Talk:Australia

Australia a Continent???

This aritcle states that Australia is a continent. Forgive me for saying this, but there are only 7 continents in the world which consist of Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Oceania. Therefore, Australia is not a continent and stating such in this article is false. Australia is nation within Oceania. --Yoganate79 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the first sentence of the Continent article and its supporting citation. Nick-D (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as the numerous discussions about this very issue in the Talk page archives. Oceania is not a continent. It is a region. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia is the continent in the list you give, not Oceania, most of which is small island nations. --Dmol (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been involved in s similar discussion on this page, I'd like to suggest to Yoganate that he leaves it alone. "Continent" is a poorly defined term, which you can pretty much let mean what you want. So just let those editors continent themselves with their inaccuracy. Australians have been taught in school that "Australia is the largest island and the smallest continent", and pretty much everyone who edits this page believes that to be an important part of the red white and blue running through their veins. Leave alone that a goodly amount of what gets taught in school is bullshit: "Australia is the only place where marsupials are found" or "Australia was one of the first countries to have universal suffrage" occur immediately as examples. It appears to bother these editors not one whit that this argument leaves Tasmania, New Guinea, and most of Indonesia unattached to any continent. Moreover it appears to bother noone that this entire set of statements predates continental plate theory, Or that this statement was made as the protectorate of New Guinea was a part of Australia. One might as well write the whole article from the point of view of 1960s historians, with the noble attempts at integration of the poor abo kids into generous white families. However seeing as the statement about continents is absolutely unbased in any reality, and its just a throwaway line, its probably not worth it to argue over such a triviality. Except that its location in the first paragraph it gives the reader the impression that the scholarship for the whole article will be as slipshod. AKAF (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember you. You were the editor who claimed that the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website was an advertsing website and not a reliable source.[1] Welcome back and please remember, should you choose to present any arguments, rather than just attack the editors of this article and Australians in general, some civility will result in your comments gaining a better response than the incivility that you've just demonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the truth about the government: they have departments whose purpose is to promote some aspect of Australia to the country and overseas (ie "Advertising", for some value of that word). And yes, the department of foreign affairs and trade is not a reliable reference for the same reason that an autobiography is not the authoritative guide to a person's life. In fact most government departments are not good references for an article about that department's government, and should be regarded as a primary source for the purposes of citing. So you'll excuse me if I find referencing such a site to be at best disingenuous. AKAF (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia is simply a country. If Australia was a continent, would it make sense to call Fiji, Australia? Oceania represents all of the countries while Australia usually implies to the country and if you use it as a continent, the other countries are not having their fair share of representation. For example, just because China is the biggest country (population wise) in Asia, doesn't mean you call the whole continent "China". Go to Australia (continent). On the map it shows only Australia highlighted. Now, go to Oceania. All of Oceania is highligted.--KRajaratnam1 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree broadly with AKAF. Australia the Island is not the same as Australia the Nation (Commonwealth of Australia), which is also not the same as Australia the Continent. The Island is just that, the mainland only. It may be the world's largest, so the statement that "Australia is the world's largest island" is roughly correct, but more accurately would be better stated as "the Commonwealth of Australia contains the world's largest island". However the Nation is an 'artificial' (human-created political) division, which is the Island, plus Tasmania and smaller scattered islands - it is not the same as the Continent. The Continent would be the landmass including the Continental Shelf (ie) The Island, plus Tasmania, plus New Guinea (plus smaller surrounding islands). It is only happenstance that the Nation makes up (>80%) of the Continent. It is incorrect to state that the (Commonwealth of) Australia is the world's smallest (or anything) continent, as the Continent also includes the Nations of Papua New Guinea & (part of) Indonesia.

As for Oceania (or Australasia), these are also 'artificial' constructs, used to split the world into broad divisions, but Oceania is just a human-created division, rather than one that has any basis in geological features, or plate tectonics.

I can't be bothered to change the article, as I know someone will revert it within seconds, but maybe a paragraph under Geography could be added mentioning the conflicting viewpoints about the Nation's Island/Continent status, with references (there plenty supporting most viewpoints). The opening paragraph **should not** state that it is a Continent as an incontravertable fact, when this is heavily disputed.

As for Aussie people stating 'this is what I was taught in school', consider both the usage of the 'island continent' term as a lie-to-children and as a synecdoche. 'And we all know teachers can never be wrong, can they ? The Yeti (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Continent discussions - for future reference

Past "Is Australia a continent?" and "Australia is not a continent" discussions, and related topics, may be found at:

• Talk:Australia/Archive 3#In Australasia or only country in a continent
• Talk:Australia/Archive 3#Excessive categories
• Talk:Australia/Archive 4#The whole continent?
• Talk:Australia/Archive 5#Australia or its commonwealth
• Talk:Australia/Archive 6#Island
• Talk:Australia/Archive 8#Landmass
• Talk:Australia/Archive 13#Australia is not a continent
• Talk:Australia/Archive 14#Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country
• Talk:Australia/Archive 14#Is Australia a country or a continent?
• Talk:Australia/Archive 14#Australian Continent
• Talk:Australia/Archive 15#Largest Island - what about Antartica? - added 14/8/09 --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• #Continent, country and island - added 14/8/09 --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• #Australia as Continent and Island - added 14/8/09 --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn it's been discussed more than that. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention virtually the entire Talk page here:

• Talk:Australia (continent). The Yeti (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It really is quite sad that Australians are brainwashed and uneducated to think that their country is one of the classical continents found on earth. My question is, if Australia is considered a continent, then what continent does New Zealand belong to then? In any case, Greenland should also be classified as a continent then too. Let's classify Long Island, Cuba, Japan, and the British Isles their own continents too. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Brainwashed and uneducated? How insulting! Bidgee (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly australia has better education systems than america. At least we can go to school without getting shot.

Australia a continent yes but australia is the figurehead of australasia a.k.a. oceania new zealand, papua new guinea and that fall under that continent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.106.175 (talk • contribs)

Australasia is not "a.k.a." Oceania, it's a region of Oceania. Neither are continents. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Countries do not have to belong to a continent. Sorting out which continent the Maldives is located would be tricky. Furthermore, Australia is not a third world country with a tyrannical government. It terms of public brainwashing and lack of education, I'd encourage you to visit someday, and see if your comment is justified. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Continents are a matter of convention. In some countries, they count five continents: America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania. In the U.S., we use different definitions and count seven continents: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica. Many nations do not consider Antarctica because it’s not a naturally populated region. Continents are a convention and one convention is as good as another. In the U.S. view, Australia (not Oceania) is a continent. Greenland, by the way, is considered an island and not part of any continent. —Stephen (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia as Continent and Island

I have read the current discussions and several of the archived ones and there are may misconceptions and misunderstandings about geographic terms/nomenclature. I will only address the one referenced above.

The difference between an island and a continent are not unrelated. The criterion of size is the primary, but not the only, characteristic that determines what is an island and what is a continent.

Australia was once classified as an island ( see Lancelot and Gray; 'The Civil Service Geography: Being a Manual of Geography, General and Politcal ), but once it was classified as a continent, for reasons of size, biodiversity, geophysics, etc., it lost its status as the largest island and became the smallest continent. Greenland [Kalaallit Nunaat], which is a "continental island" of North America, acquired the title of largest island. An island is not simply a landmass completely surrounded by water, but is also a landmass smaller than a continent (see any geography text book, Davis Joyce; Why Greenland is an Island, Australia is Not- and Japan is Up for Grabs ). This has been established convention for over a century.

I am aware in common usage of describing Australia as an “island continent” , but this is a purely descriptive term and is not:

• based on the nomenclature used in physical geography;
• or consistent with the Australian government’s listing of islands (Geoscience Australia lists Tasmania as the largest island);

Besides, if this claim were to be upheld, thus violating established nomenclature, then Antarctica would be the largest island, not Australia. So Australia cannot be both an island and a continent and I am removing that claim in the opening paragraph. Gary Joseph (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this is still an ongoing issue a consensus would be needed for it's removal. Bidgee (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that, because it's still an ongoing issue, a consensus should have been obtained for its inclusion in the first place. Contentious material should not remain while it's being debated. What you're arguing is the reverse: anything at all, no matter how wacky, should remain until there's agreement to remove it. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether there should have been consensus to add it is irrelevant. It's there now and consensus to remove it is required, as Bidgee has indicated. WP:BRD works both ways. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. It is not a policy, or even a guideline. There is no requirement to achieve consensus for the removal of contentious material. Once it's been removed, discussed, and agreed, it can be put back in whatever form has been agreed. But it should not remain while that discussion is going on. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Australia was once classified as an island ( see Lancelot and Gray; 'The Civil Service Geography: Being a Manual of Geography, General and Politcal ), but once it was classified as a continent, for reasons of size, biodiversity, geophysics, etc., it lost its status as the largest island and became the smallest continent." - That's not actually the case. When I was at school in the '60s and '70s, in fact probably right up to this decade, encyclopaedias were considered to be authoritative sources. I've checked quite a few of the older encyclopaedias, including Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and all those that I checked identified Australia as both a continent and an island over a period of many years. In fact that's why it's referred to as "the island continent". It was considered for many years to be both an island and a continent. Many consider it still is.

"if this claim were to be upheld, thus violating established nomenclature, then Antarctica would be the largest island" - As has previously been indicated on this page, Antarctica is not one island but a series of islands and the total landmass is significantly less than the area covered by the ice sheets. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend, as I noted, "island continent" is descriptive and is not the same as "island". The latter is a physical geographic term and the former is not. This is particularly due to the nuances of English and the specific quality of Australia and Antarctica as they are the only continents, whatever organizing scheme you choose to use, that are completely surrounded by water. Also, I have yet to see a geographic authority, including those in Australia, that describe it as an "island" and solely that. The text I cited was a geographic authority from the mid 1800's. As for Antarctica (Australia's twin, imagined with peninsula north and mirrored), I noted your previous remarks and they are misleading. The continent of Antarctica contains a landmass comprising the substantial majority of the continent's total land area, not unlike Australia that has Tasmania off its southeastern edge. That does not change if it is covered mostly by the ice cap. Gary Joseph (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed the point. Australia was called the island continent because it was considered to be both an island and a continent at the same time, not an island and then a continent as you've indicated. To my knowledge it has never been considered, at least in recent history, to be solely an island, which is probably why you've never seen a geographic authority refer to it as such. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understood you as well as the opening paragraph claim clearly. The word "island" has the physical geographic definition "...a landmass completely surrounded by water and smaller than a continent". So you change this to our particular discussion to "... an island is a landmass that is completely surrounded by water and smaller that Australia" [as it is the smallest continent]. So Australia cannot in fact be a continent and an island, simply because it is surrounded by water [incomplete definition]. The claim for both superlatives, smallest continent and largest island is factually dubious and the argument to justify it is specious.Gary Joseph (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, an island is "a piece of land usually completely surrounded by water."[2] There's nothing in that definition about being smaller than a continent. This is why this debate exists, there is no single, accepted everywhere definition of island or continent (or numerous other terms) and there probably never will be. It's also why Merbabu is right. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, Britannica, "[3]", Oxford Complete Dictionary, and geographic textbooks are precise with the definition. If they were not, then loosely speaking, every one of the Earth's discrete landmasses is an island. Debate exists among laymen because our societies do a "piss-poor" job at educating us on physical geography, and science in general, but not among the predominate geographic community. Simply stating noting there are a lot of controversies is not addressing the issue.

Geography is a science, so the precision and distinction between continent and island are important in order to classify and provide nomenclature. ( I noticed that you have not addressed the anomaly I noted that officially, the Australian federal government does not classify the mainland as an island. Now if you go to Greenland's government site, it lists the mainland as an island, consistent with their view.)

As for the GNBNSW, this does not constitute a geographic entity. My federal government states that an island is a piece of land completely surrounded by water that is also above sea level at high tide. That is a legal definition and consistent with the context with which that entity is dealing. It is not world-geographic in scope. This is true with the GNBNSW as continents do not fall within its scope so the distinction is irrelevant. The accurate definition is not necessary. I do not understand why we are willing to accept the geographically technical definition of "continent" but not that of "island". Mixing the two is irresponsible and reeks of sloppiness.

I should not be surprised by the responses and the reversion of my edit. I am not Australian and have no stake in how many superlatives the country can garner. It does nothing for me. Apparently it does much for many of the Aussies here.Gary Joseph (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Merriam-Webster, Britannica, "[4]", Oxford Complete Dictionary, and geographic textbooks are precise with the definition." - Interestingly, the only url that you provided shows more than one definition which supports my argument that there is there is no single, accepted everywhere definition of island or continent. The definition that includes mention of continent says "especially smaller than a continent", which makes it less absolute than the uncited definition that you provided.

"As for the GNBNSW, this does not constitute a geographic entity" - The Geographical Names Board is an authoritative, government organisation that uses standard Australian geographic definitions. It is accepted as being a reliable source at Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that important?

Is it really that important? There are many more things more important that could be done in the time being spent here.--Merbabu (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything that assists in increasing the credibility of Wikipedia, upholding the sum of its policies, and furthering and strenghtening the knowledge of those who come to its pages- I believe is important. Also, I can do more than one thing at one time.Gary Joseph (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Having an extremely questionable "Fact" in the first sentence of the lead is giving it undue weight, and (in my view) seriously degrades both the credibility and quality of the introduction. However, per many other users on this page, it is not universally seen that way. I've nothing against it being mentioned in the "Geography" section, but I don't think it belongs in that position. AKAF (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, the question of island or continent whether biggest or smallest seems to be of little consequence, and less important to wikipedia's "credibility" and "strengthening the knowledge" , in comparison to, say, an accurate and neutral description of a country's history or system of government, etc. It also seems like an easy debate to have, in comparison to say, making those more complicated improvements. --Merbabu (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least shouldn't there be a sentence in the lede explaining the differing views by different authors. The article List of islands by area makes note of those different views. Jack forbes (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think explaining the different views rather than arguing which "correct" view to insert is a better way to go, however, leads shouldn't really be about explaining such details. I'd say that should go into the body. --Merbabu (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with that if we were writing an article on policy or something that is not factual. But even on the list of islands article, it does not list Australia as an island, so this article is inconsistent with that.Gary Joseph (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is something that has to be sorted. We can't have two articles giving two opposing bits of information. I guess something has to give over there or here. Jack forbes (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles don't give opposing information. List of islands by area specifically mentions Australia's confusing (to some) status. The problem here is that some people obviously believe that everything is black and white and there are no shades of grey. This is not true. "The sun rises in the east". No it doesn't. The Earth rotates so that the sun appears to rise in the east. "The sky is blue". No it isn't. These technical inaccuracies even permeate authoritative sources.[5] "Australia is surrounded literally by thousands of islands, amongst them the world's largest sand island" is obviously wrong. These islands are part of Australia so how can they be surrounding it? Rather than concentrate on these relatively minor contradictions, (although I fully expect a response about that last statement from somebody who misses the point!) there are far more important matters to concern ourselves with, as Merbabu has argued. If you really have time to debate this, there are 800-1,000 articles on just the Hunter Region that need work. Imagine how many there are on the whole country that could benefit from the obvious excess free time demonstrated here. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Gary Joseph et al, I support removal of the rather imbalanced claim that Australia is the world's largest island from the article lead; as well, the sentence following that is unsourced. At least on this side of the pond, as an abundance of publications indicate, Australia (or even Oceania in some circles) is generally reckoned or listed as the smallest continent, while Greenland is generally considered the largest island. The inclusion of this assertion with reference, despite what other references may indicate, seems little more than boosterism and arugably pseudo self-marketing. And, for those who may have added difficulty with definitions, the world's largest 'island' -- that is, a chunk of land completely surrounded by water -- would be the World Island (AKA Afro-Eurasia). This assertion should be refactored and moved down to the geography section, if not removed, lest this article possibly be nominated to have its featured status reviewed. A possible way out: the New Oxford Dictionary of English equitably describes Australia as "an island country and continent of the southern hemisphere", with 'and' being interpretive. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Australasia

I've started work on Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) as quite amazingly an article about Australasia in its most common meaning of Australia and NZ was missing. There is already a page devoted to the bilateral relationship - Australia-New Zealand relations, but none which discusses our part of the world as a cultural/political/social/economic region, which clearly it is. Help on this would be greatly appreciated - maybe pages for continents or the EU could be used as a model for different sections. --110.32.143.237 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article I see that the info can be divided into two parts: (1) information that is about the relations between the two countries and (2) info which the article admits is about one country or the other without a common-link. THe first group belongs in the Australia-New Zealand relations article while the second group belongs in the individual country articles. Thus, this new article, I'm afraid, is redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Merbabu, this new article is very clearly a point-of-view fork, since the entirety of its content can be dealt with (if not already) in the parent article 'Australasia' or in articles noted above; as such, I have redirected it to that article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork as it seeks to deal with Australasia as region as opposed to the Australia-NZ relations page which deals with the bilateral relationship between the two countries. There is a British Isles page and one for British-Irish relations so why can't the same be done for Australasia. Progress is well advanced towards and Australasian common market and a single external border and there is a long history of closely tied economies and substantial migration across the Tasman, both before and after the creation of Aus and NZ as sovereign nation states. The article to this point is obviously not complete hence why I put a request for people to contribute - deleting and redirecting without discussion is not helpful. Ultimately the page should have substantial sections on the combined Australasian economy and demography as it increasingly is a single economic market and already has common labour market. It can also include information about the region's culture and history. This does not seem unreasonable and is not a matter of POV. --110.32.143.237 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article you are talking about is Australasia - why not contribute there? You could also create an article for the proposed common market. --Merbabu (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is most certainly a POV-fork. There are already articles dealing with this region (Australasia) and relations between the two usual countries (Australia – New Zealand relations); 'British Isles' is comparable to the former and 'British–Irish relations' is analogous to the latter, so your comparison is moot. And you have not explained how this information cannot be dealt with within 'Australasia' or related articles, nor appear to have even tried. Creating content forks isn't helpful to the encyclopedia, either, and we are discussing it: the article creator is in an apparent minority. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The page for Australasia is not really appropriate as it also deals with other definitions of Australasia too, which have their separate pages. e.g. Australasia ecozone It really only provides short definitions of what the term means in different contexts and really it makes sense to deal with these different meanings in separate articles as is currently the case. An article on the Single Economic Market may well be useful, but that wouldn't completely cover the level of Australasian integration, which includes moves towards a common external border and largely open internal border[6], promoting both countries together as an export market and investment destination [7], common free trade deals [8], joint standards and regulatory bodies e.g. [9], joint research organisations e.g. [10] - the list goes on and on and is only getting longer. The definitions of Australasia, whilst overlapping somewhat, are too diverse to be dealt with sensibly in one article. Both Australasia as commonly defined as meaning Australia and N.Z. and the Australasian ecozone are both clearly defined and merit separate articles. 110.32.128.77 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Australasia ecozone is a discrete topic deserving of a discrete article, as are other ecozones. ALL of the content in the article just created, however, can be dealt with (if not already) in the Australasia article or in the bilateral relations article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups (again)

I've just changed the "ethnic_groups" field back to reflect exactly what the source says. "White" vs "white" has already been discusssed so I won't touch on that again but I've also changed "[[Australian Aborigines|Aboriginal]]" to just "aboriginal" because that's what's used by the source. While it may seem minor, the use of a capital letter can change the whole meaning. "Aboriginal" is generally taken to mean Australian Aboriginal while "aboriginal" can be a generic term for all indigenous peoples, including Torres Strait Islanders. Since we don't know how the CIA has used it here, assuming that it refers to Australian Aborigines and applying a specific term is WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Divorcing this data from any context will always be suggestive and contentious (again), the interpretation and definitions are highly variable, so cossetting any set in a field of an infobox is a grotesque oversimplification. The World Factbook gives a circular ref to its definition and is contradicted by the primary source it purports to replace. I'm uncertain what type of source the work could be described as, primary, secondary, or other, and, in any case, I am not able to find references that indicate it is a reliable source for this factoid. The factbook's presentation of 'ethnic group' may have some correlation to supposedly self-identified groups, or the company's categorisation of the Australian population by other means; that it provides no qualifications or means of verifying the data is problematic. Infoboxes are mute assemblages of data and wikilinks (sometimes OR), often requiring annotation supported by references in some fields, their utility has a number of limitations when supporting encyclopaedic prose. The field "population" implies a simple fact, it is ludicrous to present the diversity and complexity of this topic as: Ethnic groups = some ambiguous terms and percentiles. cygnis insignis 07:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My concerns about using the CIA "factbook" as a source were the reason I looked to the ABS for definite information, but the ABS data is limited and apparently contradicts itself. I'd support removal of ethnic groups data from the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I too support removal of any data from the infobox if the infobox does not cater for complexity or nuance such that data can appear to be inaccurate or misleading. Infoboxes are notorious for forcing and oversimplify complex info into pigeon holds such that factual accuracy is either lost or misread. --Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove Section on Ethnic Groups on side pane

These stats are very, very old and are most likely just estimates. the census sais the portion of aboriginals is 3.5 percent rather than 1 percent, and asians as 11 percent rather than 7.... so we can see its very contradicctory.....

The Article for the USA doesnt have this at the side so why should we????? especially when the source is questionable... we alreasy have a demographics section

please just remove it once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.132.34 (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did that, the plea above being noted with the compelling reasons for removal. Any reliably sourced facts that can be gleaned from this stuff could be worked into the article. cygnis insignis 08:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with removal for reasons above, but where does this "3.5 percent" figure come from? The raw Census count was about 2.4% Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander combined; the ABS estimates the true figure at about 2.6%, IIRC. --GenericBob (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The estimated figure was 2.5%,[11] 3.5% is obviously a typo. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that assumption the first time it was raised here, but this is at least the third time somebody (looks like the same person) has claimed 3.5%.[12]. If it's a typo, it's a very persistent one. --GenericBob (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Socceroos" as a strong national sporting team.

When Association football has been included in the list of strong sporting teams eg: "Australia has strong international teams in football, cricket, field hockey, netball, rugby league, rugby union, and performs well in cycling, rowing, and swimming." an editor who appears to be a strong cricket fan has been persistently deleting the reference to Association football. The most recent deletion uses the reason that the A League is allegedly of a low standard although how that editor is able to form such an opinion is moot. Australia's national team is currently ranked at 16 out of 203 ranked teams (ie. in the top 10%) whereas Australia's test cricket team (currently ranked at 4 out of 9) is not even in the top 33%. Reviewing that editor's contributions one finds he has made these statements in his edit summaries:

• Australia has been usually around 40, until this spike from belting hopeless Asian teams

Comment: disregarding any possible racism in this statement, even a FIFA rank of 40 would mean that Australia would be in the top 20% of ranked national teams

• 200 play but not at a proper standard, same as 50+ play a lot of other sports but are represented by weekend players

Comment: meaningless

• Other sports have been top 5 all the time, and sometimes #1 for 10 years in a row

Comment: some of the other sports that this editor feel worthy of a listing include some that are played at a first class level by as many as five countries (ie. Rugby League) some sports have "national teams" which do not even represent nations.

Can anyone give me a coherent reason why Association football should not be included. Silent Billy (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, Australia's test team had been #1 for the entire six years that the rankings existed. For the first time ever, they lost that ranking a mere ten days ago. If your case rests on the argument that Australia is better at soccer than it is at cricket, then you don't have a case. Otherwise, you might. Hesperian 03:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, the problem here is that the claim is subjective and unsourced. I've just spent half an hour searching for a source that can tell me which team sports Australia is currently performing "strongly" in, and I don't believe such a source exists. One option would be to rephrase to "According to current rankings, Australia ranks in the top 10% of the world in the following sports..." but this could result in the removal of sports that few countries compete in, such as rugby league and cricket. Another option would be to replace it with "top 10 nations", but this criterion would make Ireland a good ODI player. Another option is "Australia regularly wins matches at the highest level of international competition in the following sports...." Cricket would certainly belong there, as a participant in the ICC Test Championship and current holder of the ODI One Day World Cup. Soccer probably wouldn't, as Australia has only won one World Cup match ever. Yet another option would be to provide some sort of timeframe for the claim. If we are talking about performance over the past decade, then cricket belongs and soccer probably doesn't. If we are talking about performance over the last years or so, then soccer may well have a stronger claim to inclusion than cricket does. I think the solution is to find a source or purge the lot. Hesperian 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's Association football that we are talking about. The use of the word "soccer" reveals a POV as does your careful selection of the criterion for a top ranked national teams. Australia has now qualified for three FIFA World Cups which is a good performance and regularly wins matches against European and well ranked Asian sides. As for your suggestion that it is a subjective statement - that's true but this place is full of that - in many of the articles on religion for starters. An in any event the statement is patently true - Australia is strong in may sports. I don't know how you handle that. Silent Billy (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to guess my POV; I'm happy to share it. I have two POVs relevant to this discussion. One: AFL, soccer and rugby are all great footy codes; but league is rubbish. Two: Every Wikipedian who ever thought "soccer" versus "association football" was an argument worth having, ended up being a time-wasting trouble-making troll. Hesperian 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "soccer" reveals nothing of the sort. The common name for the game has always been soccer in Australia, and is still the common name according to Association football. That's why the national team is called the "Socceroos", not the "Associationfootballoos". Perhaps you should try to assume good faith a bit more. It will result in your arguments being better received. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

agree here with Aussie legend. To suggest that peoples' arguements are less valid because of bias (and dubiously asserted bias) is not impressive. Worse is you implying racism. Stop spoiling the well and stick to the topic. Otherwise those editors you are (presumably) trying to influence are just going to get the shits - which only undermines your own argument. --Merbabu (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend and Merbabu. Hesperian's point that all these claims need to be cited is also a good one. The current statement that soccer is popular seems more justified than claims that the Australian team has a great track record internationally. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Compared with other sports, soccer is most definitely not one of Australia's strongest on an international level (not yet at least) and it shouldn't currently be listed as a top performing sport. Talk:Australia/Archive 15#Socceroos is a good summary. Some wording along the lines of Hesperian's suggestion sounds like a good idea though. Spellcast (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparing sports is apples to oranges. The question is does Australia peform well in international competition in association football. The answer is - yes - Australia performs strongly in international football, and has done so now for 4 years consecutively. The massive improvement in FIFA and Elo rankings indicate such, but those aside, the team's results have been consistent against higher ranked opponents.MrSPIAP0 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Silent Billy - please consult WP:SOCK. It's damn obvious when people create new accounts to look like they'req bolstering the numbers supporting their point of view. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we go by your reasoning for "global sports", Australia would also have to be considered a track and field "power" on the basis of medal tally, as well rowing, canoeing, even basketball. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the national rowing team overall should be considered "strong" also. MrSPIAP0 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Silent Billy, from your comments, you might be thinking that I am an Anglo-Saxon anti-Asian who thinks of real football as "wogball" for "immigrant sissies" etc. My parents are Asian immigrants. I think AFL is a joke and soccer is real skill, ask Aaroncrick (talk · contribs). Still, Australia is not a football power. Only WC finals win is against Japan. In 2007 Asian Cup, lost to Iraq. Australia made it to the quarters. Even Vietnam made it to the quarters. Only wins in WC/Asian qualifiers and finals were against Asian teams, the likes of UAE, Qatar, etc. You say that only 9 countries play cricket in comparison to 200 in football and that Australia is not in the top 33% in cricket but in the top 8% in football is a joke. In football, every registered country is counted, including backyard standard teams like American Samoa (lost 31-0 to Australian players who were part-timers in the Australian league), Bhutan etc. In cricket there are about 80 registered countries but only 9 were allowed to play in the elite league "Test cricket". While Bangladesh, the worst Test country is bad, at least their best player Shakib Al Hasan would get selected in the top 3 countries, South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. Some Australians would get into the top three teams. None of the Australian footballers would get into a Spanish or Brazilian 20-25 man squad, let alone the playing 11. The cricket countries from 10-15 who are on the edge of Test standard, are more competitive than the token American Samoan teams, who would easily get bashed about 80=0 by Spain, Brazil etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We've only had a professional A League structure for a few years. We've had domestic cricket played in Australia since the 19th century. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a one-eyed football supporter, for the little that it's worth, and I agree fully with Hesperian and YellowMonkey. We aren't a "strong national football nation"; not only are the FIFA rankings a bit of a sham (as pointed out by YellowMonkey himself), and not only is there no solid bank of references to consider our relative football ability and historical strength to be on par with that of cricket, netball etc., but the massive skill and historical disparity between Australia and the likes of Spain, Brazil, England, etc., and the relatively poor standard of the A-League and its lack of history, means that football should not be added alongside cricket etc. in the main article. Daniel (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong is a subjective word. Objectively our last 4 years results (W26/D12/L11) puts us firmly within the top 20 globally. National teams like Brasil, Argentina, Spain, England & Holland I would say are "very strong". Teams like Paraguay, Greece, Czech Republic are "strong", and these are our neighbours in both FIFA & Elo rankings. Does another nation see us as stong? Ask fans of Japan, England (very stong), Netherlands (very strong), Nigeria (strong), Uruguay (strong), Ghana & Greece (strong) who have all been beaten by the Australian national team in recent years - they may see the Australian team as strong. Prior to the 2006 World Cup draw, England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson noted that he did not want to draw Australia, amongst others: ”But there is a wider aspect to Australia. There is a sporting rivalry between the two countries. What I saw during the summer when England won the cricket was amazing. If I had known all about the rivalry, I would never have played that friendly against them. It was far from a friendly game. They wanted to beat us, and they did.″. England have been FIFA & Elo ranked within the top 10 consistently for many years. If England is a very stong team, we have beaten them away, and are ranked merely 7 places below - are we not objectively a strong team? Objectively you could say the same of The Netherlands who we also defeated away some months back. Netherlands are ranked 3rd by FIFA and would also fit the description "very strong".MrSPIAP0 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSPIAP0 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument. How can we define any national team as strong? I suggest however that we drop the defining line all together and just state all national teams' international ranking & acomplishments (so for an Olympic sport medals?). That would be a great way to be truely objective. Though this would require Sport to be promoted out of the Culture heading --UltimateG (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Those who think Australia is not now strong in soccer are either living in the past or are confusing a nation being strong and a nation dominating the world stage. Yes, Australia has until recently been better at cricket and rugby than soccer. But just as the fortunes of the national cricket and rugby teams are now fading, the national Australian football team has been rising solidly for the past six years. As a nation we might be challenging for number one status in the world, but in a 200-strong competition, as a nation, having beaten the likes of top ten countries such as Holland and England in recent years with admirable performances against Italy, Argentina and Brazil, to be the second country on the planet to qualify for our second World Cup in a row with three games in hand, conceding just one goal and unbeaten all the way through the final qualifying stage, to be ranked 14th in the world, to call that anything but strong is simply petty and anachronistic.

How many Aboriginal languages are not endangered?

This article says that 20 Aboriginal languages are not endangered. However, I recently read an article that seemed extremely scholarly in the Australian Higher Education that stated that the number of Aboriginal languages "in a healthy condition, that is, they are spoken by all age groups" is 15 rather than 20. Here are the article details:

Zuckermann, Ghilad, "Aboriginal languages deserve revival", The Australian Higher Education, August 26, 2009.

Please revise.

Aborig (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Australia a Continent???

This aritcle states that Australia is a continent. Forgive me for saying this, but there are only 7 continents in the world which consist of Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Oceania. Therefore, Australia is not a continent and stating such in this article is false. Australia is nation within Oceania. --Yoganate79 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the first sentence of the Continent article and its supporting citation. Nick-D (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as the numerous discussions about this very issue in the Talk page archives. Oceania is not a continent. It is a region. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia is the continent in the list you give, not Oceania, most of which is small island nations. --Dmol (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been involved in s similar discussion on this page, I'd like to suggest to Yoganate that he leaves it alone. "Continent" is a poorly defined term, which you can pretty much let mean what you want. So just let those editors continent themselves with their inaccuracy. Australians have been taught in school that "Australia is the largest island and the smallest continent", and pretty much everyone who edits this page believes that to be an important part of the red white and blue running through their veins. Leave alone that a goodly amount of what gets taught in school is bullshit: "Australia is the only place where marsupials are found" or "Australia was one of the first countries to have universal suffrage" occur immediately as examples. It appears to bother these editors not one whit that this argument leaves Tasmania, New Guinea, and most of Indonesia unattached to any continent. Moreover it appears to bother noone that this entire set of statements predates continental plate theory, Or that this statement was made as the protectorate of New Guinea was a part of Australia. One might as well write the whole article from the point of view of 1960s historians, with the noble attempts at integration of the poor abo kids into generous white families. However seeing as the statement about continents is absolutely unbased in any reality, and its just a throwaway line, its probably not worth it to argue over such a triviality. Except that its location in the first paragraph it gives the reader the impression that the scholarship for the whole article will be as slipshod. AKAF (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember you. You were the editor who claimed that the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website was an advertsing website and not a reliable source.[13] Welcome back and please remember, should you choose to present any arguments, rather than just attack the editors of this article and Australians in general, some civility will result in your comments gaining a better response than the incivility that you've just demonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the truth about the government: they have departments whose purpose is to promote some aspect of Australia to the country and overseas (ie "Advertising", for some value of that word). And yes, the department of foreign affairs and trade is not a reliable reference for the same reason that an autobiography is not the authoritative guide to a person's life. In fact most government departments are not good references for an article about that department's government, and should be regarded as a primary source for the purposes of citing. So you'll excuse me if I find referencing such a site to be at best disingenuous. AKAF (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia is simply a country. If Australia was a continent, would it make sense to call Fiji, Australia? Oceania represents all of the countries while Australia usually implies to the country and if you use it as a continent, the other countries are not having their fair share of representation. For example, just because China is the biggest country (population wise) in Asia, doesn't mean you call the whole continent "China". Go to Australia (continent). On the map it shows only Australia highlighted. Now, go to Oceania. All of Oceania is highligted.--KRajaratnam1 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree broadly with AKAF. Australia the Island is not the same as Australia the Nation (Commonwealth of Australia), which is also not the same as Australia the Continent. The Island is just that, the mainland only. It may be the world's largest, so the statement that "Australia is the world's largest island" is roughly correct, but more accurately would be better stated as "the Commonwealth of Australia contains the world's largest island". However the Nation is an 'artificial' (human-created political) division, which is the Island, plus Tasmania and smaller scattered islands - it is not the same as the Continent. The Continent would be the landmass including the Continental Shelf (ie) The Island, plus Tasmania, plus New Guinea (plus smaller surrounding islands). It is only happenstance that the Nation makes up (>80%) of the Continent. It is incorrect to state that the (Commonwealth of) Australia is the world's smallest (or anything) continent, as the Continent also includes the Nations of Papua New Guinea & (part of) Indonesia.

As for Oceania (or Australasia), these are also 'artificial' constructs, used to split the world into broad divisions, but Oceania is just a human-created division, rather than one that has any basis in geological features, or plate tectonics.

I can't be bothered to change the article, as I know someone will revert it within seconds, but maybe a paragraph under Geography could be added mentioning the conflicting viewpoints about the Nation's Island/Continent status, with references (there plenty supporting most viewpoints). The opening paragraph **should not** state that it is a Continent as an incontravertable fact, when this is heavily disputed.

As for Aussie people stating 'this is what I was taught in school', consider both the usage of the 'island continent' term as a lie-to-children and as a synecdoche. 'And we all know teachers can never be wrong, can they ? The Yeti (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Continent discussions - for future reference

Past "Is Australia a continent?" and "Australia is not a continent" discussions, and related topics, may be found at:

• Talk:Australia/Archive 3#In Australasia or only country in a continent
• Talk:Australia/Archive 3#Excessive categories
• Talk:Australia/Archive 4#The whole continent?
• Talk:Australia/Archive 5#Australia or its commonwealth
• Talk:Australia/Archive 6#Island
• Talk:Australia/Archive 8#Landmass
• Talk:Australia/Archive 13#Australia is not a continent
• Talk:Australia/Archive 14#Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country
• Talk:Australia/Archive 14#Is Australia a country or a continent?
• Talk:Australia/Archive 14#Australian Continent
• Talk:Australia/Archive 15#Largest Island - what about Antartica? - added 14/8/09 --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• #Continent, country and island - added 14/8/09 --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• #Australia as Continent and Island - added 14/8/09 --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn it's been discussed more than that. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention virtually the entire Talk page here:

• Talk:Australia (continent). The Yeti (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It really is quite sad that Australians are brainwashed and uneducated to think that their country is one of the classical continents found on earth. My question is, if Australia is considered a continent, then what continent does New Zealand belong to then? In any case, Greenland should also be classified as a continent then too. Let's classify Long Island, Cuba, Japan, and the British Isles their own continents too. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Brainwashed and uneducated? How insulting! Bidgee (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly australia has better education systems than america. At least we can go to school without getting shot.

Australia a continent yes but australia is the figurehead of australasia a.k.a. oceania new zealand, papua new guinea and that fall under that continent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.106.175 (talk • contribs)

Australasia is not "a.k.a." Oceania, it's a region of Oceania. Neither are continents. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Countries do not have to belong to a continent. Sorting out which continent the Maldives is located would be tricky. Furthermore, Australia is not a third world country with a tyrannical government. It terms of public brainwashing and lack of education, I'd encourage you to visit someday, and see if your comment is justified. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Continents are a matter of convention. In some countries, they count five continents: America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania. In the U.S., we use different definitions and count seven continents: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica. Many nations do not consider Antarctica because it’s not a naturally populated region. Continents are a convention and one convention is as good as another. In the U.S. view, Australia (not Oceania) is a continent. Greenland, by the way, is considered an island and not part of any continent. —Stephen (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia as Continent and Island

I have read the current discussions and several of the archived ones and there are may misconceptions and misunderstandings about geographic terms/nomenclature. I will only address the one referenced above.

The difference between an island and a continent are not unrelated. The criterion of size is the primary, but not the only, characteristic that determines what is an island and what is a continent.

Australia was once classified as an island ( see Lancelot and Gray; 'The Civil Service Geography: Being a Manual of Geography, General and Politcal ), but once it was classified as a continent, for reasons of size, biodiversity, geophysics, etc., it lost its status as the largest island and became the smallest continent. Greenland [Kalaallit Nunaat], which is a "continental island" of North America, acquired the title of largest island. An island is not simply a landmass completely surrounded by water, but is also a landmass smaller than a continent (see any geography text book, Davis Joyce; Why Greenland is an Island, Australia is Not- and Japan is Up for Grabs ). This has been established convention for over a century.

I am aware in common usage of describing Australia as an “island continent” , but this is a purely descriptive term and is not:

• based on the nomenclature used in physical geography;
• or consistent with the Australian government’s listing of islands (Geoscience Australia lists Tasmania as the largest island);

Besides, if this claim were to be upheld, thus violating established nomenclature, then Antarctica would be the largest island, not Australia. So Australia cannot be both an island and a continent and I am removing that claim in the opening paragraph. Gary Joseph (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this is still an ongoing issue a consensus would be needed for it's removal. Bidgee (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that, because it's still an ongoing issue, a consensus should have been obtained for its inclusion in the first place. Contentious material should not remain while it's being debated. What you're arguing is the reverse: anything at all, no matter how wacky, should remain until there's agreement to remove it. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether there should have been consensus to add it is irrelevant. It's there now and consensus to remove it is required, as Bidgee has indicated. WP:BRD works both ways. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. It is not a policy, or even a guideline. There is no requirement to achieve consensus for the removal of contentious material. Once it's been removed, discussed, and agreed, it can be put back in whatever form has been agreed. But it should not remain while that discussion is going on. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Australia was once classified as an island ( see Lancelot and Gray; 'The Civil Service Geography: Being a Manual of Geography, General and Politcal ), but once it was classified as a continent, for reasons of size, biodiversity, geophysics, etc., it lost its status as the largest island and became the smallest continent." - That's not actually the case. When I was at school in the '60s and '70s, in fact probably right up to this decade, encyclopaedias were considered to be authoritative sources. I've checked quite a few of the older encyclopaedias, including Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and all those that I checked identified Australia as both a continent and an island over a period of many years. In fact that's why it's referred to as "the island continent". It was considered for many years to be both an island and a continent. Many consider it still is.

"if this claim were to be upheld, thus violating established nomenclature, then Antarctica would be the largest island" - As has previously been indicated on this page, Antarctica is not one island but a series of islands and the total landmass is significantly less than the area covered by the ice sheets. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend, as I noted, "island continent" is descriptive and is not the same as "island". The latter is a physical geographic term and the former is not. This is particularly due to the nuances of English and the specific quality of Australia and Antarctica as they are the only continents, whatever organizing scheme you choose to use, that are completely surrounded by water. Also, I have yet to see a geographic authority, including those in Australia, that describe it as an "island" and solely that. The text I cited was a geographic authority from the mid 1800's. As for Antarctica (Australia's twin, imagined with peninsula north and mirrored), I noted your previous remarks and they are misleading. The continent of Antarctica contains a landmass comprising the substantial majority of the continent's total land area, not unlike Australia that has Tasmania off its southeastern edge. That does not change if it is covered mostly by the ice cap. Gary Joseph (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed the point. Australia was called the island continent because it was considered to be both an island and a continent at the same time, not an island and then a continent as you've indicated. To my knowledge it has never been considered, at least in recent history, to be solely an island, which is probably why you've never seen a geographic authority refer to it as such. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understood you as well as the opening paragraph claim clearly. The word "island" has the physical geographic definition "...a landmass completely surrounded by water and smaller than a continent". So you change this to our particular discussion to "... an island is a landmass that is completely surrounded by water and smaller that Australia" [as it is the smallest continent]. So Australia cannot in fact be a continent and an island, simply because it is surrounded by water [incomplete definition]. The claim for both superlatives, smallest continent and largest island is factually dubious and the argument to justify it is specious.Gary Joseph (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, an island is "a piece of land usually completely surrounded by water."[14] There's nothing in that definition about being smaller than a continent. This is why this debate exists, there is no single, accepted everywhere definition of island or continent (or numerous other terms) and there probably never will be. It's also why Merbabu is right. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, Britannica, "[15]", Oxford Complete Dictionary, and geographic textbooks are precise with the definition. If they were not, then loosely speaking, every one of the Earth's discrete landmasses is an island. Debate exists among laymen because our societies do a "piss-poor" job at educating us on physical geography, and science in general, but not among the predominate geographic community. Simply stating noting there are a lot of controversies is not addressing the issue.

Geography is a science, so the precision and distinction between continent and island are important in order to classify and provide nomenclature. ( I noticed that you have not addressed the anomaly I noted that officially, the Australian federal government does not classify the mainland as an island. Now if you go to Greenland's government site, it lists the mainland as an island, consistent with their view.)

As for the GNBNSW, this does not constitute a geographic entity. My federal government states that an island is a piece of land completely surrounded by water that is also above sea level at high tide. That is a legal definition and consistent with the context with which that entity is dealing. It is not world-geographic in scope. This is true with the GNBNSW as continents do not fall within its scope so the distinction is irrelevant. The accurate definition is not necessary. I do not understand why we are willing to accept the geographically technical definition of "continent" but not that of "island". Mixing the two is irresponsible and reeks of sloppiness.

I should not be surprised by the responses and the reversion of my edit. I am not Australian and have no stake in how many superlatives the country can garner. It does nothing for me. Apparently it does much for many of the Aussies here.Gary Joseph (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Merriam-Webster, Britannica, "[16]", Oxford Complete Dictionary, and geographic textbooks are precise with the definition." - Interestingly, the only url that you provided shows more than one definition which supports my argument that there is there is no single, accepted everywhere definition of island or continent. The definition that includes mention of continent says "especially smaller than a continent", which makes it less absolute than the uncited definition that you provided.

"As for the GNBNSW, this does not constitute a geographic entity" - The Geographical Names Board is an authoritative, government organisation that uses standard Australian geographic definitions. It is accepted as being a reliable source at Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that important?

Is it really that important? There are many more things more important that could be done in the time being spent here.--Merbabu (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything that assists in increasing the credibility of Wikipedia, upholding the sum of its policies, and furthering and strenghtening the knowledge of those who come to its pages- I believe is important. Also, I can do more than one thing at one time.Gary Joseph (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Having an extremely questionable "Fact" in the first sentence of the lead is giving it undue weight, and (in my view) seriously degrades both the credibility and quality of the introduction. However, per many other users on this page, it is not universally seen that way. I've nothing against it being mentioned in the "Geography" section, but I don't think it belongs in that position. AKAF (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, the question of island or continent whether biggest or smallest seems to be of little consequence, and less important to wikipedia's "credibility" and "strengthening the knowledge" , in comparison to, say, an accurate and neutral description of a country's history or system of government, etc. It also seems like an easy debate to have, in comparison to say, making those more complicated improvements. --Merbabu (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least shouldn't there be a sentence in the lede explaining the differing views by different authors. The article List of islands by area makes note of those different views. Jack forbes (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think explaining the different views rather than arguing which "correct" view to insert is a better way to go, however, leads shouldn't really be about explaining such details. I'd say that should go into the body. --Merbabu (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with that if we were writing an article on policy or something that is not factual. But even on the list of islands article, it does not list Australia as an island, so this article is inconsistent with that.Gary Joseph (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is something that has to be sorted. We can't have two articles giving two opposing bits of information. I guess something has to give over there or here. Jack forbes (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles don't give opposing information. List of islands by area specifically mentions Australia's confusing (to some) status. The problem here is that some people obviously believe that everything is black and white and there are no shades of grey. This is not true. "The sun rises in the east". No it doesn't. The Earth rotates so that the sun appears to rise in the east. "The sky is blue". No it isn't. These technical inaccuracies even permeate authoritative sources.[17] "Australia is surrounded literally by thousands of islands, amongst them the world's largest sand island" is obviously wrong. These islands are part of Australia so how can they be surrounding it? Rather than concentrate on these relatively minor contradictions, (although I fully expect a response about that last statement from somebody who misses the point!) there are far more important matters to concern ourselves with, as Merbabu has argued. If you really have time to debate this, there are 800-1,000 articles on just the Hunter Region that need work. Imagine how many there are on the whole country that could benefit from the obvious excess free time demonstrated here. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Gary Joseph et al, I support removal of the rather imbalanced claim that Australia is the world's largest island from the article lead; as well, the sentence following that is unsourced. At least on this side of the pond, as an abundance of publications indicate, Australia (or even Oceania in some circles) is generally reckoned or listed as the smallest continent, while Greenland is generally considered the largest island. The inclusion of this assertion with reference, despite what other references may indicate, seems little more than boosterism and arugably pseudo self-marketing. And, for those who may have added difficulty with definitions, the world's largest 'island' -- that is, a chunk of land completely surrounded by water -- would be the World Island (AKA Afro-Eurasia). This assertion should be refactored and moved down to the geography section, if not removed, lest this article possibly be nominated to have its featured status reviewed. A possible way out: the New Oxford Dictionary of English equitably describes Australia as "an island country and continent of the southern hemisphere", with 'and' being interpretive. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Australasia

I've started work on Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) as quite amazingly an article about Australasia in its most common meaning of Australia and NZ was missing. There is already a page devoted to the bilateral relationship - Australia-New Zealand relations, but none which discusses our part of the world as a cultural/political/social/economic region, which clearly it is. Help on this would be greatly appreciated - maybe pages for continents or the EU could be used as a model for different sections. --110.32.143.237 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article I see that the info can be divided into two parts: (1) information that is about the relations between the two countries and (2) info which the article admits is about one country or the other without a common-link. THe first group belongs in the Australia-New Zealand relations article while the second group belongs in the individual country articles. Thus, this new article, I'm afraid, is redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Merbabu, this new article is very clearly a point-of-view fork, since the entirety of its content can be dealt with (if not already) in the parent article 'Australasia' or in articles noted above; as such, I have redirected it to that article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork as it seeks to deal with Australasia as region as opposed to the Australia-NZ relations page which deals with the bilateral relationship between the two countries. There is a British Isles page and one for British-Irish relations so why can't the same be done for Australasia. Progress is well advanced towards and Australasian common market and a single external border and there is a long history of closely tied economies and substantial migration across the Tasman, both before and after the creation of Aus and NZ as sovereign nation states. The article to this point is obviously not complete hence why I put a request for people to contribute - deleting and redirecting without discussion is not helpful. Ultimately the page should have substantial sections on the combined Australasian economy and demography as it increasingly is a single economic market and already has common labour market. It can also include information about the region's culture and history. This does not seem unreasonable and is not a matter of POV. --110.32.143.237 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article you are talking about is Australasia - why not contribute there? You could also create an article for the proposed common market. --Merbabu (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is most certainly a POV-fork. There are already articles dealing with this region (Australasia) and relations between the two usual countries (Australia – New Zealand relations); 'British Isles' is comparable to the former and 'British–Irish relations' is analogous to the latter, so your comparison is moot. And you have not explained how this information cannot be dealt with within 'Australasia' or related articles, nor appear to have even tried. Creating content forks isn't helpful to the encyclopedia, either, and we are discussing it: the article creator is in an apparent minority. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The page for Australasia is not really appropriate as it also deals with other definitions of Australasia too, which have their separate pages. e.g. Australasia ecozone It really only provides short definitions of what the term means in different contexts and really it makes sense to deal with these different meanings in separate articles as is currently the case. An article on the Single Economic Market may well be useful, but that wouldn't completely cover the level of Australasian integration, which includes moves towards a common external border and largely open internal border[18], promoting both countries together as an export market and investment destination [19], common free trade deals [20], joint standards and regulatory bodies e.g. [21], joint research organisations e.g. [22] - the list goes on and on and is only getting longer. The definitions of Australasia, whilst overlapping somewhat, are too diverse to be dealt with sensibly in one article. Both Australasia as commonly defined as meaning Australia and N.Z. and the Australasian ecozone are both clearly defined and merit separate articles. 110.32.128.77 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Australasia ecozone is a discrete topic deserving of a discrete article, as are other ecozones. ALL of the content in the article just created, however, can be dealt with (if not already) in the Australasia article or in the bilateral relations article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups (again)

I've just changed the "ethnic_groups" field back to reflect exactly what the source says. "White" vs "white" has already been discusssed so I won't touch on that again but I've also changed "[[Australian Aborigines|Aboriginal]]" to just "aboriginal" because that's what's used by the source. While it may seem minor, the use of a capital letter can change the whole meaning. "Aboriginal" is generally taken to mean Australian Aboriginal while "aboriginal" can be a generic term for all indigenous peoples, including Torres Strait Islanders. Since we don't know how the CIA has used it here, assuming that it refers to Australian Aborigines and applying a specific term is WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Divorcing this data from any context will always be suggestive and contentious (again), the interpretation and definitions are highly variable, so cossetting any set in a field of an infobox is a grotesque oversimplification. The World Factbook gives a circular ref to its definition and is contradicted by the primary source it purports to replace. I'm uncertain what type of source the work could be described as, primary, secondary, or other, and, in any case, I am not able to find references that indicate it is a reliable source for this factoid. The factbook's presentation of 'ethnic group' may have some correlation to supposedly self-identified groups, or the company's categorisation of the Australian population by other means; that it provides no qualifications or means of verifying the data is problematic. Infoboxes are mute assemblages of data and wikilinks (sometimes OR), often requiring annotation supported by references in some fields, their utility has a number of limitations when supporting encyclopaedic prose. The field "population" implies a simple fact, it is ludicrous to present the diversity and complexity of this topic as: Ethnic groups = some ambiguous terms and percentiles. cygnis insignis 07:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My concerns about using the CIA "factbook" as a source were the reason I looked to the ABS for definite information, but the ABS data is limited and apparently contradicts itself. I'd support removal of ethnic groups data from the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I too support removal of any data from the infobox if the infobox does not cater for complexity or nuance such that data can appear to be inaccurate or misleading. Infoboxes are notorious for forcing and oversimplify complex info into pigeon holds such that factual accuracy is either lost or misread. --Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove Section on Ethnic Groups on side pane

These stats are very, very old and are most likely just estimates. the census sais the portion of aboriginals is 3.5 percent rather than 1 percent, and asians as 11 percent rather than 7.... so we can see its very contradicctory.....

The Article for the USA doesnt have this at the side so why should we????? especially when the source is questionable... we alreasy have a demographics section

please just remove it once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.132.34 (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did that, the plea above being noted with the compelling reasons for removal. Any reliably sourced facts that can be gleaned from this stuff could be worked into the article. cygnis insignis 08:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with removal for reasons above, but where does this "3.5 percent" figure come from? The raw Census count was about 2.4% Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander combined; the ABS estimates the true figure at about 2.6%, IIRC. --GenericBob (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The estimated figure was 2.5%,[23] 3.5% is obviously a typo. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that assumption the first time it was raised here, but this is at least the third time somebody (looks like the same person) has claimed 3.5%.[24]. If it's a typo, it's a very persistent one. --GenericBob (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Socceroos" as a strong national sporting team.

When Association football has been included in the list of strong sporting teams eg: "Australia has strong international teams in football, cricket, field hockey, netball, rugby league, rugby union, and performs well in cycling, rowing, and swimming." an editor who appears to be a strong cricket fan has been persistently deleting the reference to Association football. The most recent deletion uses the reason that the A League is allegedly of a low standard although how that editor is able to form such an opinion is moot. Australia's national team is currently ranked at 16 out of 203 ranked teams (ie. in the top 10%) whereas Australia's test cricket team (currently ranked at 4 out of 9) is not even in the top 33%. Reviewing that editor's contributions one finds he has made these statements in his edit summaries:

• Australia has been usually around 40, until this spike from belting hopeless Asian teams

Comment: disregarding any possible racism in this statement, even a FIFA rank of 40 would mean that Australia would be in the top 20% of ranked national teams

• 200 play but not at a proper standard, same as 50+ play a lot of other sports but are represented by weekend players

Comment: meaningless

• Other sports have been top 5 all the time, and sometimes #1 for 10 years in a row

Comment: some of the other sports that this editor feel worthy of a listing include some that are played at a first class level by as many as five countries (ie. Rugby League) some sports have "national teams" which do not even represent nations.

Can anyone give me a coherent reason why Association football should not be included. Silent Billy (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, Australia's test team had been #1 for the entire six years that the rankings existed. For the first time ever, they lost that ranking a mere ten days ago. If your case rests on the argument that Australia is better at soccer than it is at cricket, then you don't have a case. Otherwise, you might. Hesperian 03:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, the problem here is that the claim is subjective and unsourced. I've just spent half an hour searching for a source that can tell me which team sports Australia is currently performing "strongly" in, and I don't believe such a source exists. One option would be to rephrase to "According to current rankings, Australia ranks in the top 10% of the world in the following sports..." but this could result in the removal of sports that few countries compete in, such as rugby league and cricket. Another option would be to replace it with "top 10 nations", but this criterion would make Ireland a good ODI player. Another option is "Australia regularly wins matches at the highest level of international competition in the following sports...." Cricket would certainly belong there, as a participant in the ICC Test Championship and current holder of the ODI One Day World Cup. Soccer probably wouldn't, as Australia has only won one World Cup match ever. Yet another option would be to provide some sort of timeframe for the claim. If we are talking about performance over the past decade, then cricket belongs and soccer probably doesn't. If we are talking about performance over the last years or so, then soccer may well have a stronger claim to inclusion than cricket does. I think the solution is to find a source or purge the lot. Hesperian 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's Association football that we are talking about. The use of the word "soccer" reveals a POV as does your careful selection of the criterion for a top ranked national teams. Australia has now qualified for three FIFA World Cups which is a good performance and regularly wins matches against European and well ranked Asian sides. As for your suggestion that it is a subjective statement - that's true but this place is full of that - in many of the articles on religion for starters. An in any event the statement is patently true - Australia is strong in may sports. I don't know how you handle that. Silent Billy (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to guess my POV; I'm happy to share it. I have two POVs relevant to this discussion. One: AFL, soccer and rugby are all great footy codes; but league is rubbish. Two: Every Wikipedian who ever thought "soccer" versus "association football" was an argument worth having, ended up being a time-wasting trouble-making troll. Hesperian 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "soccer" reveals nothing of the sort. The common name for the game has always been soccer in Australia, and is still the common name according to Association football. That's why the national team is called the "Socceroos", not the "Associationfootballoos". Perhaps you should try to assume good faith a bit more. It will result in your arguments being better received. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

agree here with Aussie legend. To suggest that peoples' arguements are less valid because of bias (and dubiously asserted bias) is not impressive. Worse is you implying racism. Stop spoiling the well and stick to the topic. Otherwise those editors you are (presumably) trying to influence are just going to get the shits - which only undermines your own argument. --Merbabu (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend and Merbabu. Hesperian's point that all these claims need to be cited is also a good one. The current statement that soccer is popular seems more justified than claims that the Australian team has a great track record internationally. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Compared with other sports, soccer is most definitely not one of Australia's strongest on an international level (not yet at least) and it shouldn't currently be listed as a top performing sport. Talk:Australia/Archive 15#Socceroos is a good summary. Some wording along the lines of Hesperian's suggestion sounds like a good idea though. Spellcast (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparing sports is apples to oranges. The question is does Australia peform well in international competition in association football. The answer is - yes - Australia performs strongly in international football, and has done so now for 4 years consecutively. The massive improvement in FIFA and Elo rankings indicate such, but those aside, the team's results have been consistent against higher ranked opponents.MrSPIAP0 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Silent Billy - please consult WP:SOCK. It's damn obvious when people create new accounts to look like they'req bolstering the numbers supporting their point of view. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we go by your reasoning for "global sports", Australia would also have to be considered a track and field "power" on the basis of medal tally, as well rowing, canoeing, even basketball. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the national rowing team overall should be considered "strong" also. MrSPIAP0 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Silent Billy, from your comments, you might be thinking that I am an Anglo-Saxon anti-Asian who thinks of real football as "wogball" for "immigrant sissies" etc. My parents are Asian immigrants. I think AFL is a joke and soccer is real skill, ask Aaroncrick (talk · contribs). Still, Australia is not a football power. Only WC finals win is against Japan. In 2007 Asian Cup, lost to Iraq. Australia made it to the quarters. Even Vietnam made it to the quarters. Only wins in WC/Asian qualifiers and finals were against Asian teams, the likes of UAE, Qatar, etc. You say that only 9 countries play cricket in comparison to 200 in football and that Australia is not in the top 33% in cricket but in the top 8% in football is a joke. In football, every registered country is counted, including backyard standard teams like American Samoa (lost 31-0 to Australian players who were part-timers in the Australian league), Bhutan etc. In cricket there are about 80 registered countries but only 9 were allowed to play in the elite league "Test cricket". While Bangladesh, the worst Test country is bad, at least their best player Shakib Al Hasan would get selected in the top 3 countries, South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. Some Australians would get into the top three teams. None of the Australian footballers would get into a Spanish or Brazilian 20-25 man squad, let alone the playing 11. The cricket countries from 10-15 who are on the edge of Test standard, are more competitive than the token American Samoan teams, who would easily get bashed about 80=0 by Spain, Brazil etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We've only had a professional A League structure for a few years. We've had domestic cricket played in Australia since the 19th century. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a one-eyed football supporter, for the little that it's worth, and I agree fully with Hesperian and YellowMonkey. We aren't a "strong national football nation"; not only are the FIFA rankings a bit of a sham (as pointed out by YellowMonkey himself), and not only is there no solid bank of references to consider our relative football ability and historical strength to be on par with that of cricket, netball etc., but the massive skill and historical disparity between Australia and the likes of Spain, Brazil, England, etc., and the relatively poor standard of the A-League and its lack of history, means that football should not be added alongside cricket etc. in the main article. Daniel (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong is a subjective word. Objectively our last 4 years results (W26/D12/L11) puts us firmly within the top 20 globally. National teams like Brasil, Argentina, Spain, England & Holland I would say are "very strong". Teams like Paraguay, Greece, Czech Republic are "strong", and these are our neighbours in both FIFA & Elo rankings. Does another nation see us as stong? Ask fans of Japan, England (very stong), Netherlands (very strong), Nigeria (strong), Uruguay (strong), Ghana & Greece (strong) who have all been beaten by the Australian national team in recent years - they may see the Australian team as strong. Prior to the 2006 World Cup draw, England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson noted that he did not want to draw Australia, amongst others: ”But there is a wider aspect to Australia. There is a sporting rivalry between the two countries. What I saw during the summer when England won the cricket was amazing. If I had known all about the rivalry, I would never have played that friendly against them. It was far from a friendly game. They wanted to beat us, and they did.″. England have been FIFA & Elo ranked within the top 10 consistently for many years. If England is a very stong team, we have beaten them away, and are ranked merely 7 places below - are we not objectively a strong team? Objectively you could say the same of The Netherlands who we also defeated away some months back. Netherlands are ranked 3rd by FIFA and would also fit the description "very strong".MrSPIAP0 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSPIAP0 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument. How can we define any national team as strong? I suggest however that we drop the defining line all together and just state all national teams' international ranking & acomplishments (so for an Olympic sport medals?). That would be a great way to be truely objective. Though this would require Sport to be promoted out of the Culture heading --UltimateG (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Those who think Australia is not now strong in soccer are either living in the past or are confusing a nation being strong and a nation dominating the world stage. Yes, Australia has until recently been better at cricket and rugby than soccer. But just as the fortunes of the national cricket and rugby teams are now fading, the national Australian football team has been rising solidly for the past six years. As a nation we might be challenging for number one status in the world, but in a 200-strong competition, as a nation, having beaten the likes of top ten countries such as Holland and England in recent years with admirable performances against Italy, Argentina and Brazil, to be the second country on the planet to qualify for our second World Cup in a row with three games in hand, conceding just one goal and unbeaten all the way through the final qualifying stage, to be ranked 14th in the world, to call that anything but strong is simply petty and anachronistic.

How many Aboriginal languages are not endangered?

This article says that 20 Aboriginal languages are not endangered. However, I recently read an article that seemed extremely scholarly in the Australian Higher Education that stated that the number of Aboriginal languages "in a healthy condition, that is, they are spoken by all age groups" is 15 rather than 20. Here are the article details:

Zuckermann, Ghilad, "Aboriginal languages deserve revival", The Australian Higher Education, August 26, 2009.

Please revise.

Aborig (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)