Talk:Continent

Australia

"The names Oceania or Australasia are sometimes used in place of Australia. For example, the Atlas of Canada names Oceania,[9] as does the model taught in Latin America and Iberia"

Australia = Country =/= Continent

I have never heard anyone call Australia a continent before (other than by young children), just the offical name Australasia and on afew occasions Oceania. Anyone else fancy changing this? It's only a simple mistake, but being somthing taught at primary school (makes me wonder how old the person who added that line is) it should definately be fixed, but I can't be arsed to fix more primary school errors on wiki. They really need to change it to the Free Ecyclopdia to edit for those who atleast have a basic school education, very tiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.172.166 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have always know Australia as a continent, but I more recently have heard other names. I know it's the name of the country, but isn't the entire landmass named Australia? I've never considered islands or countries around it part of the Australian continent. There are several conventions of naming and counting continents, but I don't think any of them can be considered "wrong." Kman543210 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries and continents really have nothing to do with each other. Countries are political divisions and continents are geographical. I'm 48 years old and I've never heard anyone claim that Australia wasn't a continent until now. The official name of Australia is "Commonwealth of Australia" not Australasia. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this is Oceania, I think we should change it to that. Views? 92.3.48.22 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous for Britannica (the ref for the first line) to say Australia is the name of the continent which encompasses many of the southern Pacific islands. This really should be changed to Oceania.Phelim123 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that 'southern Pacific islands' were part of the Australian continent. Associated with maybe, but not a part of the mainland continent. Kman543210 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Always known the continent as Australasia or Oceania myself. One example: just grabbed The Times Concise Atlas of the World (Aus/Nz) edition (1989), which refers to the continent as 'Australasia'. Our other atlas, Goode's World Atlas (1966), refers to 'Oceania'. I think there's just a few ego-centric Aussies saying otherwise here. Needs to be changed in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.158.65 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not just the small Pacific Islands, you also have New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Australasia and Oceania are the correct terms

So how about changing the references in article to OCEANIA? whould that be ok? since it seems we all taught the same at school :) HuGo_87 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had this debate today and thought I'd check the Wiki, only to see the same debate. I'm an Australian, I have heard our continent variously refered to as "Australia", "Australasia" and "Oceania". To me the most salient point seems to be that New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Fiji, etc etc need to belong to a continent... which would make us "Oceania" not just "Australia" or "Australasia" (which has been described as only Australia and New Zealand). The decision to name our continent seems to be based on the geographic rather than the geopolitical. Let's correct this to read Oceania. Monique Antoinette (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Australian, and have never heard anyone here refer to islands such as New Zealand, PNG, New Caledonia or any others being referred to as part of the Australian continent. Australian usage in my experience distinguishes between continents and islands. Usage may be different elsewhere. To an Australian, New Zealand etc aren't part of a continent because they are islands. Tasmania is part of the country of Australia but is not part of the continent of Australia, because it's an island.210.10.106.195 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The word Continent is incorrectly used anyway. Islands ARE included. The Netherlands for example, being part of Europe, has its own islands, but these islands are not referred to as separate 'continents'. By this logic, Australia and New Zealand etc are part of the Oceania continent. Australia is not a continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.132.106 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I started this talk thread about this awhile ago. The general consensus seems to indicate that the "continent" should be described as Australasia or Oceania, so how come it hasn't been changed on the main page? Maybe somthing should be included in the main article as to the two different names this continent has? I have still never heard Australia being refered to as a Continent, as it's it a country. The Continent takes in to consideration islands aswell. If people think it shouldn't, then are we British not Europeans then? Which obviously sounds absurd as the UK is definately considered part of Europe, just as New Zealand/PNG ect. is considered part of Australasia/Oceania, not apart of Australia. Infact, I have a dare for anyone who still think New Zealanders are Australian, go and call a kiwi an Aussie and see how they like it. I bet the reaction will be less then "friendly".

• edit* thought i'd add a defintion from wiktionary of a contient, "A large contiguous landmass that is at least partially surrounded by water, together with any islands on its continental shelf", this confirms that we should not be calling New Zealand, PNG ect as part of Australia, as Australia refers specifically to the the Country in control of the biggest land mass of Australisia/Oceania.

Also, theres no mention on wikipedia that Australia is a contient (other than this page), yet there are articles on Australisia and Oceania being the continent, how come this page is the only one stating differently? If this isn't changed by someone more literate then myself soon i'll change it myself. It's obviously wrong to call Australia a contient when other Wikipedia/Wiktionary pages contradict it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by N00b09123 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 

No mention that Australia is a continent? Have you read Australia (continent)? The truth of the matter is that some reliable sources consider Australia to be a continent and others do not (note, though: when people use Australia for a continent, they generally exclude NZ—so this is not about calling kiwis Aussies, which I agree would be foolish). We can't claim that one side or another is wrong, that would be original research. If you find an article where one of the views is given undue weight, please go ahead and neutralize it. —JAO • T • C 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

well , in that case why dont we call the UK another continent? 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Sergio

Because nobody else does. Wikipedia is not the place for original thought. —JAO • T • C 21:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the continent is called 'Australia'. The term was popularised by Matthew Flinders, the first man to circumnavigate Australia, in his publication 'A Voyage to Terra Australis'. For example, the colony of Western Australia was so called because it comprised the western portion of the Australian landmass. The country Australia did not exist at that time so had no bearing of the name of that colony. The political entity 'Australia' took it's name from the landmass. --MartianBeerPig 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of continents

The seven-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, China and most English-speaking countries.

Ukraine, where I live in, is situated in Southeastern Europe. But we are tought that there are 6 continents: EURASIA, North America, South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. Please, don't mix up two different things - "continent" and "part of the world". 80.254.7.254 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The 7-continent model is taught in Croatia, also.

I thought the concept of 7 continents was only taught in the US, to make sure they would distinguish themselves from the rest of the other countries in America. In most european countries and South America it is taught that there are 5 continents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.66.70 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As fun as it is to gripe about the Americans, that doesn't actually make a lot of sense. Canada and Mexico are right there in "North America" in the seven-continent system, for instance--very large countries, hard to ignore on a map.--158.111.4.26 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of being taught that there are 5 continents in the UK. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Schools in all latinamerican countries (except french guinnea, which i'm not sure) all teach there's SIX continents, regarding "america" as a single one. At school at UK, we where taught the same model. (went to school 3 years in UK, the rest in argentina) I think there should at least be a mention in the first paragraph, that a large portion of the world, considers america as a sinle continent, not two. HuGo_87 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall it always used to be FIVE continents (plus Antartica) - I grew up in the UK. If it is 7 now, not sure when it changed. -- Beardo (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I´m from america, argentina. I met a lot of australians these year and for the first time in my life i heard someone saying that australia is a continent. When i asked why, they answered me "because we are such a big country really far away from everyone else.....". If that is what teach in australia, im really sorry for them cause thats a really poor education. In my country they teach us that there are 6 continents and one of them is Oceania. How come people does not inlcudes new zeland or other island just because they are smallers.....In the same case island from the caribean should´t be include in "America"....???? Or better....we could say that Hawaii cannot be part of USA becasue they are really far away of the country and they are really small.

Another thing to see here in wikipedia. It's so funny to read the concept of continent in english and to read it in spanish because they are totally different. WHY? Shoulnd't encyclopedias, no matter the language, have just one concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.219.19 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true

"In East Asia, especially in the Orient, it is taught as a 7-region model since the rendition of "continent" in Chinese is similar to "island", which connotes a separate smaller landmass surrounded by water. "

Not true - it is called the 7 continents. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. 大陸 (Continent) should be opposite of 島 (island). Both require water to sorround it. If it is taught differently in China, do they call Europe, European大陸? FWBOarticle

"The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England"... this is rubbish too, I'm english and I've never heard this model. I've always been taught that there are 7.

i did up to sixth grade in UK (bristol), and only heard of the 6-continent (one "america" model there. HuGo_87 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I also live in England and have never been taught the 6-continent model. The 7 continent model is what the national curriculum specifies should be taught and is what the significant majority of English people would refer to the world as being divided into. "The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England" is incorrect and superflous

I grew up in the UK in the 60s and 70s, and it was always five continents plus Antartica. The five Olympic rings made perfect sense then. If it now 7, it has changed. -- Beardo (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually more incorrect than stated, in Latin America and Iberia it's taught a 5-continent model and, as far as I understand it all of Western Europe, except for England (and this is probably for political reasons) a 5-continent model is taught as well.

wrong, most latin american countries use the 6-continent model(with a single america). this is something we here consider totaly foreign HuGo_87 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously not one single model and it's admirable that and effort has been made to reflect this, but the final distribution is completely incorrect. eduo 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you define "Western Europe" but here in Sweden I was taught a seven continent version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcoteuthis (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In (West) Germany have been taught the six continents model: Namely, America, Africa, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Antarctica, and Europe. I challenge the statement that the seven continent model is usually taught in Western Europe. This is something I can clearly identify as foreign. Artur Buchhorn (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Then explain me why, in German Wikipedia, the main continent model is the "seven" one. viridianesco (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

well actually they do teach the 6 continent model in england now, they only started doing it about 5 years ago, so you 2 are obviously too old to have been taught it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.9 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Crustal raft" definition and Eurasia

Consider this paragraph from the article:

Some argue that continents are accretionary crustal "rafts" which, unlike the denser basaltic crust of the ocean basins, are not subjected to destruction through the plate tectonic process of subduction. This accounts for the great age of the rocks comprising the continental cratons. By this definition, Europe and Asia can be regarded as separate continental masses because they have separate, distinct ancient shield areas and a distinct younger mobile belt (the Ural Mountains) forming the mutual margin.

Ignoring the merits or otherwise of this definition as such, the second [read: third] sentence doesn't make much sense. Siberia joined up with Europe (Baltica) before it connected with central and eastern Asia; if the Urals, qua a younger mobile belt, qualifies as a continental margin, so does a number of even younger mobile belts cutting Asia into a bunch of smaller continents. If nobody protests I'll delete the offending sentence. Orcoteuthis (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably oversimplified. But how about changing it to "Europe and much of Asia", instead of deleting it entirely?– Avenue (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I could do that, but Siberia (minus the far east) hardly corresponds to anyone's idea of a "continent" - it's surrounded by contiguous landmasses on three sides! Orcoteuthis (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. What I like about the current statement is that it gives some geological justification for taking the Urals as a boundary between Europe and the rest of Eurasia, but I agree that "Asia" is problematic in this setting. Would this be any better? "By this definition, Europe can be regarded as a distinct continental mass from the rest of Eurasia because it has a separate ancient shield area. A younger mobile belt (the Ural Mountains) marks the boundary between Europe and the block to the east."– Avenue (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. You might want to add a link to Baltica. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it. I went with East European craton instead of Baltica.– Avenue (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Models

In the subsection "Number of the continents", three of the six "models" in the table are unreferenced (since Feb./July 2007). Unless someone provides evidence for them, I will delete them. Note that there is also a second model of six continents consisting of the "7 continents" minus Antarctica (as used for example in the board game "Risk" - though this is hardly a good reference).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

6 Continents

Forget about definitons and what they taught you, THERE ARE 6 CONTINENTS, America (The U.S. are in the same continent as the Latin countries, you like it or not) Europe(Which Russia is not part of because if look in a map 100% of it is in Asia, because unlike Africa the rest of the world do not have square countries!!!!!)Asia, Ocenia (No Australia is a country not a continent), Africa and Antartica.

That is it those are the six continents you like or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.232.142 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, North and South America are separate continents. It's funny that you accept Europe and Asia as separate continents, despite being wholly joined, but insist that a tiny strip constitutes the Americas as being one continent. Africa is more joined to Eurasia than North America is to South America.--RLent (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The US are not in the same continent than the latin countries! Didn't you know that there are latin countries in Europe?? And Europe is where latin culture originated? Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, etc.?

As for Russia, a part of it is in Europe too. Even if in terms of surface it is not the largest, it is in terms of population, and , yes Europe is Where Russia has started and where Russian culture began to spread towards Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ocenia can only be considered a continent if you decide to adopt a defintion of 'continent' that can include parts of the sea. Which would be a rather odd definition. Useful if for some reason you want to insist that all the islands of the world form part of a larger landmass, even though the in fact do not, but otherwise rather pointless.210.10.106.195 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Global view?

I see this article not providing a worldwide view, because it states that there are 7 continents: "Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Anctarctica, Europe, and Australia". But I think it would be wiser to icnlude that definition plus "there are other continental models in the world, that have differences, according to the place in which they are taught". This models are: 4 continents (description), 5, and 6 continents (all of them described in the article). And include Oceania, because it is not globally approved that the continents' name is Australia. Also, I think it is quite discriminative that North America is separated from South America, because it tells the people reading this article a high discrimination towards Latin America. I, and all the Latin American countries, think that America is a single, continous landmass (it is joined together by the isthmus of Panama). Plus, the fact that you (possibly) consider that North America is separated is the Panama Canal, but this isn't true, because the Canal is man-made. I think it would be more accurate to detail that the seven continent model is criticized, and look for critics, because i'm not the only one who is against this. Thanks. --J.C. (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Is nobody interested in answering me?--02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The seven continent model American split isn't discriminitive, it's just viewing two American continents as being joined by an isthmus. They are different tectonic plates after all. Views of continental drift probably play in too. How can it be discriminatory if Mexico and many of the Central American countries are included? Besides, it includes the fantasy that Asia and Europe are somehow different continents, which I think is a far stranger viewpoint. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, also you should note that it is perjorative/offensive to New Zealanders to say they are part of the Australian continent. In NZ/Australia and England, this continent is called Australasia when refering to NZ and/or Papua New Guinea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.3.77 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncited crap

"The term "the Continent" (capitalized), used predominantly in the European isles and peninsulas, such as the British Isles, Sardinia, Sicily and the Scandinavian Peninsula, means mainland Europe, although it can also mean Asia when said in Japan."

I live in the UK and this is not common, some use it and some don't. This is misleading and isn't even cited. How about we say "Gee Wiz" is used predominantly in America? I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaelic (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "Continent" to refer to mainland Europe is now cited with a reliable source. Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

date north & south america were recognized as separate continents

I'm trying to find an approximate date north & south america were recognized as separate continents. Please respond to shomza@carolina.rr.com Thanks, Steve Homza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.211.52 (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not. Some countries use one model, others another. Hence, the discussion there is here. HuGo_87 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no answer to that because there's no universal body that decides what is and is not a continent, as the discussion here should make quite clearOn Thermonuclear War (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That´s like asking when Europe and Asia where recognized as one single continent, "Eurasia". Viridianesco (talk ) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there continents on other planets?

Could there be continents on other planets? Why conclude that continents are exclusive to Earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.236.169 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the planets that we know now don't have continents for the simple reason they don't have oceans to define the landmasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

India

Should India be considered a continent, or should it remain a subcontinent of Eurasia? It's seperated from the rest of Eurasia from the Himalayan Mountains, plus, it has it's own tectonic plate, and it has different vegetation and soil there. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.15.193 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

India is not a continent, but the collective noun for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is "the Indian sub-continent". It is part of Asia, and is separated from Europe by a rather large chunk of Asia and Africa (depending on which route you take between India and Europe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Border colour

I have poor eye sight and had troubles telling the difference between parts of the European continent and Asian border on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continents_vide_couleurs.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.43.251 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the main point of that map is to illustrate the various groupings of the continents, not the details of the boundaries between them. Have a look at our borders of the continents article instead. -- Avenue (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Anomaly"

The separation of Eurasia into "Europe" and "Asia" was not an "anomaly" as this article has stated , but a deliberate way of racist Europeans to distance themsleves from the Asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.214.198 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to call you on this... although I am amused at the irony that you are racist towards Europeans yet choose an accusation of racism as your weapon against those you target, I am offended that you have gone ahead and said "500 million people have this particular bad quality!" but have not used anything to back this up. That is racist. As you are a resident of Spring City, a town founded by Europeans, inhabited by nearly 100% European descendents and which has a thriving KKK movement, perhaps you could teach us all about racism? Has it occurred to you that the reason Europe and Asia are regarded as separate continents is because... they ARE geographically differentiated continents?

Basic math fail?

Have a look at the "percentage of total population" column as of this date. Does anyone see a failure in basic arithmetic? 74.78.112.224 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks fine to me. It adds to 99.50002%, which is as close to 100% as you can expect given that most of the numbers are only given to the nearest percentage point. -- Avenue (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the IP wrote this at 14:51 and fixed the numbers at 14:52. The old numbers were clearly off, yes. —JAO • T • C 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see it now. Just vandalism from a half hour before. -- Avenue (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I should have removed my comment when I fixed it. 74.78.96.154 (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)