This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've repeatedly deleted this section. It's a good thing to have, but the deleted version has been quite confused. — kwami (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Concur. I deleted it again, as it's unintelligeable, and wanders a bit too. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This article must be using some horrifically outdated sources. The date of 45000 years has not been seriously considered since at least the 1980s. The generally accepted date is 50-60 thousand years ago.
I am also cautious about the method of colonisation. As deeply illogical as it is, most make the argument that Australia was populated by accident - fishermen washed out to sea - because not only could people not build sea-going vessels 50 thousand years ago, they were not intelligent enough to imagine the vast continent on the other side of the water. The linked source (www1.anthro.utah.edu) times out so it cannot be verified. Personally, I think that what is outlined in this article is absolutely correct as the only logical answer is that these people built boats big enough for a breeding population and sturdy enough to make the crossing. Indeed, I have made this argument myself many times over the last 15-20 years but it qualifies as personal research. Of the very few papers I have read that support this theory, one, from about 1999, was heavily mocked as pseudoscience for claiming (and proving) that a basic boat (no sails or anything) would eventually be taken by the currents from Timor(?) to northern Australia... because people simply didn't have the knowledge of how to build such boats back then. An almost identical argument was made in a documentary on a different subject at around the same time. In this documentary, they were trying to prove that Cro-Magnon came from Africa to Europe via Gibraltar, rather than the Middle East... despite being absolutely successful in making their crossing on a raft, the same arguments were made - people were too stupid to build boats so it's impossible and an excercise in pseudoscience. The main issue, I think, lay not in Gibraltar or Australia, but in America because if people were building boats 50 thousand years ago then that almost entirely invalidates the Bering Strait Land Bridge theory of colonisation. With that said, the coastal route into the Americas is becoming more and more accepted because it is, again, the only logical explanation of the evidence. Maybe one day people will accept that Homo sapien Sapiens of the 21st century has an identical mental capacity to that of Homo sapien Sapiens of 20, 30, 40 50 or 60 thousand years ago and these vested interests will just fade away.188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone removed Timor. I had included in based on several sources, but it may be that it's a marginal case, only partly joined to the continent. Is this variable in the lit, or were my sources just wrong? — kwami (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
First let me say I haven't edited this article so I'm not defending "my edits". I want to see your several sources because claiming Timor as a part of Sahul is a very bold statement to make. Timor is the south eastern extent of Sunda (it could also be argued that it is not part of Sunda and that all of the islands east of Sulawesi are unconnected results of uplift between Sahul and Sunda), thrust upwards by the collision of tectonic plates, and is separated from Sahul by the deep Timor Trench. It is not even marginally connected. I suspect that an argument has been made based on a flawed understanding of the Wallace Line.184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Dekimasuよ! 20:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Australia (continent) → Australia as a continent – The current title implies that Australia the country and Australia the continent are not the same division of the world. They are, only with a political and a physical description of the region, respectively. Georgia guy (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: They're not the same division. The continent is either sans Tasmania, or with both Tasmania and New Guinea. CMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 16 February 2014
Oppose the continent is not called "Australia as a continent", and they are not the same division of the world. The political entity known as Australia is not coterminous with the continent of Australia. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed title is unacceptable. And yes, the continent and country are two different things. Hot Stop 04:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - No matter how one defines the continent in relation to the country, the current title is the proper way to dismbiguate it from the country's article per WP's naming conventions. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per previous respondents. ╠╣uw[talk] 10:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose incorrect reasoning, the division is not the same. The Australian continent includes several islands not considered Australian, like Timor Leste and Irian Jaya/Papua New Guinea. It might help you to read the articles before making such a statement. --Falcadore (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of some other natural disambiguation. I have yet to get one. RedSlash 03:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe read wp:Naming_conventions#Disambiguation as suggested. BTW, the converse also applies -- the country includes many outlying islands that are not part of the continent (however defined), vis Christmas, Cocos (Keeling), Heard & Macdonald, Macquarie, Lord Howe, Norfolk.--Gergyl (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, There is no difference and i think, a meaningless request. Maurice07 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, the island Tasmania is not part of the continent of Australia but of the state of Australia. Bandy boy (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I am not a geologist. I don't know what qualifies as volcanically active. One simple definition I have read is that a volcano is considered dormant if there has been no eruption in the past 10,000 years. The last eruption of volcano in Australia (Mt Gambier) was 4,500 years ago. It was witnessed by aboriginal people according to archaeological evidence. The current hotspot is centred under Bass Strait and encompasses areas of Victoria and Tasmania. Earthquake activity in the region is related to this hotspot. According to some estimates, a volcano could develop in this area with 100 years. So, do we need to clarify how volcanically active the Australian continent is? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)