite as coherent a conception, as would have been desired, to treat it on equal basis as a continent, quasi-continent etc. It may be valid though, that in other contexts it is being generally applied, such as for example in connection to cultural matters. In order to support my point I would like to mention the book by J M Coetze ("Elizabeth Costello"), not so old, where there are indeed references such as "the foremost contemporary author of Australasia", although I would not necessarily call it a continent, but rather a geographical sphere, with some distinction from surrounding territories and in that capacity almost being a one of its kind. //Copywriter August 17th 2007

There ws discussion on this in the continent article. Definition of the 'Australia' as a continent is far more prevalent than oceania but there are places in the world where oceania is regarded as a continent. As for the remark concerning the number of Australian people joining this debate... well you'll probably find a large number of New Zealanders commenting on the New Zealand page too... dah. But in any case, the comments in the continent article were mostly coming from North Americans. Despite the odd spurious canadian Atlas using the term 'Oceania' to depict a continent, it seems that in the USA and many other places on earth people are taught that Australia is a continent. To be honest, the entire classification system is completely arbitrary. there is no solid definition for what does and what does not constitute a continent Far Queue 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No of the alternative denominations in circulation – Australia, Oceania and Australasia – appears to contain a final answer, each of them rather having their specific advantages and proponents. Australia has a certain colonial flavour, whereas Oceania breathes decolonization and Australasia in a way comes out as a sort of political compromise. Provided that the Australasia term after all is in use, also in serious contexts, it might however also be of interest to break it down into components, for example asking wheather it should be understood as an extended Australian sphere or as a sub-territory of the larger entity Asia. Nietzsche referred to Europe as an appendix of Asia and maybe the Australasia school is to be understood as an eastward analogy to this ingenious metaphore. //Copywriter October 6th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.231.76.234 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello All. For all those for "Australia" being the name of the continent, so be it as it appears this is what is presented on wikipedia at present however on the other hand sorry to disapoint anyone against "oceania" but schools up and down the UK will regularly refer to it as the title of the continent - even "Australasia" in some cases. This issue will take a long time to change so it should be either/or for the time being. User:DarkMauve 21:36, 04 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.111.97 (talk)

Although "Australasia" might be part of established terminology - you will find it already in texts by Kipling - I believe it must be possible to rule it out as the most adequate official or scientific denomination. "Australasia" has never been the preferred name among geographers, but rather is a remnant of colonial vocabularly, from this point of view most properly defined as everything beyond India except for the Far East. This probably is as close to a clearcut definition as it is possible to get. The fact that it has grown increasingly popular ni recent time probably has to do with a resignation to the ambivalence between the competing names "Australia" and "Oceania", well illustrated by the previous contribution. //Copywriter May 20th 2008

It should be called Australasia and Oceania--If we put these two together it goes in accordance with a scenitific and english def. Dance-pop (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are Micronesians considered Asian or Aboriginal? This is a serious question and I am not trying to offend people of either background. I ask because I know a fellow from this area and he said he is not asian. He said there is a word for his people but he couldn’t remember it at the time. I know Taiwan once and probably does still house a population of aboriginal people. (Ghostexorcist 12:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

I'll answer this at Talk:Micronesia.-gadfium 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Map issues

I suggest adding a column to the table of "Territories and regions" correlating to the two-letter abbreviations used on the "Political map of Oceania." —Dodiad 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea: I also think the map can be revamped to make it clearer, e.g., which territory is in what subregion. Corticopia 08:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would actually rather see a separate map showing the regions, and updating the political map to show boundaries corresponding to Exclusive Economic Zones rather than the apparently arbitrary rectilinear blocks currently shown. I suppose they might be combined with creating use of color, or something. – Beland 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
All excellent ideas - but who is a graphics whizz kid here? Alice✉ 06:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is East Timor not counted as Oceanian?

According to the article Transcontinental country#Countries in both Asia and Oceania, East Timor is wholly in Oceania, both geographically and culturally, and is considered to be Asian only because of its past ties to Indonesia. So why is it considered to be Asian in this article? 124.187.6.213 08:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been edit wars about this in the past. See further up on this talk page.-gadfium 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
So, what if we put in the information for Oceania in this article and made a footnote saying that East Timor is sometimes considered to be transcontinental? 124.187.6.213 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what it used to say. See for example this version from September 2006.-gadfium 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
So why was it changed then? What were the arguments brought forth? 124.187.6.213 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
See the sections #East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically. and #T&R tables above. You might like to ask User:Alinor, who was arguing that East Timor is part of Oceania, why they stopped editing the article. I would also direct you to the editor on the other side of the discussion, except that they were on a dynamic IP address and so contacting them will be near impossible if they are not checking this talk page.-gadfium 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lede: clearer but wrong?

I was rather intrigued at this simple reversion of the lede recently made: [1]

My edit summary of my work said: "Changed lede to reflect rest of article and place undisputed constituents first as per talk page (Australia was mentioned and internally linked twice before in 1st 2 sentences!)" and the revert was marked m for minor.

May I ask, given the contents of our Manual of Style, exactly why it is thought

  1. Australia should be mentioned twice in the lede's first sentence (when our Oceania article specifies that it was not part of the original meaning of the word and is still not universally accepted as a constituent since it is often held to be a a continent in its own right)?
  2. Australia should be internally linked or piped twice in the lede?
  3. neither Micronesia nor Polynesia are now mentioned (after the revert) in the lede (when our Oceania article specifies that they were both part of the original meaning of the word and are still universally accepted as being part of Oceania?
  4. Melanesia is now not mentioned (after the revert) in the lede (when our Oceania article specifies that it was both part of the original meaning of the word and is still usually accepted as being part of Oceania?

...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 22:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The editions to the 'lede' were reverted for a number of reasons:
  • Your assertions about commonality are unsourced. Much else in the article is also unsourced, but that's another topic.
  • The perfect way to confuse a topic is to describe it in terms of mutually overlapping and perhaps confusing regions (to the usual reader, that is) – this is already elaborated upon/dealt with in the 'Extent' section. Placing this information upfront unnecessarily duplicates content for not what. The original intro is simpler and clearer, without confusing the issue; your version is not an effective summation of topic matter.
  • Granted, the duplicate linked entry for Australia is unnecessary (and fixed), but hardly think it being mentioned twice is reason for unrest.
  • Lastly, the current intro has prevailed for quite some time without a peep. Current editions are tantamount to foregoing consensus on it, being bold notwithstanding.
Corticopia 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point of view. Thank you for discussing your edits.
If you read our Manual of Style you will see that the lede or introduction should not introduce new material that does not appear in the rest of the article but should, instead summarise the rest of the important material.
I'm sorry to press you, but if you disagree with my including Polynesia and Micronesia as essential components of Oceania then, logically, most of the rest of the article needs a complete re-write. However, I would hope to see extraordinarily authoritative sources for such an extraordinary claim before you revert again.
We write our encyclopaedia articles to educate and inform - not necessarily to pander to the lowest common denominator. The lede you have restored 4 times now is plain misleading. It would be a bit like saying that "the British Isles consists of Ireland and Ireland and Ireland and Sark" - simpler, no overlaps or confusing regions but grossly misleading not to mention Great Britain - the indubitable and largest component, while both Sark and Ireland would be disputed by some POVs!
Just out of interest, have you travelled extensively in Oceania?
I also have to comment that I find the way you treat contributors to your talk page rather uncivil - just my opinion and no big deal. God bless!...
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is to assume that your edits are an innovation regarding the subject matter – I definitely do not think so, and your changes to the introduction (IMO) served more to confuse topic matter than anything else. In this instance, I'm unsure your edit could 'educate and inform' any more so than prior text.
Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten, particularly to add more context regarding the historical roots of the word.
As for your 'comments' regarding my civility, you speak as does a politician – by first pointing out your distaste and then diminishing it. Passive-aggressive behaviour, if I didn't know better. Anyhow, personal comments can be directed to my talk page, and I may or may not address them, but to interject as you did previously after someone else's comment (regarding a resolved issue) was rather inappropriate no matter how good intentioned and appropriately removed. Corticopia 07:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You may choose to censor your own talk pages[2] - I make no comment - but you are forbidden from changing comments that I make in article discussion pages [3]. If you have a difficulty with that edict or what I say then take it to an admin and they will take a neutral and policy-informed decision. I doubt I'll interfere with your ownership of this article again unless you give me cause by censoring these comments...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Your edict? You forbid? This is almost as laughable as your poorly worded edits, contradictory assessments, bipolar gravitas, and verbose ripostes. All the power to you, but note that any edits not made within the bounds of policy will be dealt with. And on that note, I will not comment further unless necessary. Corticopia 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate internal linking is not necessary

Corticopia. Please be more careful when excising the work of others [4]...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

G., please exercise better discretion when continually insinuating unsourced, redundant content. Indubitably ... Corticopia 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You're not listening again Corticopia - and it seems you've driven everyone else away by your savage and un-cooperative reverts.
I'll go back and remove the duplicate internal linking for you. Disappointing that you seem to have gone to the VK School of Wikipedia Editing (VKSWI). This is a neat article, don't you think: Collegiality ?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about, again? Actually, no one seems to care about your ripostes, so why should I? If you had a logical, sensible argument, we would not be at this juncture, but alas ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your soapbox, and it's definitely not your mother. I will only say that if you wish to persist with insinuating verbosity and unsourced content into articles, not to mention ... colourful commentaries, count on them being dealt with (or merely ignored) as needed. And on that note, I am ending this useless thread. Corticopia 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands?

Should these two islands be on the list? They're both very far away from the Pacific Ocean. Maybe an entity can be considered part of Oceania geographically only if it is located in or borders the Pacific and it is not a part of a continental landmass ( excluding Australia of course ) or closely associated with one ( i.e. no Japan or Taiwan ). Inkan1969 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion if we were writing a normal encyclopedia. However, WP assumes that noen of us are experts and therefore mandates finding a source for your excellent suggestions. Alice✉

Timor-Leste in Asia and/or Oceania

I'm unsure why there is continual insistence on adding this country to this table, despite notes. The comments by Alice indicate as good a point of view as any, without little if any rooting in consensus or fact. For sources that may say East Timor/Timor-Leste is in Oceania (and I may not dispute that), I see only one source provided (the World Gazetteer); however, there are many reputable ones that indicate otherwise: Britannica Concise, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, the CIA World Factbook, the Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, and National Geographic are among those that indicate it is in Southeast(ern) Asia. This table and others are largely based on the UN scheme for classifying territories – which also places East Timor/Timor-Leste squarely in Southeastern Asia. As well, your argument is based on an incorrect premise and information: if anything, ET/TL is in Melanesia, well outside the Polynesian triangle and not in that subregion; moreover, the failure to remove the relevant note in the table, coupled with your insinuation of how Timorese 'wish' to be categorised, signifies to me that something very different is at play. Notes in the table already deal with the duality of its location, without unnecessarily double counting; so, unless you or others can compel otherwise – i.e., provide convincing evidence, not yet done – I will be removing this entry from this table. Corticopia (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing in the wrong place. This section is about Hawaii and Easter Island, which are part of Polynesia. You are arguing about East Timor, which is part of Melanesia. No one is suggesting that East Timor is part of Polynesia. As part of Melanesia, however, it is certainly part of Oceania.-gadfium 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that I misread the commentary, associating content in this section with currently contested edits. My apologies.
In any event, little has been presented to justify Timor-Leste's inclusion in this table, given the above: you've merely iterated Alice's viewpoint without explaining why or sourcing that. So, I'll proceed as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It is quite simple. East Timor is part of Melanesia. You stated this yourself just above, and then you struck your comment. Do I need to find quotes for this, or do I need to explain that Melanesia is part of Oceania?
Not so simple. It may be included in Melanesia; often it is not and therefore included in Southeastern Asia. Otherwise, see below. (I redacted my comments only for the purpose of keeping the above comment focused, after my initial confusion.) And please provide reliable references to back your claim, as I have done and which you have apparently ignored. Corticopia (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please let this discussion reach a consensus before changing the article again. Your changes to the article are not acceptable while this is under discussion; primarily because the article should remain with its long-standing content until this is resolved, but also because you are changing some parts of the article, but not others such as total population and area figures, leaving the article inconsistent.-gadfium 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This issue is rather long-standing; so, no, I won't refrain. Actually, the table in the article did not include Timor-Leste for quite a while beforehand – can you point me to the discussion where a consensus was allegedly arrived at to buck this? As well, please explain why it must be included despite interpretive notes which already deal with this. Speaking of which ....
You speak of consistency, but don't practice it: the table totals were not changed when Timor-Leste was willfully added to the table. (See this version from August, for example, which indicates the same totals.) As well, the note for Melanesia was not changed, with it reading "Excludes Timor-Leste and parts of Indonesia, island territories in Southeastern Asia (UN region) frequently reckoned in this region", despite your insistence to include it. So, who is being inconsistent, if not willy-nilly? Corticopia (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong to suggest that you should change the totals; I did not realise that they had been changed some considerable time ago. I think these totals are all rather suspect; I see for example that the Oceanic portion of Indonesia has changed from a population of 28 million to 4 million, with changes to the area considered part of oceania. For a long time, Indonesia was not considered at all in this article. It also doesn't help that well meaning new editors frequently have changed the Indonesian figures to include the full country
East Timor was first added to the article sometime in 2005, but for a long time there were two lists of countries in the area and East Timor was in one and not the other. It was included when I first became involved with the article (when I set up Portal:Oceania), so I guess I regard that as the status quo.-gadfium 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
OK: it has been my experience, that this particular detail has changed frequently. Given that there appears to be considerable debate on both sides (as this talk page reveals) and no demonstrated concurrence or stability, there appears to be no consensus either way.
As for the population shift from 29M to 4M, that appears to have been due to contention about which of the biogeographic lines to use: Wallace, Lydekker (which is further east) ... Corticopia (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, if I were forced to allocate ET/TL to either South East Asia or Oceania I would lump it in the former. (But then I personally would not lump the continental landmass of Australia in Oceania, either. However, It's not my personal viewpoint that counts). Before you arrived on the scene, our article did a reasonable job of explaining that there were never rigid and certain boundaries to Oceania; that the original concept had indubitably included the then-being-explored continent of Australasia; that there were different definitions for different purposes and the notes (as you say) hint at these tensions.
There is an cultural dimension to Oceania too - and that is why I don't just make an "insinuation of how Timorese 'wish' to be categorised" - all contemporary sources make plain that they wish to distance themselves as rapidly and as comprehensively as possible from their former masters "in South East Asia", Indonesia. (A parallel might be the Falkland Islands - geographically and zoologically they are not part of Europe - but their cultural links all point in that direction...) Alice✉ 08:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it should not be about our personal viewpoints – that is why I have provided a clutch of contemporary references – as requested – which unambiguously lump it with Asia; notes expand on this. AFAICT, few references have been provided to support its inclusion in Oceania and your viewpoint (which I do not necessarily disagree with), so it is not me that needs to compel for inclusion and changes herein.
Please also provide references which corroborate the assertion that Timorese consider or reckon themselves to not be Asian but of Oceania. The fact that they wish to distance themselves from their Indonesian masters doesn't mean, nor does it justify, deprecation of their frequent inclusion in Southeast Asia and wholesale inclusion in Oceania or in this table.
And, you also make it sound like, '[after] I arrived on the scene' (which actually predates your arrival here by some time), my intervention with this one entry somehow compromised the rest of the article, which is farcical – see above regarding the hypocrisy and inconsistency of this. Corticopia (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some references: The Australian National University State Society and Governance in Melanesia program - read the 2006 annual report; New Guinea: Crossing Boundaries and History, a 2003 book by Clive Moore; Asian Development Bank listing of Melanesian countries.
I'll try asking for a "third opinion" on this at WP:3O, although since there are three of us already discussing it, this is technically not appropriate for that page.-gadfium 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
OK: thank you for the sources and references; however, they still don't mitigate the ones I've provided. Can you provide a major reference work that includes East Timor/Timor-Leste in Oceania, per above? And they don't appear to indicate that Timorese people consider themselves of Oceania per se, but perhaps I'm missing that?
That being said, I believe the current table still reflects this duality adequately: there are two notes about ET/TL 'frequently being reckoned in Oceania' (in table, and also Oceania#Interpretative_details_and_controversies. And, though not necessarily authoritative, an online search of 'East Timor' and 'Asia' reveals 727K instances, as opposed to 455K for 'East Timor' and 'Oceania'; searching using 'Timor Leste' instead reveals lesser numbers, but similar proportions in favour of 'Asia'. In any event, the actual area/population numbers could stand some scrutiny and should be updated. Corticopia (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) As you say, there are a substantial number of references for Timor being in SE Asia, and fewer but still a substantial number for it being in Oceania. I'm not arguing against it being listed as part of South East Asia; I don't see a problem with it being listed in both Asia and Oceania. Your references don't "trump" my references; both have a validity.

I also don't see that whether the Timorese people see themselves as part of Oceania or not is the issue (I agree that the majority seem not to). We had a former Prime Minister of New Zealand (I think it was Bolger) who declared that New Zealand was now part of Asia, but that didn't make it so.-gadfium 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my references may trump yours per RS; I also challenge the World Gazetteer based on that, since it doesn't really elaborate. As well, can you provide reference of a major common compendium that includes ET/TL in Oceania? I requested; you have not provided. Even within the lens of my online searches (which are only a rough indication of usage and of little weight), though, little evidence has been provided to support your viewpoint. Even if it is valid (nd I don't dispute that per se), I do have an issue with including it in both tables: double counting, where it is unnecessary for the six major populated continental regions – it's in or it isn't, or dealt with as other transcontinental countries are handled (e.g., Russia, countries in Caucasus). No other major compendium does this: in this respect, Wikipedia needn't be different.
Alice seems to believe that it should be included partially because of how the Timorese allegedly self-identify. Please take it up with her and source. As well, neither of you seems content with the notes that already explain this – why is that? Something else is at play, then.
Alice: if you read above, the table figures nor notes were updated when ET/TL was added (and without consensus) – thus, I am restoring the prior table based on that point (but also others above). Provide evidence and compel. If you continue to push this viewpoint despite the above, then I demand sourcing for both the totals and those corroborating reasons as to why it should be included. Such behviour is also arguably disruptive. Your arguments, without providing a single source to support this perspective, are unconvincing – if you can't produce, I will continue to excise ET/TL without further discussion. Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Corticopia, please do not accuse other editors of failing to read the talk page, as you did in your edit summary of a recent revert of the article. Alice has been contributing to this talk page; it seems rather unlikely that she is doing so without having read it. It is not correct to say that Alice failed to provide sources; you simply don't like the source she provided. You call for a "major common compedium", but clearly the World Gazeeteer is that. You have repeatedly said you will continue to revert the article to your preference without further discussion (if the arguments produced are not to your satisfaction). You are suggesting that the inclusion of Timor is bias, but that is a loaded word which means that you are not simply getting your own way. I stopped reverting the article because I choose not to edit war. I see you have a number of warnings for previous edit wars, including blocks for edit warring and 3rr violations. I am not going to block you over this article, since I'm an involved party, but I would caution you to moderate your tone and your approach.
I think it would be desirable to get more people involved in the discussion - would you agree to an WP:RFC on the matter.-gadfium 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am calling it as I see it: Alice has not provided sources and continues to reinsinuate the entry with incorrect figures and without changing the Melanesia note. So, she either hasn't read the talk page, or chooses to ignore it – that's not my problem. Continuing to insert the entry despite commentary implies, indubitably, bias.
The World Gazetteer may be a 'compendium', but is no more or less reliable than others I've provided. Probably less so: after all, it is managed by one person. Thus, I challenge it. Can you provide others? I have provided at least five common compendia: do wish me to dredge up atlases which invariably note the same thing? If your position is so solid, it shouldn't be difficult to source.
If references are not provided for our collective scrutiny (it just so happens that I'm involved), that is not my problem. Can you honestly say you and Alice have provided overwhelming evidence to support your viewpoint or more correctly, to justify including this entry here? The burden of evidence is on those who choose to add content, not on me to correct for it.
As for edit warring, it is regrettable but I don't see how I've been given a choice when you both (or at least Alice) have opted to do the same. It is also very correct for you to not block, and I would suggest you not even hint of that again or my history, which is an ad hominem argument or implication. Perhaps an RFC is in order, but if you can't compel me, what makes you think others will be convinced? Corticopia (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur that it would be good to get the input of more editors on this article - if only to mitigate the probability of personality clashes; (I have read the history of this talk page and see that Corticopia has firmly held and cogently expressed views on the form our article shall take - nothing wrong with that - but there must be willingness to listen to different and sometimes opposing points of view or discussion is pointless since the outcome is a foregone conclusion.)
I have invited an editor with an interest in Indonesian affairs to review the discussion here - not because he is likely to agree with Corticopia and I that, historically at least, ET/TL has been considered more as South East Asian than Oceanic - but because he may be able to help with sourcing.
As a matter of process, I believe only two editors are required to initiate an RFC.
I've already stated above that, at the moment, the tables weaken and obfuscate the article and, if they continue to be a source of friction, then it might be politic to remove them entirely until their make-up should be resolved - for example, there is a case for including New Zealand and its dependencies of Tokelau and Niue in the Polynesia section rather than the Australasia section and a (weaker) case for also moving Papua New Guinea from Melanesia to Australasia. Alice✉ 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have read the talk pages, then I fail to see why you continually restore the entry with prior population figures, and fail to change the Melanesia note.
Simply, you and cohorts have not compelled me to change my positioning, nor have you provided the very references (at least in equal measure to others) which are required to do so. I can be convinced otherwise, but we're not there yet. Perhaps your invitee can assist.
As for removing the table, I am wholly opposed to that. If we can't reconcile apparently contradictory information (and I believe the current table does this with some success, with various notes about the various territories, though they can be improved) and try to continue doing that, then it is probably politic for said editors to withdraw. Corticopia (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not making unilateral changes to the table or Melanesia note since the history of this article exhibits the fruitlessness of revert-warring. Unfortunately the history of this discussion page (and some editor's deleted talk page comments) also shows the futility of discussing some points with certain editors. One of the deficiencies of this project is that the obdurate and the fanatic always triumph over the reasonable and the un-committed. Alice✉ 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you have not addressed the first point I made: your insinuation that you are not making unilateral changes is both false and escapist. Your edits are definitely not guided by consensus, nor in any sourcing. So, why should I discuss further when you do so through obfuscation? Corticopia (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon?! [5] Do you really think that there is any doubt whatever that any of the islands of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia are not included in Oceania? Alice✉ 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read and answer:
... I fail to see why you continually restore the entry with prior population figures, and fail to change the Melanesia note
I am glad you noted a resistance to sterile edit warring below (which I share): please, then, don't continue to practice it.
Separately, adding 'indubitably' (as discussed with another editor before they died) is unnecessary and unsourced wordiness. Would you honestly expect to find such syntax in an encyclopedia? Please note:
I added (I think) that blurb and source (2nd paragraph) about ethnography in and subregions of Oceania. Corticopia (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent)I'm in robust and vigorous health myself - so at least you won't have that "problem" with me.

The lead, per WP:Lead summarises and encapsulates what is in the rest of the article. The rest of the article spends a lot of time summarising the various controversies and uncertainties as to what is in and what is out of Oceania. The only uncontroversial and unequivocal statement that can be made is "Ethnologically, the islands that are indubitably included in Oceania are divided into the subregions of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia."

Indubitably (or some such other equivalent wording) should stay and if you remove it again I would consider it as "sterile edit warring".

Now, there only seem to be a maximum of four of us currently discussing these matters, so where is this consensus for your edits (and against mine) that you keep mentioning? Alice✉ 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to consider the removal of verbosity sterile, so be it. The source does not indicate what you assert, indubitably, so I will strike that unencyclopedic text on that basis.
Come on now, give a centimeter will you? Including one word (indubitably) is verbosity? We obviously are using different dictionaries... Alice✉ 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is verbosity: nothing is gained nor lost with this word. I am willing to give a centimetre, but if you put your foot in your mouth, a two-by-four you will get ;) (I am merely playing on words relating to measurement.) Corticopia (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't pretend to edit with a consensus per se; I have actually pointed out that there appears to be none regarding this; above, you or Gadfium have invoked it numerous times or have reverted to a (wanton) version. I asked to be pointed to a discussion where a consensus arrived at including ET/TL but, unsurprisingly, this was not provided. I will say for quite a while, East Timor was excluded from the table, and it was added without changing anything else regarding it. Otherwise, see below. Corticopia (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think what we may be talking about is the article being relatively stable for a while before you popped up and removed ET/TL; being fair, you did rather wave a flag by missing the vandalism you preserved and also, other editors may not previously have noticed the "creep" with regard to ET/TL. Alice✉ 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to long periods beforehand, when the converse was true. And I don't see any current or recent discussion (other than ours) justifying the change, so perhaps it is necessary now. Corticopia (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

3O: East Timor

A request was made for a third opinion re the inclusion of East Timor. The request noted that there were three editors involved, so this dispute was not "technically" eligable for a 3O: "If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active Disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process."

3Os are limited to disputes between two editors for good reasons and I see no good reasons to ignore those good reasons. Understand my reasoning? Good.

In any event, I will suggest this much: One of you linked to WP:BOLD in your discussion above. I would suggest, instead that you try WP:BRD. So, this (15 -> 14) was "bold", this (14 -> 15) was "revert", now discuss.

A thought: the info box need not ignore the question. The number of countries (etc.) could reflect the lack of worldwide concensus on the issue, "Countries 14 or 15 (see [[Oceania#East_Timor|East Timor question]])." Either that or you can edit war for a while longer, go through various long, long and unpleasent dispute resolution procedures to "solve" the issue, then have it all stir up again in a couple of months. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the infoboxes and tables more clearly reflecting the fluidity and uncertainty in categorising various territories and regions as belonging (or not belonging) to Oceania. Corticopia's ideas to expand and amplify the relevant notes sections are also good. (I believe that, as his edit summary said, Gadfium's "revert" was at least partly to correct some vandalistic letter jumbling that had crept in and to urge a recourse to the WP:BRD cycle rather than sterile edit-warring.) Alice✉ 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. However, the 'question' regarding East Timor is, AFAIK, only one created on this and related pages and doesn't exist in actuality.
I'm all for enhancing infoboxes, tables, and related notes as needed. As for putting 14 or 15, or any number, though, I'm unsure that would be helpful: as Alice has pointed out, other reckonings of Oceania may include or exclude Australia, et al. – these are already covered in Oceania#Interpretative_details_and_controversies. Shall we put so many figures so as to make it unmeaningful?
As for BRD, note that the 'R'evert is to a version that includes total figures for Oceania which do not include figures for East Timor (and is therefore incorrect) and retains a contradictory note regarding Melanesia (i.e., East Timor listed in table, with note indicating table excludes East Timor). Go figure. Anyhow, I see no policy that allows the retention of inaccurate information as such. Corticopia (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no agreement whatever in the sources as to where the exact boundaries of Oceania are, all figures as to membership, population and area will always be "incorrect" in the tables and infoboxes. Now does that mean that we have silly edit wars over them, remove them entirely, or have better and clearer notes? I favour the latter and am entirely against the former. However, if logical consistency leads to the removal of these problematical tables and infoboxes by Corticopia, then I wouldn't mourn their loss. ("policy" is a bit of a red herring since, like the Bible, warriors can always find sufficient wordiness to lend credence to their position). Alice✉ 23:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you opt for better and clearer notes, stop reverting to insinuate unclear or contradictory ones. Noting that population figures will always change is an easy way out: you continuously revert to figures for all of Oceania when it has been plainly pointed out that they exclude East Timor and were not changed. But, yes: we apparently do have silly edit wars: as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. And, despite invocation of policy, you are not editing in accordance with it – i.e., argumentative, without sourcing your arguments. I am not a saint, but I have explained and sourced my arguments. You obviously do not practice what you preach, and I am singularly unimpressed by your somewhat evasive responses. Corticopia (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, Corticopia. My argument is not that population (and area) figures will change with the effluxion of time (or even that they will change depending on which source one chooses to take one's statistics from). My argument is that, until we've decided which territories are included in the count and which are to be excluded, it's a bit of a waste of time splitting hairs. That's why I support Gadfium's common sense proposals in the section below.
It's very rare that I ever make a simple revert without further editing - unless it's to counter edit warriors and vandals who have themselves reverted without conclusive discussion on talk pages or adequate edit summaries; please e-mail me any diff that you think does not fall into this category.
I'm unsure the proposals are common sense, since they have the intention of drawing out debate unnecessarily. I have provided sources (e.g., UN) to justify why the table should be the way it was; I don't believe the converse is true. Corticopia (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we leave the subject of "reverting to insinuate unclear or contradictory ones" I remain baffled by a portion of your edit summary for this edit: "...removing East Timor/Timor-Leste: ... locator map excludes Timor, ...". Which locator map did you mean? Surely not this one since the legend for that locator map quite clearly includes East Timor: "Map of Oceania, with ISO 3166-1 pt · en country and territory code. SVG format. Map legend in Portuguese and English, with name of sovereign state given in parenthesis, where applicable:

On map, but part of Asia:

Alice✉ 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The map I am referring to is the locator map atop the article, which excludes Timor. Even though references to internal references/maps are not a basis to prove a point, I shall have to revise the unsourced map (that is, regarding what is reckoned in Oceania) you are referring to. And please refer to, for instance, the map for Oceania in the National Atlas of Canada, which clearly excludes Timor (compare with map of Asia and continent map, which demonstrates (as do most other works) mutually exclusive continental areas). Corticopia (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh, you mean this map. I thought you understood from being a long time observer of discussion here that better maps are needed. That map excludes not only ET/TE but other indubitable constituents of Melanesia and such indubitable constituents of Polynesia as the Tahiti, Hawai'i and Pitcairn island groups due to its Eurocentric focus. Not a good basis on which to make editorial decisions. Alice✉ 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that the map you refer to lists no source for its reckoning of what is or is not in Oceania? You also seem to have glazed over the many other reputable maps provided above which also do not include ET/TL in Oceania. Yours is definitely not a good basis to make editorial or other decisions. Corticopia (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Corticopia's allegations

I believe that good sources have been provided above to indicate that Timor can be considered part of Asia, and part of Oceania. I am not disputing that Timor is part of Asia. Corticopia is removing Timor from Oceania, but so far, no sources have been provided in support of the removal. Please provide some reliable references that Timor is NOT part of Oceania. Until such references are supplied, do not continue to revert the article.

I am not removing East Timor from the article about Oceania, only from the table: as stated many times beforehand, interpretive notes more than cover this off. I have provided at least five reputable sources above, and you haven't demonstrated why ET/TL should be treated differently than other constituents that may or may not be included in Oceania, or why the continental tables should not be mutually exclusive (like any other compendium). Moreover, even the 'East Timor' article indicates upfront that "[it] is a country in Southeast Asia" while acknowledging Melanesian influence and culture afterward; this is no different than, say, Cyprus, which is approximate to Western Asia but has sociopolitical connections with Europe (e.g., Greek influence, member of the European Union) and, per the UN scheme, is therefore listed only in the Asia table. So, continued insistence on indicating otherwise for ET/TL, given the weight of evidence provided, amounts to placing undue weight on this perspective in the table and won't be tolerated. Thus, until you can demonstrate otherwise and stop being so polemic, do not continue to revert the article. Corticopia (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We do need to sort out the population and area tables, but it makes sense to sort out which countries are involved, first.-gadfium 01:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Being fair to Corticopia, there is a bit of a paucity of sources at the moment. I shall work on them when I return from vacation.
As stated above, I lean towards excluding ET/TL; Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands; the Aleutian Islands; all Japanese, Chinese and Korean territories from Oceania and for including New Zealand in Polynesia rather than Australasia - but I would certainly not make these changes unilaterally and without impeccable sources.
I do agree with Gadfium that it would be more efficient to agree on
  1. whether population and area tables of political division are helpful to, rather than mislead most of, our readers and then, if it is agreed to continue featuring these controversial tables,
  2. what political divisions (sovereign states, dependencies, etc) should be included in the table(s) and which should be excluded and then
  3. agree a methodology and consistent sources for the figures that will appear in the table and then
  4. argue about the proposed data in the table here first. Alice✉ 04:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the apparent lack of sources which justify including Oceania in this particular table, I have restored the prior article/table. However, I have copied relevant text from Europe – which also uses the UN scheme for classifying territories – and placed it in this one regarding the scheme used in the table. I somewhat agree with other points regarding how to move forward. Corticopia (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that you've fundamentally misunderstood the best way to construct our encyclopedia. You're in a minority of one in wishing East Timor to be removed before discussion has closed. I've cancelled your revert (but kept your constructive additions) and wish you would follow the proposals put forward by Gadfium (and the third party commentator) for improving our article. Alice✉ 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And I have cancelled yours largely. When you insinuate unencyclopedic text (e.g., 'table under development', which is absurd and also self-evident since all of Wikipedia is in a state of flux and development) and do so without meeting any burden of evidence (I don't care if you're going on vacation, after which you'll provide references) or without genuine and sensible discourse (not really dealing with requests or answering questions circuitously), it is what it is. When you also roll 'innovations' in with contentious content, you complicate matters and make it exceedingly difficult to maintain a stable article; hence, this will be corrected for. As well, quite a few other editors on this talk page or in archives have previously expressed an opinion that harks of mine. Given your and Gadfium's intransigence (whose weighing in on one side now strongly counters his prior ambivalence), I see little reason to follow the proposals laid out but I can be compelled otherwise. However, I would definitely invite more input, since your edits and behaviour regarding this is rather tendentious and can stand for additional scrutiny. That's all. Corticopia (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking so much time and effort to redact and refine your comments above. "Continents", their meaning and their boundaries are human constructs and, as such subject to both fluidity, change and argument in their boundaries and composition. Our articles reflect sources and the sources are ambiguous so our article should emphasise that ambiguity. The East Timor article has also been subject to incessant toing and froing as is made clear if one reads here. As for Cyprus, if our article doesn't adequately reflect the sources, then it is wrong. However, I limit myself to editing on less than 200 articles, so I'm not about to run over there and correct those articles. Alice✉ 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, which merely proves the point: a reliable source has been appended to the current lead for the article; the World Gazetteer (at least in this instance) is not reliable since it's one person's concoction. Anyhow, importantly: variosu viewpoints are already and equitably dealt with the article – this article already reflects the ambiguity of ET/TL (i.e., interpretive notes indicating that "East Timor is often reckoned as a part of Oceania"), and you haven't really addressed that.
As well, a perusal of the articles Cyprus and Geography of Cyprus reveal an abundance of sources regarding the dual Eurasian nature of the island country. So, no, it is no more or less wrong than anything else.
So, of course, you will have to PERSUADE that the fluidity, change, and arguments in support of your viewpoint as to what comprises Oceania should prevail in the table – as yet, you have not. I will not comment again until you take a more attentive and less evasive approach and compel for change by proving your points through sourcing. Until then ... Corticopia (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oceania/Archive_3&oldid=1136250401"