Talk:Australasia

u.s.a meaning
you must take issue with the replaced statement that "america" is Latin for South Asia. In fact it derives from the name originally given it by 15th and 16th century map makers, who called it "Terra Australis Icognica" i.e. the Unknown Southland"


 * The claim isn't about Australia but Australasia. Does that work for you? —rodii 03:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Australasia
Australia,fack as a continent, not as a state, is Australia and Oceania is Oceania, which includes several states, such as Fiji, Tonga etc. New Zealand continentally belongs to Australia, and Papua New Guinea - to Eurasia. Euarasia combines two parts of the world - Europe and Asia, which often mistakenly are thought to be different continents.80.254.7.254 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd always thought of Australasia as meanign only Autralia and New Zealand. When Australia was considering federation, New Zealnd delegates attended several of our constitutional conventions and New Zealnd has the right to join the federation at any time.
 * In New Zealand - or at least this part of it (southern South Island), "Australasia" generally means Australia or Australia and Papua New Guinea. I don't know of anyone in this part of New Zealand who uses the term to include NZ. (See comment in the article about Oceania). Australia is a continent, so how could it simultaneously be part of a larger continent?Grutness 02:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of anybody thinking "Australasia" didn't mean NZ too.

The term has always meant NZ and Australia. I've never understood it to mean Papua New Guinea or any other countries. And yes I live in the south of South Island of NZ.

I think both this discussion and the Oceania clearly establishes the fact that there is disagreement about whether in fact New Zealanders consider themselves part of Australasia, etc. Rather than arguing about who's right, does anyone have any actual evidence for either side? —rodii 03:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement The term is unpopular in New Zealand because it is seen to emphasize Australia and ... instead, the term Oceania is preferred doesn't seem credible. I've never met a New Zealander who objected to Australasia and/or used the term Oceania. I suggest that this sentence be removed pending some evidence of accuracy. --203.173.49.138 14:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The biological and geographical evidence (as duely indicated in the article) is overwhelmingly abundant. That's what Australasia is primarily: a bio-geographical region.  What the term is taken to mean culturally or politically may well be a different thing.  However, any such definition which would exclude NZ would not only fly in the face of biology and geography but also be of so little use as to be hardly worth proposing.  The article doesn't say that Australasia is a continent.  It may make more biological and geographic sense to consider Australasia to be a continent.  However, tradition has it that Australia is the continent and Australasia is a greater region including Australia.  Jimp 12Oct05

What is the difference between Oceania and Australasia? If there is one, this article should explain the difference. -Bonus Onus 14 November 2005

Australasia is equivalent to the usage of the word Europe. Europe includes Great Britain (a separate island from continental Europe as such), but is still used, in the sense of a word, much as a contintental title. Therefore, Australasia is a continent title for Australia and New Zealand. As far as I was aware, it did not include other islands. Oceania may include other islands, but is not an established geographical label for the same thing. - Paul Farquharson


 * Coming in to the discussion very late (more than a decade) and possibly from an earlier generation I can say that Australasia was in quite common use in the first half of the 20th century but as Australia continually separates its vision of itself further apart from New Zealand it seems to me the concept and usage has died off and is now no more than a nearly forgotten antique geographical concept.


 * Zealandia
 * Why does this article not have at least a paragraph about the continent of Zealandia? Right now it has just a see also down at the bottom. Eddaido (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge (with Oceania)
Hi, in order to have the merge discussions at one place, I suggest that all discussions about the proposed merge take place at Talk:Oceania so that continuity is not lost (else, we would end up with discussions on both talkpages making it difficult to follow who is saying what). --Gurubrahma 11:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Australia, New Zealand and the islands like Fiji, New Caledonia, Vanuatu etc is apart of the Oceania/Pacific regein. The Continent in that part is Australia, the only countries in the Continent Australia is the country Australia. Australia is NOT apart of asia. Papua New guinea was apart of Indonesia which is asian so Pap new guinea is ASIAN AND NOT AUSTRALIAN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarthCud (talk • contribs).

Consider this. What makes it asian? That's nothing more than an arbitrary classification imposed by human beings... just like the classification that makes it apart of the arbitrary geographic classification of Australasia. Far Queue 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

map
Is all of Indonesia included under Australasia in anyone's definition, as the map shows? kwami 02:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not by any definition I'd consider credible. That is an utterly horrible map (and not the only one, as I've today discovered). At most, and only in a geological and ecological interpretation, Flores and the Moluccas (and a couple other islands) may be considered part of an Australasia ecozone. Australasia is primarily and most commonly understood as a geopolitical/cultural concept encompassing Australia and New Zealand (and more broadly PNG and Fiji). Image:Melanesia.png is incorrect also: Sulawesi is not Melanesian. Moreover, Image:LocationOceania.png is incorrect too by my understanding of what Oceania is. I think there needs to be a clear separation between the geopolitical concept of Australasia, and the evolutionary/ecological one covered in Australasia ecozone.--cj | talk 10:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica 1911
The good thing about the original text is that it pre-dates political correctness and hyper-sensitivity of various nations in the region who view geographical and other terms as insulting for not supporting current political borders. Apart from that it is just the opinion of the authors at the time:


 * "Australasia, a term used by English geographers in a sense nearly synonymous with the Oceania of continental writers. It thus comprises all the insular groups which extend almost continuously from the south-eastern extremity of Asia to more than half-way across the Pacific. Its chief divisions are Malaysia with the Philippines; Australia with Tasmania and New Zealand; Melanesia, that is, New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland, Admiralty, the Solomons, New Hebrides, Santa Cruz, Fiji, Loyalties and New Caledonia; Micronesia, that is, the Ladrones, Pelew and Carolines, with the Marshall and Gilbert groups; lastly, Polynesia, that is, Samoa, Tonga, Cook, Tahiti, the Marquesas, Ellice, Hawaii and all intervening clusters.


 * The term is so far justified in that it harmonizes better than Oceania did with the names of the other continents, and also embodies the two essential facts that it is a south-eastern extension of Asia, and that its central and most important division is the great island-continent of Australia. In a more restricted sense the term Australasia corresponds to the large division including Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand.
 * --"58.107.15.245 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I'd say it shows an out-dated UK-centric view of the terminology and one that is no longer taught in the UK I might add.  It is also inacurate.  In 1911 Tasmania was as much a part of Australia as it is now.  It had been since 1901.  The author clearly did not know this -- Far Queue 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I live in New Zealand, and the above definition dovetails nicely with what most New Zealanders believe. We are taught at school that the term "Australasia" refers to a continent comprising Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and the surrounding islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.124 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, i'd rather decrease the chaotic character of the so-called discussion above than pick a side in it. (Ya know, things got a little heated there for a while, back when a hasty retort came back in under 6 months!)  I've reduced the chaos slightly by some reformatting that should be non-controversial, unless someone intentionally was addressing not the mere dolt who immediately preceded them, but the presumably inadequately chastised raging maniac from earlier on this talk page! --Jerzy•t 23:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that typically such disputes invite defending whatever one first heard, or has heard most eloquently, argued for, while in fact all things are what they are irrespective of what anyone calls them; intellectually honest people understand that shared diligence about uncovering signs of differences and seeking efficient means of "getting on the same page" is efficient, while advocating for ownership of "the right name" of something is like bald men fighting over a comb. If there's an argument about the right name, usually all advocates are wrong. --Jerzy•t 23:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Anthropology
I am not comfortable with the scentence, "Anthropologists, although disagreeing on details, generally support theories that call for a Southeastern Asian origin of indigenous island peoples in Australasia and neighboring subregions." - There is no real link between melanesians, aborgines and Polynesians such as the Maori, other than the very broad common starting point for these different people's migrations. Does this scentence add any useful information? Winstonwolfe 07:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal
Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example: I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Afro-Eurasia, Asia, Australasia, Eurasia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:
 * Europe (current)
 * Asia (former)
 * South America (current)
 * It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
 * New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
 * As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

INCONSISTENCY within Wikipedia: something is wrong somewhere!
1. I don't know the answer to this, but the text describes Australasia as a subset of Oceania, yet the colored lands in the map for Australasia are actually more expansive than those colored on the Oceania Wikipedia article. I am not sure which are correct, but either the colors on one of the maps needs to change or the text needs to change, as they are in conflict.

2. In addition, this article says Australasia includes Papua New Guinea, but the map shows that it includes all of the island of New Guinea (including Irian Jaya) not just Papua New Guinea. Either the word "Papua" needs to be taken out, because it is misleading, or the green needs to be shrunk on the island of New Guinea.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Inter-racial Conflict
The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary published by Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN-13: 97801955584516 makes the following statements:

Australasia
 * 1. (esp. in NZ use) New Zealand and Australia.
 * 2. (esp. in Australian use) the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and the neighbouring islands of the Pacific.

Oceania
 * Oceania, the islands of the Pacific and adjacent seas.

Eddaido (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation Eddaido. To start with one needs to recognise that this is not a term defined by law. I think that the dictionary definitions above sum the term up rather well. It is primarily a political term and can have different meaning. For example when a Kiwi uses the term they don't mean just the two larger islands of New Zealand, but those Pacific islands that fall under direct (and possibly indirect) political control of New Zealand. Say those islands where the population can claim residency in NZ. Likewise Australians are likely to include political or geographical entities that directly interest them in their locality.
 * Similar things happen with other terms. Native English speakers use the term "Europe" to mean Europe the geographical entity, the continental mainland of Europe (without Britain, with or without Scandinavia and no one bothers about whether it includs new far away eastern states like Georgia), or to mean the European Union. Does "North America" mean the geographic entity or something else. Like Europe it often depends on context.
 * The major problem with this article is the lack of inline citations. There is only one inline citation and that is in the lead.
 * So I would suggest that the lead is changed and place the competing definitions into a section after the lead. I would also move the two sentences starting "Charles..." out of the lead (into the definition section), and replace them with a summary. Eg something like this:

"Australasia comprises Australia, New Zealand, and some neighbouring islands (see the section Derivations) It is used in a number of different context including geopolitically, physiographically, and ecologically where the term covers several several slightly different but related regions" .
 * As the geopolitical is the common meaning, that section should proceed the physiographical section in the body of the text.
 * I see that some of the text was copied from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Australasia by user:Cgsdh on 13:34, 6 May 2017 diff. I suggest that as none of that is sourced, it was copied from an a source that is little better than an essay and should be removed. Not to be replaced unless it is supported with inline citations.
 * Inline citations need to be found for the rest of the text, or it should be removed (WP:PROVEIT
 * --PBS (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your advice. I'm aware I know a little less about the subject than the average layman but, heck, I do know what I think is Australasia and I wasn't sure that the article agreed with me. So — I have tried to follow your suggestions as closely as possible. I think I will wait a little in case citations turn up before I delete unreferenced sections. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary definition
With the edit of 4 March 2019 by User:Eddaido this article is now a dictionary definition. I think that village pump, and the Australian and New Zealand projects should be asked to conribute sourced content. If none is forthcoming then the content of this article should be moved to Wiki Dictionary. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I left in but maybe unwisely hid the unsourced copyvio in case anyone was able to re-write and cite the offending passages. A few days ago someone redisplayed them without further comment. If you wish to re-write and cite by all means go ahead bearing in mind the comments about dictionary definition above. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert in this topic, but I think we need to keep those information as a comment so someone can contribute later in the future. Kenwick (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reverted because that has just resulted in the re-publication of an unsourced copy violation and —throughout more than six months— otherwise no useful contribution. Eddaido (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why a hidden comment has been classified as a re-publication of an unsourced copy violation, but I will leave it there. The other edits seem to be fine though. Kenwick (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Australasia comprises Australia, New Zealand and Melanesia?
According to many maps, Australasia comprises Australia, New Zealand and.... Melanesia (New Guinea island and many small islands). Maybe it is worth putting it in the intro of article. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 17:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)