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)

Those atlases are refering to the REGION of Oceania / Australasia, not the CONTINENT.

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)

It's not okay, because Oceania is a region, not a continent.

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)

Ummm ... no ... Oceania is not a continent. It is a region.

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 continent (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 continent 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)

A continent does not have to be all above sea level. The continental landmass on which the island of Australia is located also includes the islands of Tasmania, of New Guinea, and the islands in the Torres Strait, etc. Wikipedia article Australia (Continent) goes a long way to explaining this. The main islands of New Zealand are on a separate microcontinental land mass not connected to Australia. Similarly the island nations of Oceania are located on the tops of seamounts which are completely unconnected with the Australia-New Guinea continental landmass or any other continental landmass. Oceania is a most inappropriate name for that continent which includes the island of Australia. Australia seems to be the usual term in the English-speaking world. However the English-speaking scientific community seems to be in favour of the name Australia-New Guinea for the continent. Gubernatoria (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a matter of perspective. I grappled with this too before making the change earlier, moreso given other content in the article. To clarify: as the Oceania article points out, and as sourced in this and that article, the term is often used in English to refer to one of the continents. Oceania -- which usu. includes Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands -- is more inclusive and little different from, say, Europe or North America, which include islands approximate to the continental mainland (e.g., Iceland and Greenland respectively): in this instance, it is merely a much broader region. Your assertion that 'Australia-New Guinea' is the preferred term in the scientific community (though I don't disagree it is used) is unqualified; it so obviously gives prominence to New Guinea but excludes New Zealand (not insignificant islands which are also approximate to Australia). There is no debate about using just plain ol' Australia (which is also reflected/linked elsewhere in the article), and so I don't disagree with that change and rendition as such. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know the term 'continent' is somewhat fluid in definition, but anyway ... firstly there are 3 Australia's ... the big mainland island, sometimes refered to as a continent; the nation (Commonwealth of), which is a political (human created) entity (& includes Tasmania and smaller islands), and which seems to also call itself the island-continent (which just has to be wrong!); and the 'actual' continent, based on the continental shelf. This latter includes Tasmania and New Guinea, but not New Zealand (hence, to answer the above, why the alternate term is Australia-New Guinea, not Australia-New Guinea-New Zealand). Isn't it great that in general usage we have three differing continents of Australia ?!

Wider than this, 'continent' in the geological (continental shelf) sense falls apart, but is still used, although 'region' might be better, as we are back to human created 'political' grouping. Australasia seems to be Australia (continent) plus New Zealand, and islands local to these. Oceania is Australasia plus the Pacific islands. If you're going to split the world into 7 (or 6, etc) areas and include every nation on it within one of these areas, Oceania would be the correct term, even if 'continent' isn't. Clear as mud, hey ?! :)

It's true that if you are going to split the world into 7 regions, the Oceania would be a good way to lump the Pacific islands in with Australia. However, there is a difference between "regions" and "continents". In terms of the 7 continents model, certain islands must be excluded. This include the likes of Fiji, Samoa and New Zealand.

Can I suggest that when talking about Australia in these contexts (land masses, not country of), the big island be prefixed mainland Australia, & the Australian 'continent' refer to the continental shelf area. Any chance this being adopted across Wikipedia ? (Ha ha ha) The Yeti (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT Australia. Australia is a country not a continent. The continent is Australasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is just a cultural difference. In the English speaking countries (and most notably in the Commonwealth). Australia IS considered as a continent without any discussion. On the contrary, in lots of other countries, I think most of mainland Europe, the continent IS Oceania without any discussion. Hence the surprise from the different contributors in front of one or the other solution. So the only solution for this article is not to pick one solution or the other, but it is to state clearly that the definition is not the same depending on the country. An interesting question is: what is the exact list of countries using "Oceania" (I think it is quite large)? Gpeilon (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It may just be a cultural difference, but I have reverted this recent edit. Obviously it was made without even consulting the linked-to references in that sentence (to Britannica and National Geographic) which very clearly and unambiguously indicate 'Australia'. As well, the edit was wholly unsourced: can you provide a reliable source that indicates that Anglo-Saxons reckon the landmass as Australia, etc.? That is not to say that the viewpoint is invalid: far from it, my Collins Atlas and the Atlas of Canada clearly refer to the continent as Oceania, which is particularly germane if one includes islands that are proximate to a main landmass. However, this viewpoint is already equitably dealt with in the article: by listing the two in tandem in the lead, equal weight is unjustifiably given to one variant. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Europeans don't refer to Oceania as being a continent. They refer to it as a region.

Ha ha, in the end, nobody gets anywhere. One of the countries in this debated continent (with the biggest land mass) is named Australia. The continent (which includes those islands around it), is called Oceania by the vast majority of people (sometimes Australasia). Look up Oceana on wikipedia and lets try to keep this encyclopedia consistent. Using 'Australia' is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.12.57 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to add to the mix: Oceania =/= Australasia! Australasia is just Australia and New Zealand. But does not include Papua New Guinea amd many other islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggydude (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Break

This point is sorted. The National Geographic reference which was in the intro clearly refers to Oceania. It should be said that in Commonwealth countries, Australia is considered is considered as a continent and that it is often ignored that most of the World refer to Oceania instead as a continent.Gpeilon (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way this article needs sorting sometimes it says Oceania, like in the National Geographic and sometimes Australia. And the map icon is of Oceania.Gpeilon (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted this change, owing to lack of consensus and source. The text of the Natl Geographic reference (which is in the footnote, and was changed)[1] clearly indicates Australia; the Britannica reference does so too. Please note that I am very cognizant of the usage of Oceania to sometimes describe that region as a continent (observe that article), but the usual moniker for that landmass in English is Australia. This ambiguity, nonetheless, is reflected (perhaps rightfully) in the article content. Otherwise, you have provided no sources (e.g., re usage in Commonwealth countries) to back your position, neither 4 months ago when you last commented on this or recently. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the position held by Bosonic dressing, and his recent reversion. I am an Australian and I can confirm that everyone in Australia believes they live on a continent called Australia (same name as the nation) and no-one in Australia considers the name of their continent to be Oceania. If some articles in Wikipedia suggest otherwise, those articles should be amended. Australasia is a term commonly used, and is generally understood to include Australia, south-east Asia and nearby island states such as New Zealand, Papua New Guinea. Australasia is not as clearly defined as Australia. Dolphin51 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "in England" (and beyond Commonwealth) and "in English". And I am fully aware of the fact that Australians are unaware of the fact that other people use Oceania. That does not make other region of the world use Australia... I fail to understand how my initial suggestion of an introduction presenting both names was deamed failing equitably by Bosonic who argued that "equal weight is unjustifiably given to one variant". The present introduction is on the contrary in a clear breach of equitability. Cleary several contributors have said that in their country Oceania is the name of the continent. The present article fails equitably as it presents Australia as the main option in the world. A simple look at other Wikipedia editions shows it is not. Without a specific order: Spanish (Oceania), French (Oceania), German (Australia/Oceania), Italian (Oceania), Portuguese (Oceania), Danish (Oceania). So the inclusion of Oceania in the introduction is the normal thing to do. Your request Bosonic to find a reference is all the more peculiar that you have one and that you could include it. It even comes from a Commonwealth countries ("my Collins Atlas and the Atlas of Canada clearly refer to the continent as Oceania"). So I fail to understand how the inclusion in the introduction of this term which is used in Europe and South America at least and is mentionned in a Canadian Atlas should not be included in the introduction for equitably. I suggest to mention in a neutral way in the introduction that the definition of this continent (which is as all the others a convention) is not the same in all the countries of the world.

I don't see why continental Europeans looking at this page should learn while reading this intro that they have been wrong all along about their definition of continents. Failing to present the other option is imposing one cultural definition. This is Wikipedia in English but it is not an English Wikipedia imposing a British vision to the world. As much as I understand that Australian find offensive to discover that other people do not consider their country as a continent, it is offensive for the culture of continental Europeans not to have their definition of a continent included as one of the main option in the intro of this article. Please think a bit about it and you will understand what I mean.Gpeilon (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the references Bosonic gave from Collins Atlas and the Atlas of Canada, I easily found atlas on the internet using Oceania as well: the American WorldAtlas uses the term Australia/Oceania, while the American Mapquest uses Oceania. The French Encyclopedia Quid (which is also printed) uses "Oceania". The German online Encyclopedia online Welt-Atlas uses Australia/Oceania. All this evidence shows that the choice not to have the term Oceania in the intro is in breach of equitably.Gpeilon (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a balance intro which present the two terms and clearly indicates that the definition just varies accross countries in the World. This change is in agreement with the point of view of most of the contributors above, and I think I have given quite a bit of evidence about the fact that Oceania is well considered as one of the continent by a large part of the World. If Bosonic you still feel that we need a paper reference to add to the intro, I'd really appreciate if you could give your references from the Canadian Atlas or the Collins Atlas. Gpeilon (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oceania is also the option used on the Chinese Wikipedia suggesting that it is what Chinese use this definition instead of Australia. This certainly makes Oceania one of the the variant the most used in the World... As I said the previous intro, listing Australia as the natural option and discussion Oceania only marginally was in breach of equitably.Gpeilon (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes, yet again. As I previously noted in November, you have not provided sources to support the viewpoint of 'Anglo-Saxons' regarding the name of that continent. Nor have you garnered a consensus supporting your edits. It is acknowledged in this article, the talk page, and in related articles -- not to mention personally -- that the continent may be referred to as Oceania ... but, it arguably is already dealt with equitably. Case in point: we do not iterate in the lead that Eurasia is considered by some the name of a continent (particularly in the 'Soviet' states) comprising Asia and Europe, as the article expands on this. (This is also noted in both the National Geographic and Britannica references.) Or that 'America' is considered by some (esp. in Latin America) as one continent. In English, 7 continents are usually and basically considered -- as sourced -- and those are listed. Furthermore, even doing some basic Google counts reveals 9.8M instances of 'Australia' and 'continent', more than 4 times as many as with 'Oceania' -- so, to place it in the lead is giving it undue weight when other monikers (like Eurasia or America) may be more deserving. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bosonic you told us that you have paper reference on the subject from the Canadian Atlas and the Collins Atlas. I have also given extensive evidence on the use of Oceania in the World. Its use is clearly more widespread than Eurasia, but if you wanted to add a mention of Eurasia in the intro, I actually think it would be a good think. Continents' definitions are cultural, what the present intro is doing is giving a one sided definition which comes from a specific cultural view point. This is not equitable.

I have not suggested in the last change to replace Australia, but to add the mention of Oceania besides. I think you have to explain why this is not equitable. It is the Your Google count is interesting but certainly does not count for anything relative to the evidence I put forward (you did not look for Oceania and continent in French, German, Spanish, Chinese, etc.). As you have been the only one to be against a balanced presentation in the intro, I will ask for a third opinion on this matter. I think that in the light of the evidence you have in your own atlas and of the evidence I have put forward, your strict refusal to mention Oceania in the intro is violating equitably. If the problem for you is Anglo-saxon, then you could have change this specific point instead of reverting everything. I suggest a new compromise, please consider it with the evidence I have put forward. It is clear that for a large part of the World, Oceania is the continent they refer to. I have shown it for many countries in mainland Europe and China, and I just found references from Brasil and Argentina. I have given references outside Wikipedia including a French Encyclopedia, a German Atlas and US Atlas. I just found a reference from a well respected Spanish newspaper, El Pais. Once again you said yourself that you found it in respectable Atlas from Canada, so I fail to understand why you tell me that there is no reference.

Ha, debate this all you want. The fact remains Wikipedia remains a laughable (well beyond unreliable) source of information to any educated person. It's honestly not worth debating, just use a credible source and ignore wikipedia and anyone citing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.79.227 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposition:

Australia or Oceania (the definition of the area of this last continent varying across countries).

In addition to the present reference, I suggest to add several of the reference I have found. Your own reference are naturally welcome.Gpeilon (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposition, as Australia is a continent, but Oceania is not. It is a region, which is different to a continent.

I should add that reading the whole discussion above shows that numerous contributors have been surprised by the use of "Australia" given that it is not the convention in their countries. Overall, the evidence I have put forward and the contribution of the other contributors show that Oceania is the option in continental Europe, South America and China. It is also regularly mentioned in North America, Canada and the US (as the Atlas references show). It is on this basis that the current intro violates equitably. The previous proposition aims to have a neutral statement about this reality of the different continent definitions in the World. If you disagree with this proposition Bosonic, please let me know where I failed to credibly show that this definition is widely used in the World.Gpeilon (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your proposition(s) is insufficient. It is contingent on YOU to garner a consensus to change the current article, and that does not include passing editorial commentary, not on me to defend it. You have not done so, nor have you provided references to support the specific changes you have proposed (e.g., regarding Anglo-Saxon reckonings, etc.). What's more, you have glazed over other comments above regarding the commonality of other terms that may be more prevalent than Oceania (e.g., Eurasia, America). In essence, major references provided -- which were pointed out to you in November and one of which, in your recent misquotation, you used to justify your changes -- have clearly noted the 7 usual continents as named in English (and, different wikis cannot be used to dissuade), and alternate names/reckonings are equitably dealt with further down. To do otherwise as you propose, as would be the addition of other variants noted above, would place undue weight on relatively minor terms/concepts. It would also unfocus the lead and render it less useful, like what is what? My total reversion of your nonconsensual edits is based on the above, and I see little reason to change. If you want to change the lead as proposed, provide specific references that explicitly support said changes. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand it is your opinion Bosonic. I am surprised you dismiss all the evidence I have put forward and still refer to the "anglo-saxon" to dismiss my last change while I have dropped this reference in the last edit I suggest purposely, to answer your concerns. I will ask for a third party opinion because I am a bit at a lost with your argument. You ask me for references whilst you say it is said in your own Atlas.Gpeilon (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I do not dismiss the evidence as such, but it must be put into perspective and balanced with other quite substantial evidence, per NPOV policy. Two major references in the lead very clearly support the current content, i.e., not noting Oceania. In actuality, you have provided little hard supporting evidence, specifically regarding your specific edits (e.g., Anglo-Saxon reckonings). Dropping that doesn't end my concerns about your desired placing of undue weight on relatively uncommon terms, particularly to the potential exclusion of others, or perhaps trying to prove a point. Find a reference that says, "the 7 continents are x,y,and Australia or Oceania" and you may get more support. Until then, little more can be advanced on this front. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Continent and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: It appears to me that this dispute is only over the question of whether Oceania should be mentioned in the lede of the article. I believe the case has been fully made that Oceania is often used in place of Australia. My opinion is that Oceania ought to appear in the lede here to avoid confusion. In an article about automobiles which lists the parts of an auto in the lede, for example, I would for the same reason support the inclusion of "hood or bonnet" and "trunk or boot." What doesn't belong in the lede, however, is any explanation of why both terms are there, especially if it is going to take more than one or two words. That's already explained adequately in the body of the article and shouldn't take up space in the lede. The inclusion of the term in the lede, with a footnote tag or two sourcing it, does not in my opinion violate WP:UNDUE but taking up space to explain it could.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplement to Third Opinion: I'm adding this before anyone else responds (or if there's an edit conflict before I can get this in, without reading the other response first). I do recognize that including Oceania suggests that Eurasia and Australasia ought to also be included, but I don't think so. I think that Oceania or Australasia needs to be included to not only recognize the variation in terms, but to also help avoid the impression that the island of Australia is, by itself alone, a continent. If it is felt that the inclusion of Oceania compels the inclusion of those two terms, then I'd favor a construction which gives "Eurasia (or Europe and Asia) ... Austrailia/Oceania/Australasia," but I really think that just including Oceania is enough. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Typo corrected. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the opinion, which is unconvincing. I find curious your contention to include Oceania, yet not Eurasia or America ... terms which are rather more prevalent. (Two of the sources in the lead at least mention the former.) So, the inclusion of one term is tied to inclusion of others. Requests for added sources to support equitable inclusion of Oceania in the lead, based on edits made to date, have not been forthcoming, particularly in light of sources that may indicate otherwise. Yet, adding all of the terms would rather muddy the lead -- after all, the smallest continental landmass is Australia (which itself can comprise the continent without nearby islands) not necessarily Oceania (which sometimes excludes Australia). So, the inclusion of this term may instead promote confusion, something which the the rest of the article (in its encyclopedic treatment of topic matter) expands on. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Transporter's opinion is based partly on a misconception, because he/she says we should "avoid the impression that the island of Australia is, by itself alone, a continent". That is exactly how it is usually considered where I live (with Tasmania and sometimes New Guinea included, if people think of them). So it's difficult for me to fully accept an opinion that discounts this possibility. That said, I am not opposed to mentioning variations in usage (America vs N. and S. America, Australia vs Oceania, perhaps Eurasia) in the lead, which I think is currently far too short for an article of this size. -- Avenue (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps: glance at the Australia article/history for issues regarding it being the 'island continent' and the weight of that assessment. Anyhow, I don't think anything is being discounted; in fact, this is reflected in the very language of the lead: "[Continents] are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with seven regions commonly regarded as continents..." And, my sources notwithstanding, I have yet to see another major reputable one that supports looser, muddier (IMO) wording noting Oceania or other entities. (Curiously, the Oxford dictionary I have refers to "North and South America".) And if they do, I wonder if a distinction is being made between continents and regions (for socioeconomic groupings and such). This is part of the problem. Nonetheless, I think the lead is an appropriately concise summary, with details below and aside. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Transporter's opinion, which may have discounted a fairly mainstream view of Australia as an island continent. Sorry if I was unclear. I agree that our article doesn't discount this. Regarding sources, Lewis and Wigen discuss the history of the term Oceania briefly in their 1997 book The Myth of Continents, going back to Conrad Malte-Brun's use of it in 1827. I think it's interesting that it originally included Indonesia and the Philippines (see e.g. this 1842 map), and often did until after the second World War. They refer to one author (Bartholomew) explicitly defining Oceania as a continent in 1873. But you're probably looking for a recent source; I didn't find anything very authoritative in a quick search, but will look again later. -- Avenue (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Interesting -- similarly, per our article (with source), the definition of Oceania can include all islands in the Pacific, including Japan and the Aleutians. The ambiguous nature of the term for this region, to me, is added reason why we needn't note this in the lead about continents. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with this notion of pretending that Oceania is a continent, when it is, in fact, a region.

Actually, Australia is a continent but Oceania and Australiasia are not continents. They are "regions". Ninety per cent of the debate on this page stems from this basic mistake regarding definitions. In any case, you still need to amend the map so that New Zealand and the Pacific Islands are a neutral colour (those countries are not part of the continental model). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This. Australia was always taught to be the only country that is also a continent. This means PNG, NZ, and all the islands of the Oceanic/Australasian REGION are not to be included, when the continent of Australia was always taught to be and only be the country, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.108.43.77 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nonsense to suggest that the National Geographic reference can stand, because there are other, more reliable and earlier sources conflicting with that. The definition you discussed with the Latin derivation labels a continent as a large portion of land; groups of islands do not fit that definition. It is incorrect to say that Pacific Islands etc must be part of a continent - they are scattered islands, so are obviously not part of a "large land mass". Islands close to the mainland have traditionally been considered to be close enough that they still count as part of that nearby continent. Pacific Islands do not fit that pattern. 'Oceania' might be a useful name for you (even though NZ is the only other country in that region that has any sort of similarity with Australia), but it just isn't a 'continent'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As a professor in geography, allow me to state that I find this debate most amusing. It appears to stem wholly from a semantic mistake - you are all (or at least, most of you) assuming that the terms Oceania and Australasia are used to refer to a continent. They are not - Oceania and Australasia are REGIONS. A REGION is not synonymous with a CONTINENT. Australia is a continent. It includes the Australian mainland, Papua New Guinea/Iryan Jaya and surrounding islands. It does NOT include New Zealand and the majority of the Pacific islands (New Zealand and most of the Pacific islands are not part of the seven continents model and the poster way up the top of this page who says they should be a neutral gray on the graphic is correct). New Zealand and the Pacific islands ARE part of Australasia/Oceania, but Australasia/Oceania is NOT a continent, but rather a region. You certainly must not say anything in the article that suggests that Australasia/Oceania are continents. I hope this helps clarify things for you all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.100 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read all of this long discussion. The main divergence is on the definition of a continent as a geological region or as a historical-cultural region. If you want to use the geological region, then Australia is a continent, but there are not 5-7 continents but 14 major continental crusts and 40 minors (see for example: Zealandia (continent), see also the French Plaque tectonique article as a ref). I am sure nobody wants to cite them all here because everybody associates the concept of a continent with a region, so that all countries in the world can at least be put into one continent-region (like here: List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent). For those reasons, I will change Australia to Oceania/Australia (I let Australia only by respect for the controversy) as the third opinion advised us to do. Adrien16 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As you are aware, I reverted the changes you made. Contrary to the inference in your comments on my talk page, it is not that "Australian are taught that Oceania does not exist, that Australia is their continent and that the Pacific Islands do not belong to any continent", nor are Australians the only ones who consider Australia a continent. As far as I know, Merriam-Webster, the OED American English and World/British English editions, Random House Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, or American Heritage Science Dictionary are not published in Canberra, but rather represent a broad spectrum of contemporary English-language usage. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at summary: I, too, have struggled all the way through this thread, and wanted to try to draw together some observations as a disinterested observer. Note I don't intend to make any changes, just suggest a position for consensus to perhaps coalesce around:

• There is, manifestly, no consensus here, nor can any be expected to form around any of the existing positions any time soon. Each position seems to have backing from significant different clusters of users.
• Much of the above, from all positions, resorts mid-discussion to unreferenced statements of opinion, and arguments from inference. These are not good WP policy, and have made the actual referenced points of dispute super hard to follow. (No criticism implied; this will tend to happen with monster discussions like this)
• The crux of the dispute is whether the "continent" (common usage) centered on Australia should be known as Australia, Australasia, or Oceania.
• No-one is disputing that all three terms are valid for this area, I don't think. It's the narrower issue of whether these describe a continent, or just a region.
• Notable references can be found to support all three terms as describing the continent. I think I also see references specifically excluding various of these, which is really not helping consensus. This appears to be in part correlated with the nationality of the author of each source, but perhaps not consistently. There is no overwhelming weight of sources behind any given position.

So, to me, this is a classic case for outlining the dispute in the article, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABLE. FWIW, I (British) was taught at school that the continent was Australasia, but am happy to acknowledge that there are solid and defensible positions behind each position. I actually thought the original phrasing waaay back at the top of this section...

"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"

...was pretty fair (though perhaps with too much emphasis on Australia over the other options, and it implicitly implies Australia is favored everywhere other than the named places (&refs...?)). I like the fact this is nice and specific though, and at least partially referenced. If consensus is going to be reached, it will be by notable references, not by inference or opinion. Let the onus be on those who want to push one position over another to find some (new!) references. Because, frankly, the above is a pretty bad deadlock. DanHobley (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New references: use of Oceania in English-language world

In discussing with many native speakers, mostly British or American, but even Australian people, all educated in Oxford University, I realized Oceania is definitively a common way to refer to that continent in the modern world.

Of course, in Wikipedia, referencing is the way of demonstrating, so here are some English-language references for Oceania as a continent.

I think it is now fair to mention both Australia and Oceania in the introduction. What do you think? Adrien16 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

References

---

Well, still no opposition to that?Adrien16 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the pages for which links are provided do not specifically refer to Oceania as a continent, which makes your interpretation of the offline-only sources open to question. However, the lead as it now stands is a bit short and doesn't fully summarize the various viewpoints discussed in the main text, which it should do. Some sort of explanation/disclaimer that the seven areas mentioned are the primary view in the English-speaking world, but that other significant views exist – specifically mentioning Eurasia, a single America, and an extended Australia/Australasia/Oceania – could be added, but once that is established other mentions throughout the article should continue to refer to the names as they have been shown until now. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, many of the references are not available online, but on this web page ([2]), you can find scanned pictures of some of those atlas, so you can check that they refer to Oceania as a continent like Europe or Asia. I like your compromise because it will make that article more neutral. Adrien16 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'Australia' as a continent. Its Australasia or Oceania. I'm not very wiki savvy and can hardly successfully argue that with the powers-that-be, but 'Australia' as a continent is a gross mistake IMO :) Wiki on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.39.215 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "wiki savvy", and everything to do with where you were educated or what source you look in. Australia as a continent is exactly what is listed in many sources. The problem we keep coming across here is that people are simply taught that "these are the continents" and are not taught WHY the particular list that they are taught has been chosen and are usually not taught that there are any other lists being taught elsewhere in the world. There quite simply ISN'T an unambiguous definition of what a continent is. --Khajidha (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the name Oceania or Australia for the continent changes according to the continent model you are using? I think we should focus on the consideration that each continent model makes. For example we know the 7 continent model has Australia as the name of the continent, other models call it Oceania. But for some reason in the table of the article every model has the continent named Australia and none has it as Oceania. Why is this? 83.39.80.34 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)ggcc

Largest Island

The largest island is not Greenland as claimed in this article. I should not have to define "island" but Im sure such a trivial point will be debated here nonetheless:

"An island pron.: /ˈaɪlənd/ or isle /ˈaɪl/ is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water."

From the Oxford Dictionary:

"a piece of land surrounded by water: the island of Crete"

From the Collins Dictionary:

"a mass of land that is surrounded by water and is smaller than a continent."

I would add to this that generally an island must be a part of one political country. Therefore Antarctica is not an island as it is claimed by many political countries (it's also a Continent).

Therefore the mainland (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) landmass of Australia (7,595,342 sq km ) is the largest island. It is not a continent as every argument about which continent the political country of Australia belongs to includes Tasmania as a minimum (other definitions include New Zealand and Papua New Guinea). It is therefore sub-continental, surrounded by water and belonging to one political country.

--Jimbon132 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that Australia is always considered a continent, and is sometimes described as an island-continent, and sometimes as an island, but not always as an island. Can you say who calls it an island, and who doesn't? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• • : The mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not considered a continent by anyone, if you disagree please provide references. Please see the discussion above. It is an island by definition, as it meets all criteria for that definition. --Jimbon132 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your edit is inconsistent with List of islands by area. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• • : The article you refer to does not give the area of mainland Australia (excluding Tasmania), so my edit cannot be inconsistent with List of islands by area. --Jimbon132 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia should not be used as a source for itself, so comparisons with other articles is not generally a valid approach, nor is using Wikipedia pages (including talk pages) as references. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

By using Wikipedia pages (including talk pages) as references I am including the sources and arguments in those pages, so If the Wikipedia pages (including talk pages) cannot be used as references all the original sources and arguments will need to be quoted again, making this a very inefficient and tiresome forum for debate. --Jimbon132 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To use the original sources is not tiresome and inefficient, on the contrary it is the most concise and efficient method of proceeding. If Wikipedia pages are used as references, then the sources of those articles will have to be checked anyway, so it is simpler just to cite them to start with. Also I was referring to your edit in the article, when you cited this page as a reference; references in articles must refer to original sources, not Wikipedia. I will try and address some of your points:

1) The main thrust of your argument appears to be that an island is any sub-continental piece of land that is surrounded by water and owned by "one political country". The last defining factor which you use is fallacious, and you have provided no source to back it. An island is a physical entity, not a political one. By your definition, the following do not count as islands: Ireland (divided between the UK and Eire), Borneo (Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia), New Guinea (Indonesia and Papua New Guinea) and Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For argument sake, lets say that my last defining factor (That a landmass must be owned by one political country) is not true. Then the only two criteria for a landmass to be considered an island is that a landmass must be sub-continental and surrounded by water. This definition was referenced by several reputable sources in my argument above. So it seems the only point you are debating is that the landmass of mainland Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is continental. If you are correct and the landmass of mainland Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is continental, then the continent of Australia cannot also include Tasmania, it needs to be one or the other. Australia the continent either includes Tasmania or is does not include Tasmania. Otherwise it is a paradox and in human defined arbitrary concepts, there are no paradoxes. So one answer or the other is wrong and the other is right. Obviously the mainland of Australia is not a continent, so it must therefore be an island by definition.

By your logic, If the mainland of Australia cannot be considered an island in the continent it occupies, Greenland cannot be considered an island in the continent it occupies. Therefore your saying that Greenland is not an island.--Jimbon132 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, because the mainland of Australia is the main landmass within the continental circumscription that it occupies. Greenland is not the main landmass within the continent of North America. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You are making your own conclusions and your own assertions there, which is original research (see WP:OR) and has no place on Wikipedia, as you have said. No source you have provided states that an island cannot be the main landmass within a continent. The Oxford dictionary defines a sub-contenent as: "a large distinguishable part of a continent, such as North America or the part of Asia containing India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.". Therefore the landmass of Australia is a sub-continent, not a continent and it is surrounded by water, making it an island by the sources provided. I have also provided several sources which state that the mainland of Australia is considered an island, regardless of the fact that it is the main landmass within Australia, Australasia, Oceania or whatever arbitrary definition you give to the continent it occupies.

The concensus is that there are seven continents , with North and South America being seperate continents, therefore together they cannot be considered an island because they are not seperated by sea. By the sources provided and your elimination of my original thought from the argument (regarding the political criteria for an island), the mainland of Antarctica is also an island, although not as large as the mainland of Australia.--Jimbon132 (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

2) If, as must be the case, the political circumscription is put to one side, then by your logic (Australia is sub-continental because of the existence of Tasmania) the landmass which constitutes North and South America could be an island (if North and South America combined are classed as one continent, as per some definitions), because there are numerous offshore islands helping to make the continent, so the main landmass is "sub-continental". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, if you take away the criteria that an island must belong to one political country, the whole definition of an island becomes compleatly arbitrary and nonsense. I am sure you would agree that North and South America cannot be considered an island, but Madagascar can, therefore the criteria that an island must belong to one political country is implicit in common usage of the world "island". Something so fundamental will not be listed in any reference. But this is not neccesary in order to debate if Greenland is the biggist island so I suggest we concentrate on whether the mainland of Australia is sub-continental as the argument rests on that. --Jimbon132 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "implicit in common usage" regarding the political status of islands; you are making your own assertions and coming to your own conclusions, which has no place in Wikipedia as it counts as original research (see WP:OR). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I am making my own assertions and coming to my own conclusions and this is forbidden on Wikipedia, so as I have said, we will take the political criteria for an island out of the argument. Although I know that many of the references used on Wikipedia also use Wikipedia for a reference.--Jimbon132 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

3) The Philips Atlas of the World (2nd edition) contains numerous lists, including sizes of continents and islands. Under "continents" are listed Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia and Oceania. Under "islands", the list is divided between the relevant continents, and under "Oceania" the largest island is listed as New Guinea, not Australia, and it is listed as the second largest island in the world, after Greenland.

Other sources may make other circumscriptions, but there I have provided one respected source which does not list Australia as an island. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Australia is an island, I am suggesting that the landmass of mainland Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is an island, which is different. This does not have a modern English name and therefore would not have been considered in any atlas. Nevertheless, it is still an island.

Here are several sources which list Australia as an island:

• The name Meganesia (refering to the mainland of Australia and meaning "great island") is widely accepted by Biologists as described in the book "The Torres connection: Zoogeography of New Guinea" by W. Filewood .
• Graphic Maps, Worldatlas.com defines Australia as an island

Excluding the definition of a word, sources are not neccessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not. It's a logic problem and hence logic rather than tradition will lead to the correct answer. Simply because something has traditionaly been called something, does not make it true. --Jimbon132 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To state that "sources are not necessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not" demonstrates a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is based on sources, not "logic" (or illogic, depending on one's view). Of course, sources can disagree to a greater or lesser extent, and disagreement should be reflected within articles, giving due weight to different views, although when assessing how to give weight, consideration has to be given to the relative reliability of the sources concerned. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To the original assertion, the idea that for a piece of land to be considered an island, it must be controlled by one political entity, is ridiculous. It's not in any source, and is quite obviously wrong. The quite large island of Hispaniola is divided between two different countries and is the main landmass for both. An even bigger island, Borneo, quite close to Australia, holds the territory of three countries, including almost all of Brunei. There are other divided islands, and we even have a page on them. They are all considered islands. Similarly, the idea that continents must not include surrounding islands is also mistaken. Just as Tasmania and New Guinea are usually included in the Australian continent, so Greenland and the Arctic archipelago are usually included in North America, Madagascar is usually included in Africa, the British Isles are usually included in Europe, and Sri Lanka is usually included in Asia. All of these continents still have a mainland area. CMD (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No one has said that continents cannot include islands, why are you saying that? I think PaleCloudedWhite is saying (correct me if im wrong) that the main landmass in a continent is itself a continent and therefore not an island, which I disagreed with. --Jimbon132 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll weigh in and say that the sources in this discussion seem to better support calling Australia a 'continent' than an 'island.' I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, but the fact that User:Jimbon132 has stopped sharing sources more reliable than the Philips Atlas of the World and is instead saying that his own logic is more valid than reliable sources indicates that he looked, but wasn't able to find any more reliable sources. I looked at the link he cited as a source for Australia being better classified as an 'island', but I couldn't find it- that page seems to specifically call Australia 'the smallest continent.' Since the sources don't seem to support Jimbon132's idea, there doesn't appear to be anything to discuss here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I have used sources from the Oxford Dictionary, the Collins Dictionary, a prominent work on Vertebrate zoogeography in Australasia as well as a worldwide map maker. If you have any argument as to why these sources are inferior, please share it, otherwise your assertion lacks merit.

2) The reference I provided is a list of islands , under the continent of Oceania, Australia is clearly listed.

3) The reference does not say that Australia the smallest continent, on the Australia page it says that Oceania is the smallest continent. How is this relevant?

4) I said this is a logic problem based on the definition of the word "island", where did I say my logic was more valid than reliable sources? And how can you say that because I said it was a logic problem, that I could not find reliable sources? That seems to be an unreasonable jump.

5) By the way, many of the arguments here are purely your own logic and you have not used sources to justify them.--Jimbon132 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that because you're arguing that just because the continent of Australia often includes the Tasmania, the mainland can not be considered a continent. Whether or not it's an island, the mainland of Australia is definitely the continental landmass of the Australian continent, just as the main body of Antarctica is the continental landmass of Antarctica. CMD (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) This argument is about whether or not the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is a island or not. So are you saying that the mainland of Australia is an island as well as a continent? You say "Whether or not it's an island, the mainland of Australia is definitely the continental landmass of the Australian continent".

2) Unfortunately someone in their infinite wisdom decided to name the continent (which often includes Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea) after a country in that continent, Australia, which is a great cause of confusion in discussions like this. So, just for the arguments sake and clarity, can we refer to the continent which includes Australia as "Oceania" and the political country of Australia as "Australia".--Jimbon132 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oceania is a far more expansive term than Australia, with quite a few more meanings. By your sources, and others, islands are generally considered smaller than continents. Given that the mainland is a continent, by those definitions it's not an island. Of course, other definitions do not make the two mutually exclusive, but the distinction is the usual treatment and we follow that. Given this, Greenland is the largest island. If we take the Australian mainland as an island, there's no reason not to take the other continental landmasses as islands, as the only distinction you've given between them, that of political separation, is as I explained flawed. CMD (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Please read my argument, I conceaded that the political criteria for an island I used did not have any sources as it is not needed to prove whether the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is an island or not. I also suggested we concentrate on whether this landmass is a continent or not as it is fundamental to determine whether it is an island.

2) There is a distinction between continental landmass and a continent, they dont mean the same thing. "Continental" means "forming or belonging to a continent" . For example, continental Europe typically excludes the UK which is a part of the the continent of Europe.

3) You said "Given that the mainland is a continent...", how is this "given"? You have not provided any sources which show this. My sources show that the mainland of Australia is a sub-continent, less than a continent. It is smaller than the continent which the landmass of Australia belongs to as I have said in my argument above.

4) Other than Antarctica (as I have said in my argument above), there are no "continental landmasses" which are compleatly surrounded by water. I did make the distinction that an island must be surrounded by water if you read my argument.--Jimbon132 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your sources show nothing of the kind. Every mainland is smaller than the continent to which they belong, because all continents have islands. All continental landmasses are surrounded by water. How you divide your continents are up to you, but if you read the page, you'll see there's a few options. In the end, all land is surrounded by water. CMD (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Rather than just saying my sources dont show that the mainland of Australia is not a continent, why dont you explain why they don't? Im not going to repeat my argument above unless you have an argument against it.

2) Can you please explain how Europe is surrounded by water? (Or Asia, North America, South America, Africa). Yes all land is surrounded by water if you include all the land, but it is not an island unless it is smaller than a conintent and surrounded by water, as I have said above.

3) You have not provided any sources which justify your statement: "Given that the mainland is a continent..."--Jimbon132 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimbon132, while Australia is described as an island, Australia_(continent) is also well-established as a continent. Oceania is not by any means considered a continent. Zealandia_(continent) is well defined and well separate from Australia_(continent). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe I am proposing that the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not a continent. While I agree that many people consider Australia to be a continent, there is a distinction between the continent of Australia and the mainland of Australia. I was simply trying to simplify this by calling the continent of Australia "Oceania" not start a debate on what "Oceania" means which is off topic. I am sorry if I have used the term incorrectly. So rather than referring to the continent of Australia as "Oceania" we will have to refer to it as the continent of Australia. Rather than refer to the political country of Australia as "Australia" we will have to refer to it as "political country of Australia"

The only question that really needs to be answered is:

Is the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands)a continent or not?

If it is, then it's not an island, if it isn't, then it is an island.

I have presented a referenced argument which shows it is not a continent. Nobody has presented a referenced argument showing that it is a continent.--Jimbon132 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbon123: Nowhere in your sources does it say the mainland is not a continent, I shouldn't need to explain that. Europe isn't surrounded by water, but the landmass it's on is. I advise you again to look at the different continental models presented on this page. Even if we are stuck in the arbitrary mindset of 7 continents, that still leaves Antarctica. Considering your earlier statement "sources are not neccessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not. It's a logic problem", I find it a bit rich that you then ask for sources (although some exist, such as [3]). Anyway, back to your original assertion, that the mainland is the largest island, if the mainland is not a continent as the Australian continent includes outlying islands, than the same idea applies to Antarctica, as the Antarctic continent has outlying islands, and at the end of the spectrum the entire mainland of Afro-Eurasia is the largest island. On the other hand, if (in the seven continent system) we take that each continent has a large area of land surrounded smaller (sub-continental) islands, than the mainland is the large area of land. Either way, the mainland isn't the largest island. CMD (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@CMD

1) I said in my argument above:

The Oxford dictionary defines a sub-continent as: "a large distinguishable part of a continent, such as North America or the part of Asia containing India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh."

So you are saying that the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not a large distinguishable part of the continent of Australia? Why does that not require explanation? I think the truth of it is you have not read my argument before you started arguing against it which suggests you may have a hidden agenda here.

2) You have taken my quote out of context, I said "Excluding the definition of a word, sources are not necessary to determine whether the mainland of Australia is an island or not.". I have since been told by PaleCloudedWhite that WikiPedia is based on sources, not logic. I have agreed to this and provided several sources to back up my argument. You have provided no sources to back up any of your arguments and as PaleCloudedWhite has said, that is not how Wikipedia works.

3) I just said that the mainland of Antarctica is an island, Im not sure why you are repeating this.

4) You say "if (in the seven continent system) we take that each continent has a large area of land surrounded smaller (sub-continental) islands, than the mainland is the large area of land." Yes, that is the definition of mainland. You then go on to conclude: "the mainland isn't the largest island.". How does the fact that each continent in the seven continent system has a mainland mean that the mainland is not an island? Your not providing any reasoning for your conclusion. The only two continent mainlands which are islands are Antarctica and Australia because they are the only two (in the seven continent system) which are completely surrounded by water, the others connect to other continents by land. I explained that in my last post.

5) Yes, if you start defining Afro-Eurasia as a continent, the mainland of that continent would be an island yes. But that is not a common convention. To have a reasonable argument it must be on a consistant foundation. The continent system is arbitrary, the largest island will depend on which system is used. It is consensus that the seven continent system is the most common, so it is on this basis that my argument is made and under that system, the mainland of Australia will be the largest island. If you want to argue about which continent system should be used please do that in the appropriate section of this talk page. If you then form a concensus on which system should be used, the largest island may change since an islands definition is dependent on the continent system used and I would agree to that.--Jimbon132 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, in your 3) you noted the mainland of Antarctica is an island, yet you in 5) repeat your assertion that the mainland of Australia is the largest island. Both are isolated in the 7-continent system (and every other one for that matter), so pick one. I'd also like to know what possible hidden agendas people can have in relation to this topic. Some sort of conspiracy for islandists or something I suppose. CMD (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Pick one what? If your asking me to pick which one is an island I have already said that both the mainland of Antarctica and the mainland of Australia are islands. What is the problem? Why do I need to pick one?

2) No a hidden agenda in these debates is often far less dramatic, usually someone comes on who just wants to argue and complicate the matter rather than find the truth as I am trying to do. But this is off topic.--Jimbon132 (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

3) You have not responded to my argument in point 1 and 4 of my previous post:

"1) I said in my argument above:

The Oxford dictionary defines a sub-continent as: "a large distinguishable part of a continent, such as North America or the part of Asia containing India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh."

So you are saying that the mainland of Australia (not including Tasmania or any secondary islands) is not a large distinguishable part of the continent of Australia? Why does that not require explanation?"

To put this back in context I will quote that you said: "Nowhere in your sources does it say the mainland is not a continent, I shouldn't need to explain that."CMD (talk)

"4) You say "if (in the seven continent system) we take that each continent has a large area of land surrounded smaller (sub-continental) islands, than the mainland is the large area of land." Yes, that is the definition of mainland. You then go on to conclude: "the mainland isn't the largest island.". How does the fact that each continent in the seven continent system has a mainland mean that the mainland is not an island? Your not providing any reasoning for your conclusion. The only two continent mainlands which are islands are Antarctica and Australia because they are the only two (in the seven continent system) which are completely surrounded by water, the others connect to other continents by land. I explained that in my last post."--Jimbon132 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mainlands aren't islands if you consider continents to be large areas of land (as all sources do), and islands and continents to be mutually exclusive. As for your argument that the mainland of Australia is a large distinguishable part of the continent of Australia, that can apply to basically any area of land anywhere in the world. "Sub-continent" is as convention bound as "Continent", and convention sees it almost never in use outside of discussion of the Indian subcontinent. You need to pick one because in your post two above you said "the mainland of Australia will be the largest island", which is not true if you take Antarctica to be an island, which you also claim to do. That inconsistency is the problem. CMD (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Claiming something is just convention is not helpful unless you provide sources showing it is convention. It's not really helpful to say something is convention either as just because something is convention, does not make it correct. It was convention once to say that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth (please, please, please dont argue with me on that ;) ). The fact remains that the mainland of Australia and Antarctica both meet the definition of a sub-continent , so by definition they are both islands.

2) Claiming all sources say something is not helpful unless you provide "all sources".

3) Yes I agree that the mainland of Antarctica is the largest island, not the mainland of Australia.--Jimbon132 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Convention is fairly obvious from just googling "subcontinent", I shouldn't have to show that toy ou. I haven't ever seen any source alluding to defining either Australia or Antarctica as subcontinents, and if any exist, they're quite a WP:fringe view. Now, looking at the dictionaries you've mentioned, [4][5] both define continents as large land masses, both naming Australia and Antarctica as examples. They define "land mass" as [6][7] large bodies of land, with Collins explicitly noting continuous. The land of Tasmania is not continuous with mainland Australia, so per the Collins dictionary you cited, the mainland of Australia, being the large continuous land mass it is, is a continent, and is therefore not an island. On the other hand, Oxford is quite happy to not draw some arbitrary line of whatever makes a continent not an island, allowing any land surrounded by water to be an island, potentially up to Afro-eurasia (which is far larger than Antarctica).

Ideas such as continents, defined as they are by arbitrary human convention rather than any real criteria, are going to be vague and potentially inconsistent. Our wikipedia pages follow the convention of separating continents and islands, like Collins does. Do some consider the continental bodies to be islands? Yes they do, but we either include all landmasses or we draw the line somewhere. As a final point, both definitions provided merely mention "water". By this, we could say Africa is an island separated from Eurasia by the Suez Canal, and North and South America are islands separated by the Panama Canal. Going further, each landmass could be divided further through various rivers and canals (except Antarctica I suppose, that's a fairly solid mass of ice, with most liquid water being underground). Looking at things using basic definitions leads to far more interesting ideas than just some continental mainland being an island, but in the end we have to pick one position to take, and the one we currently use is common outside of wikipedia, and is quite stable here. That's the WP:Consensus, and no user here has seen any convincing reason to change it. CMD (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@CMD:

1) I have said this several times now. Firstly, for the sake of this argument we were using the seven-continent system. Any mention of any other system or Afro-eurasia is irrelevent. This has become filibustering.

2) The sources you provided define coninents as land masses. That is a plural, meaning more than one. The mainland of Tasmania is a land mass (singular, meaning one), the mainland of Australia is a land mass (singular). Together they make up part of the continent of Australia. As you so patronisingly put it: "I shouldn't have to show that to you"

3) As PaleCloudedWhite has pointed out below, you are also putting more than one source together to attempt to come to your own conclusions, which is not how Wikipedia works (see WP:SYNTH), although apparantly this advise only applies to me. Hows that for nuetrality?--Jimbon132 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Jimbon132, the advice applies to all editors - I had not intended to make you feel singled out. There are many guidelines for editing Wikipedia, and sometimes we all need a reminder about them.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Jimbon132, a problem with your approach to defining which is the largest island , is that you are putting more than one source together and drawing a logical conclusion, but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work like that. If you locate a source which defines what a sub-continent and/or island is, then look at the defined areas of suitable candidates and make a choice accordingly, then whereas that might seem to make logical sense, it isn't how sources are used in Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTH). Even outside of Wikipedia this methodology is - in this instance - an incomplete method of analysis, as it doesn't take all previously published sources into account (which may have drawn different conclusions for justifiable reasons). For Wikipedia's purposes, what is required are reliable secondary sources (see WP:IRS, if you have not already done so) which explicitly state that Australia (or Antarctica, or wherever) is either a continent or an island - it is what they state that matters, not whether (or not) their statements appear logical. So far you have cited a source which you state refers to Australia as an island, but unfortunately this is cherry-picking; what really needs to be done (if you really wish to pursue this) is to collate as many reliable sources as possible, and then see overall what the consensus turns out to be. I wish I had more sources (and time) available to hand than I have, for I would present them to supplement the one I have provided so far. Should all the most reliable sources be collated together, I am perfectly open to the possibility that the majority of them will state that Australia is the world's largest island, but I strongly suspect that that will not be the case. Furthermore, it is imperative that you adopt a similarly open approach. You should not seek to find sources which support your own ideas/preferences, but rather seek to neutrally report them, giving due weight as necessary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite I agree with you that I am using sources to show some basic facts and using logic to derive new conclusions based on these facts. Which is a method that has been used for thousands of years to prove the truth, however does not comply with Wikipedia's approach of only citing sources. In this case, Im sure most of them will say that Greenland is the largest island so this argument cannot be won on Wikipedia at this time. But if Wikipedia's approach was around when the consensus was that the world was flat, then that is what Wikipedia would say and the average Joe who could prove that is was not would not get a voice unless he could persuade the "reliable sources" which were largely blinded by convention. So in this way, Wikipedia is not truely "open to anyone" as it represents itself. It's more of a giant collection of sources (it's more than that obviously, but you get the point). I don't believe this approach is in the best interests of Wikipedia or the community it serves, but that is another issue and obviously not consensus. --Jimbon132 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia reflects the established consensus, rather than pioneering new theories. That's the nature of the beast. People who wish to change the consensus do so via the established routes - scientific research and publication, artistic works, protests etc. If Wikipedia led the debates, rather than following them, it would be tossed around from pillar to post as individuals came up with their own new theories, so Wikipedia's approach is perhaps not such a bad thing. :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FRESH VIEWPOINT: The only way to resolve this is going to be through robust sourcing. The underlying conflict way back at the top of this thread was dispute over what constitutes the largest island in the world. The only - and also official WP policy - way to sort this is by citing existing WP:NOTABLE lists of islands. If there are lists in conflict with each other, you need a sentence like "Some sources consider Australia the largest island in the world[A][B][C] (although others consider this to be Greenland [X][Y][Z])". Note that this issue is distinct from trying to write "Australia is an island", which would need to be cited separately, and again you are likely to end up with a "Some sources consider... but others say..." scenario. This is an OK outcome, and the only truly impartial way of handling this. Incidentally, has anyone headed over to island to check out the talk pages? I suspect you may be duplicating a dispute they've already had (and hopefully resolved) over there. Hope this helps, and remember to keep it civil and WP:AGF-y, guys. DanHobley (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with CMD and PaleCloudedWhite. Rarely is there "only one way to resolve" a WP conflict. A knee-jerk inclusion of "some sources say" for every fringe theory is not the only solution whenever someone finds a few sources that conflict.

In this case, the relevant academic community** has long reached a consensus, that Greenland is the largest island, Australia the smallest continent. Predominantly so. Right or wrong. That results in claims that Antarctica or Australia are the world's largest islands as borderline WP:Fringe; i.e., "exceptional claims." Under WP:V,:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include.....apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources (and)..... claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.

Prevailing view and mainstream assumptions are well established in this case. Thus, various exceptional claims, such as "Australia is the largest island", would need "multiple mainstream sources....within the relevant community" and we've not seen that and I doubt that we will. Until we do, the article should remain as is. As CMD summed it up, "in the end we have to pick one position to take (because, as he correctly points out, islands and continents are by geographic definition mutually exclusive categories), and the one we currently use is common outside of wikipedia, and is quite stable here."

BTW, Attaching Oceania or not attaching adjacent islands in the Pacific is not relevant, as worldwide adjacent islands (Great Britain, Madagascar, Sri Lanka) are commonly "attached" to continents.

**(geography, not geology, as this article primarily addresses the most common public usage of "continent", not the plate tectonics use of the word) DLinth (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. My point was more that a *change* would need a number of notable sources in list form. We should keep an open mind if someone wants to try to assemble such a list of lists, but as of now, there's no grounds for change. DanHobley (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when Australia is a continent? And since when North and South America are continents? What about Cental America then? The continent is Oceania, and the continent is America (not the country EEUU) North, Central and South America. Who wrote this article, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.124.96 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Go read the references at Continent. That article is pretty clear. DanHobley (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of "EEUU" gives you away. In English, there is no such country either by name or by abbreviation. In English, there are such continents as North America, South America and Australia. In Spanish, the abbreviation for "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is "EEUU". In Spanish, the (relevant) continents are "America" and "Oceania". Why are you attempting to force an English language website into a Spanish conception of the continents? Especially since this website already mentions these other conceptions. I have no problem with this page mentioning other continental systems, but the primary one (the one mentioned in the lead and the one defaulted to unless specified) must remain the 7 continent system used by most native English speakers. Why is it that the presence of the Spanish (or Russian, or Chinese, or whatever) versions of the continent system causes no problems for most native English speakers, but the use of the English language conventions on an English language website causes you and many others to state that these conceptions are flat-out wrong? --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Greenland is usually not seen as the largest island, textbooks that I've read always identify Australia as the largest island. But technicaly the largest island is afro-eurasia, as by the definition of island it is a body of land surrounded by water.Enkidu6 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, because the sources I am familiar with always identify Greenland as the largest island and Australia as the smallest continent. The exclusion of continental mainlands from consideration as "islands" is usually not directly mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

Well, I merged three official english definitions for "continent", that are fully referenced... Chipmunkdavis and Khajidha both undid my work without further explications. If you want to undo it again, first explain your problem here.

Here are my merged definitions:

A continent is one of the six or seven very large divisions of land on Earth. Each division includes a large contiguous continental landmass — ideally surrounded by water — and the related continental shelf and islands .

Adrien16 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You have it backwards. We restored the long standing consensus after you changed it. You need to provide reasons for your changes. --Khajidha (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

no it's not backwards. Here is my reasons to change: I provided fully referenced definitions. There is no fight about the definition of a continent here, only a fight about Australia/Oceania. I was reversed because my previous version also included a modification of that point. I corrected that but the definitions are neutral dictionary definitions. So it is your turn to provide full references showing the definitions are not correct... Adrien16 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

All of your definitions are already covered in the appropriate sections. It makes no sense for you to state that there are "6 or 7" continents and then go on to list exactly 7. The ambiguity of the one statement contradicts the precision of the other. Aside from that, combining the definitions as you did is synthesis. We are not allowed to make a merged definition from three separate definitions. --Khajidha (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Khajidha said, we already cover all the definitions in the article, all with references, and the lead already notes the 7-continent system as the most common one. The WP:lead is meant to be a summary of the body. If you feel something is in the body but not represented in the lead adequately, note that here. If something is missing in the body add it there so it can be seen in context. CMD (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

---

1) Goal of the introduction (see WP:lead) is to do a concise synthesis of the article, so yes we are allowed and even we have to do a synthesis here. If you want to teach me how wikipedia works, let this be reciprocal and learn that it is rude to undo an editor's work, even more with no comments ( Collaborating with Other Editors - read the "Minimize Your Reverts" section). Wikipedia asks to minimize the use of the undo function to extreme cases, mainly vandalism. It is recommended to edit directly what you do not like in the work of other editors and explain your edits in the talk section.

2) One of the definition was not included, so I put it in the definition section (the "division" definition).

3) The definition in the introduction is problematic because it lets think that a continent is ONLY a landmass when, according to the geological definition, it also includes islands on the continental shelf, and when, according to the division definition (which is the one used to define most of the continent, Australia excluded), it also includes all the distant islands. What do we do about that?

edit 4) I also think the sentence "Plate tectonics is the geological process and study of the movement, collision and division of continents, earlier known as continental drift." to be irrelevant in that section because what would be expected here, is what is a continent according to the geology, therefore talking about the conceptual division between continental crust and oceanic crust, that defines what is geologically considered as a continent or not. However, I agree that is relevant here to mention that the plates actually move.

Adrien16 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Synthesis of our article is entirely different from synthesis of the sources. Your addition, saying a continent is a division of land, doesn't add anything. That's common to all definitions, the question is how they are divided. The bit about countries seems completely tangential, as again under every definition countries can be assigned to a continent or divided between them. CMD (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

no, under the definitions in that article, countries can or cannot be linked to a continent. Most pacific islands for example, are not bounded to any continent according the landmass definition. According to the division definition, you take all land on earth, you divide it into 6 or 7 parts, and those divisions are the continents (their frontiers is a completely different question). It looks that the concept is quiet obvious to catch for some and not all for others...it has to be represented in a way in that article. This definition is widely used (see UN organization for example or the wikipedia page listing countries by continent - all the countries are present).Adrien16 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

What you call the division definition is just the other definitions with all islands included in some way. There's also no reason for there to be 6 or 7. That countries can be included in a continent doesn't make them relevant to the definition of a continent. CMD (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also no requirement that continents contain all the land on earth. The definitions that I am most familiar with only extend from the mainland to islands on the continental shelves, oceanic continentsislands (like all those South Pacific islands included in the region of Oceania) are not counted as part of a continent in a strict sense. They may be included with nearby continents for simplified lists, but are not truly part of them. --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

It depends on the point of view. For many english-speaking people, the added definition is the only strict definition (continent as the mainland would be an old obsolete point of view, like when British used to talk about Europe as the continent, not including UK). When you live on the mainland part of a continent, you can have various definitions of what is a continent and it does not really matter because it does not change the fact that you still live on the same continent. When you live on an island, like an english-speaking islands, say Bahamas or Jamaica, then it starts to really matter to know what is your continent. It particularly matters when you go on wikipedia to discover that other 'continental' people deny your American identity because the island is on the Caribbean continental crust. And that for you to be on the American continent, we will need "extrapolating the concept to its extreme" to include oceanic islands (which is quiet false actually, because as Adrien16 recalled somewhere, many of those islands are not oceanic but on different continental plates, like the major Carribbean plate or the micro-continent Zealandia). The questions of six or seven divisions is quiet irrelevant but it looks like it is a quoted definition. So I agree with Adrien16 that this definition is very important and should be highlighted or put into the introduction. Anu23 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The added definition is in no way strict, as it lies entirely on people's personal interpretations (much like every other definition). No-one is denying anyone else's identity, and the mainland definition has absolutely nothing to do with any particular bit of continental crust, Caribbean or otherwise. In addition, for almost all English speakers, American refers to the United States, so they wouldn't give Bahamians or Jamaicans an "American identity". Lastly, oceanic islands are on continental plates. The entire surface of the earth is made up of continental plates. CMD (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

no, the entire surface of earth is not made up of continental plates: the Caribbean plate, e.g., is mostly an oceanic tectonic plate (see Caribbean Plate and the difference between continental and oceanic crust). The caribbean plate was a bad example but the point is still valid for many 'oceanic islands' that are actually on continental crust - like Zealandia- that could not be linked to other continents (because the mainland definition extends only to islands on the continental shelf). That is why the 'division' definition is still important, because then you just have to divide the world into several large continental mainlands and attach all the islands to the nearest mainland. Anu23 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I have just seen your edit: are you kidding? Why are you so disrespectful? I have given you very good reasons why the division definition should be given a space in that section. You deleted it from the intro, you gave it a few words only on the definition section, crushing the main idea, so that the reference does not even make sense here anymore. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that definition and if you don't, should you not just let the people that do understand it explain the point in that section? Sorry, don't take it personally, but I reverted your edit after just explaining why here.Anu23 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the following sentence "When you live on an island, like an english-speaking islands, say Bahamas or Jamaica, then it starts to really matter to know what is your continent." Why would it matter what continent you are on or even if you are on one at all? There seems to be some strange compulsion to put every country on earth into some neatly labeled box called a continent, but I don't see how reality matches up to that. The real world is messy. Many things don't fit into nice neat categories. Why does that bother you so much? That's the biggest problem with these proposed edits, they seem to be trying to make one overarching all inclusive definition with no ambiguity when there simply isn't such a thing to be had here. --Khajidha (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

@Anu23, when continental plates are discussed, they include plates, such as the Caribbean one, that mostly contain oceanic crust, and others, such as the Eurasian plate, that contain mostly continental crust. They are also never used to look at continents outside the field of geology, and similarly Zealandia is never seen as a continent outside specific geological discussions where other areas such as Madagascar are also continents. The division definition simply evolved out of the other definitions, it was not created on its own. Except for when discussing the plates, the idea of continents has never been separated from the large landmasses of the earth. That's why Merriam-Webster specifically mentions 6 or 7, as these are the numbers of large landmass people have denoted as continents. CMD (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I think the problem is different. The main definitions of continent tells it is large mass of land and then it is discussed if we have to include the island or not. In the way the words are chosen in the definition and extent section, it looks like it is an extreme point of view to have the oceanic islands included. In the facts however, Europe almost always includes all its oceanic islands, same for Asia, Americas or Africa (look up the respective wiki pages) but not for Australia. The definition used for Australia seems to be the narrowest one. I think the definition section have to reflect the common usage (the definition used for Australia would be the exception). Then the main definition should be the broader one, and then, we should mention that narrower definitions exist, and that Australia continent falls within those last definitions. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien16 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead in the definition section is about how the definitions aren't consistent. The point of the initially given definition is to explain how inconsistent its application is. The Extent of Continent subsection, which deals with the issue we discuss, goes narrow--> wide, which I prefer due to that being the historical trend (more or less). It does note Australia at the end as the more extreme example. CMD (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the same problem in the extent section:

"Extrapolating the concept to its extreme, some geographers group the Australasian continental plate with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania. This allows the entire land surface of the Earth to be divided into continents or quasi-continents."

When you read that at the end of the paragraph, it really looks like grouping a large landmass with the distant islands and calling that a continent, is an extreme point of view (understand barely used). As I stated before, it does not reflect the common usage of the concept of continent...I think we should rephrase all of this for neutrality.Adrien16 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It means that it takes the idea to the extreme, not that the idea is rare. How would you rephrase it? CMD (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In the definition section, I would replace

Continents are sometimes extended beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

with

Continents can also be extended well beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

.

In the extent section:

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent may go beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa. Extrapolating the concept to its extreme, some geographers group the Australasian continental plate with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania.

with

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe, Madagascar part of Africa and the Australasian continental plate is grouped with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania.

Adrien16 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No objections to the change in the definition section, but I don't think the extent section should be so definitive. Madagascar is included with Africa almost all the time, as opposed to the Pacific islands, and culturally there's a massive gap between bits of the pacific and Australia. CMD (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood. What about:

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa. When grouping Australia with other islands in the Pacific, the continent is called Oceania.

In that way, it is neutral because it is conditional rather than definitive.Adrien16 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still using a definitive "goes", and removing the note that Oceania is unique in including far more far-flung islands than the other continents. I don't understand what the aim of that text change is. CMD (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the change is to be definitive with this last extended definition given that it is probably the most used definition for all continents except for Australia. Let's keep the goes and make the Australia note less definitive, with a conditional and a potential:

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe or Madagascar part of Africa. When grouping Australia with other islands in the Pacific, the continent can also be called Oceania.

I don't want to remove the note completely because then, the only mention to Oceania is very far in the text, which again, does not reflect its wide usage. Is it ok?Adrien16 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

But is the "wide usage" of Oceania as a name for a continent or is it used as a name of a region? As I mentioned on Talk:Oceania, many of your listed sources there are not unambiguously using Oceania as a continental name. Chipmunkdavis is right, your use of "goes" here is putting more emphasis on the view of Oceania as a continent than the reliable English language sources warrant. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Been lurking, but have to agree with Khajidha's salient points that...

there is a compulsion among some WP editors, some atlas publishers, others to group every speck of land, but.....

when this is done, source after source over decades do not call these groupings "continents"; they are simply groupings or regions... "Oceania" and other non-continental groupings should be are are covered elsewhere in WP, not in an article titled "Continent."

Oceania is so very rarely identified in sources as a "continent" as to be not deserving of a mention in the lede.

Plate tectonics defines continental plates. "Continental plates" does not equal "continents." "Continents" incorporates physical geography, separation by water, proximity of land, and to a lesser degree culture. Definitions of "continents" were around centuries before the science of plate tectonics and understandings of the extent of plates even existed; i.e., pieces of land don't "jump" from one continent from time to time because that piece of land is now understood to be on a different plate (or has recently changed its political affiliation or joined the EU.) Geology and tectonics are not (and in past centuries could not have been) the primary drivers of the definitions of "continents"....i.e., the western Azores are not on the "continent" of North America.

Just my two cents....from years of tracking and publishing geographic "groupings" like this as a professional geographer for three decades: Oceania = region, yes; Oceania = continent...No....That's Australia. DLinth (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

-Khajidha, I answered on the Oceania page, there are completely unambiguous references of Oceania as a continent. The definition section is not about Oceania. The 'goes' here is about the fact that the extended definition of continent is a cultural construct widely used (for all continents except for Oceania) and should be therefore definitive. The specificity of the Australia case is that it changes its name for Oceania when using that definition and it is all that is said here, nothing about the fact that it is the common usage. We could add something after that last note saying that the common usage is to use the narrow definition for Australia and the extended definition for all other continents, no?

-DLinth, as you agreed, the common definition of a continent is the cultural-political extended one. It looks like that definition does not apply to Australia. It is quiet important to mention it. If not, it misleads people either to think that the common definition of a continent is the narrowest, because of the case of Australia (and then Island is not European, neither Jamaica is in America), or to apply the extended definition to Australia and then think the common usage is to call the continent Oceania. Adrien16 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

- Adrien16, disagree.... The common definition of continents is generally consistent in textbooks, atlases, encyclopedias: the mainland and islands that are close to it. Oceania as a "continent", meaning that all Pacific islands are on the same "continent" as Australia (!), is simply WP:Fringe and its exclusion is neither "narrow" nor "misleading."

Iceland, Jamaica (and Madagascar and all the others commonly "associated" with a continent) are universally within 500 to 600 miles of the mainland; Oceania couldn't be more different with New Caledonia, the closest significant component to the mainland, at 800 miles, on up to 3000 miles (!) for French Polynesia-Pitcairn!

"Oceania" as a continent just doesn't pass the WP "local usage" smell test. Please tell me that you're going to walk up to someone in Pitcairn or Papeete or most anywhere else in this category and ask them, "What continent do you live on?" and they're going to say "the same continent as Australia." Unlike Jamaicans who might say "N. America" or "America", Cape Verdians who might say "Africa", you're just not going to get "the continent of Oceania" as an answer. Someone in Guam will associate with Australia as "their" contient....Really? This is fringe stuff.

I also don't subscribe to the compulsion to shoehorn every speck of land onto a "continent." Simply put, St. Helena, Kerguelen, and much of the Pacific generally do not consider themselves (nor should we) to be "on a continent" or "part of a continent."

BTW, no, I actually said above that the cultural-political aspects are and have always been less present in the "continent" construct than other considerations such as physical geography......and besides, a good bit of Oceania is culturally quite different from Australia the country. DLinth (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are fighting when we agree. I'm not talking about Oceania, I am talking about the definition of a continent. Let's break it in two parts. 1) first, is someone opposite to the following modifications, to reflect the common usage of the concept of continent as a cultural construct (so an extended region more than a landmass) like it is very common for Europe, Africa, Americas or Asia:

-In the definition section, replace

Continents are sometimes extended beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

with

Continents can also be extended well beyond the major landmasses, in a way that every bit of land on earth is included in a continent.

.

-And in the extent section, replace

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent may go beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa. Extrapolating the concept to its extreme, some geographers group the Australasian continental plate with other islands in the Pacific into one continent called Oceania.

with

As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent goes beyond the continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of Africa.

2) Then, we have to decide what do we do about Oceania? I don't think it matters the distance of the islands to the mainland. I asked people from Fiji islands, New Caledonia and Tahiti, they all consider themselves on the continent of Oceania and they are chocked by the fact one could consider that either they are on Australia or on no continent at all. So yes, on those islands, they feel in Oceania, even if there is no cultural unity. I would say the cultural unity in Asia or Europe is very low - it is subjective, so irrelevant and does not change that most people, including geographers, use the extended concept of continent for their continent, except for Australia. It sounds to me that 1) it is important to explain that for Australia, a narrow definition of continent is common in English, and that 2) if one wants to use an extended definition of the continent of Australia, one has to call it Oceania.Adrien16 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read Lewis, Martin W.; Kären E. Wigen (1997). The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 40. ISBN 0-520-20742-4, ISBN 0-520-20743-2. "The joining of Australia with various Pacific islands to form the quasi continent of Oceania ...", but no serious geographer goes outside his field to call Oceana a continent. Note even the word "quasi" in the quote. Geographers are not authoritative on continents, continents are geological things. There is no continent Oceana. There is Australia (continent) and then Zealandia (continent) if you want to generalise to underwater continents. Some things, like Hawaii and Iceland, do not belong to continents. Taken too deeply, you must understand that continent is an artificial human construct, and you would do better to be talking about tectonic plates. I think the mention of some book reporting some geographer mentioning quasi Oceana continent is WP:UNDUE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Continents are definitely not geological. Tectonic plates are, but not continents. Continents were discussed over a thousand years before tectonic plates were even imagined. In fact, this assertion you make, that "continents are geological things", is in complete opposition to your later statement, "continent is an artificial human construct", which is true. I doubt any serious geographer deals with continents much at all, as they likely understand how arbitrary they are. This artificial construct sometimes includes seeing Oceania as a continent; it's definitely not an uncommon viewpoint, in my experience. The Myth of Continents is a good read, which discusses the different views of continents. We have to deal with the idea of Oceania as a continent in this page somehow. CMD (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, you are part right, although there is a geological view of the meaning of continent. I'll try again. You can take a continent as part of historic geography. In that case, it is about the land above the sea. If you want to extend into continental shelves, getting into contenental crust verse ocean crust, then you are getting into geology, or tectonic plates. In neither case is Oceania a continent. I don't think this page needs to deal with Oceania as a continent.

Perhaps we agree that historically, maybe even currently, some people/publications treat Ocean like a continent. Atlases, for example, commonly use a common font for naming the continents, and then use the same font and size to name Oceania. I don't think it fair to conclude that these atlases, or their authors, are asserting that Oceania is a continent. They appear to be treating the several named continents, plus Oceania, as regions of global significance.

I am confident that no serious and repudable authority has explicity treated Oceania as a continent beyond treating it as a region at the level of the continents. If one has, I am yet to hear of it.

I think the last paragraph of the section "Extent of continents" should be cut. I can't believe that any reliable source really treats Easter Island as part of a continent in any reasonable sense of the word. It is not consistent with the lede of the article. If not cut, the "some geographers" weasel wording needs tightening.

The mention of Oceania at the end of "Number of continents" is fine. Some altases do name Oceania in a way that suggests it is akin to a continent. However, one shouldn't read too much prose from an annotated atlas illustration.

A few mentions of Oceania are fine. The article Oceania should be linked. However, it is appropriate that Zealandia get more direct mentions, as Zealandia is more of a continent than Oceania. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because many atlases treat Oceania as on a par with 'real continents', or whatever you may call them, that this page needs to discuss it, even if just to note it's usually not considered a continent. If the page doesn't do this, that is a different matter. This article should cater for readers who very likely will have seen Oceania listed as a continent. I have yet to see Zealandia used in anything other than a specific geological sense, and even then it's qualified as a micro-continent. CMD (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

outdent. Yes, it would be good to say something along the lines of that Oceania is sometimes listed among continents, but that it is not usually considered a continent, but a region. Maybe link to Subregion#Oceania. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like useful clarification, if it can be sourced. CMD (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A decent, sourced, clarification, is the lede of Oceania. An important point is that it is misleading to pull the third sentence "The term is sometimes used more specifically to denote a continent ..." in the absence of the first sentence stating the more usual "Oceania is a region ..." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So....did this discussion actually go anywhere? Are any of the points brought up not already covered by the article as is? I just don't see what needs to be changed.--Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

7 Continents?

In all Latin america and Spain, we say we have 8 contients: South America CENTRAL America North America Oceania (Australia, New Zeland, etc) Africa Europe Asia Antartica

That model is not in this article. Why? --Llamaradaipa (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do you write it so in verifiable places?
  You seem to be talking about socially significant global regions, not continents. Australia and New Zealand do not belong to the same continent according to any reasonable definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that every Latin American who has brought up the enumeration/naming of continents before has claimed that there are 6 continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica and America (as one continent with 3 subcontinents: North, Central and South) so I find your claim a little odd. To SmokeyJoe: while I do not use the concept, there are many sources that explicitly include Australia, New Zealand and the various Pacific islands in a continent called "Oceania". Whether this is "reasonable" hinges on whether you feel that every piece of land must be part of one or another continent. --Khajidha (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the original poster misunderstood the use of the term central America. Central America generally refers to the area between southern mexico and northern South America. It's not a continent, but a name for an area, like "Siberia", or "North Africa". Not separate continents, just large areas of a continent. 68.197.141.28 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Population of Antarctica

Does it make any sense to list Villa Las Estrellas as the most populous city in Antarctica when the population of the continent is zero? Rojomoke (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does actually have a population, theres a number of scientists who live there year round. 68.197.141.28 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)