Talk:Australia (continent)/Archive 3

Definition of the continent
User:N. Mortimer, when you claim that "The definition adopted by Wikipedia includes nearby continental islands", where might I find that definition? Additionally, perhaps you might also explain why you choose to remove an expert WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY source that represents the views of the Australian National University and Geoscience Australia on what constitutes the Australian continent? William Harris (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No response after two days, reverting to the earlier version. William Harris (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * has been offline since they made the change. Please give them a few more days, perhaps through the holidays, to respond to this. I also share their concerns. It's not my field of expertise, so it's not an issue I do much can research myself without taking more time than I have. However, as NM noted, there are various definitions of "continent". Even the book you've cited shows an illustration of the continental plate that includes New Guinea, and that's what this interpretation is based on. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * User:James Ker-Lindsay and User:BilCat. You may not be aware of it, but Wikipedia has a policy called WP:BRD. I made a Bold edit and N. Mortimer Reverted it, but the responsibility to Discuss it fell on him, not me. I raised this discussion first, and if you have a point of view then I am happy to discuss it here.
 * Wikipedia is built on editors being able to WP:CITE WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. I have yet to see any reliable source stating that New Guinea is part of the Australian continent. Go ahead, try to find one and it will be included in the article, but I will not be accepting any "original research" nor personal points of view per WP:NOR. Wikipedia has another policy called WP:NPOV, which the policy states is "non-negotiable". That policy states under WP:WEIGHT that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".
 * I have cited an expert WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY source which provides the definition of the Australian continent (i.e. what this article is named). Other parties will need to provide their definitions for inclusion - the other "source", New 2002, which I have removed makes no mention of anything relating to "The continent of Australia, sometimes known in technical contexts by the names Sahul, Australia-New Guinea, Australinea, Meganesia, or Papualand to distinguish it from the country of Australia, consists of the landmasses located next to Wallacea." It does not define the Australian continent at all - has nobody here read this stuff to verify it?
 * User:BilCat, no the book did not show New Guinea sitting on the "continental shelf", because that does not exist. (What exists is a dozen individual "shelfs" that sit offshore with each created by its own geophysical process around the continental coastline out to 200m below sea level. These shelves cease to exist when (a) the level falls below 200m or (b) another feature occurs, such as an island which is above sea level). The reference does depict the "Australian Plate" which is an entirely different proposal and is expertly sourced. Should this article remain named Australia (continent) or be WP:MERGEd into Australian Plate? This article appears to not know what its scope is. Is it about the Australian continent, the Australian plate, or as someone has dis-ingeniously done, merged the article Sahul into it, despite that land mass ceasing to exist at the close of the Late Pleistocene. William Harris (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "what exists is a dozen individual "shelfs" that sit offshore". I mean, that goes for most "continental shelfs". I feel it's a bit wierd to separate the two from each other as individual continents when they've been connected by a land bridges during a recent ice age and they sit on the same plate, continental shelf or not. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * User:BilCat, instead of reverting my edit with "reverting to previous stable.version while discussion is underway" perhaps you might actually like to start discussing? You appear to have ignored everything that I have said above. If you do not wish to discuss per BRD then there are other avenues available which will lead to a speedy resolution. William Harris (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My only desire is to see major changes to the article discussed beforehand to try to reach a consensus. It's not going to be an easy process, and it's going to require patience from everyone involved, along with time. But if you insist on reverting to the "right version" with no attempt to show good faith and respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, the only "speedy resolution" you're likely to get is being blocked for edit warring and being disruptive. BilCat (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of any discussion taking place here despite appeals to good faith, nor have I broken the WP:3RR rule. What I am seeing is some editors participating in WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than assessing reliable sources - or any sources. That position has limited longetivity. I note that you have had a look at my Kennet 2018 reference, and will assume that you have confirmed it to be correct. You have deleted that and reinstated the reference New 2002 which I had removed here. Have you confirmed that this reference stated anything that proceeds it in the article? Because it doesn't - you have entered factually incorrect information on Wikipedia. You did that - not anyone else, nor some person last week - you did. I hold you accountable for it. You are the one that needs to be talking here and explaining why. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 02:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't "entered factually incorrect information on Wikipedia" - I simply restored the version before your undiscussed changes to the previous scope of the article, and requested you wait on other editors to join the discussion and reach a consensus on where to go with the article, especially as it affects other articles too. I've also posted notices to the projects listed above that you did not notify when you chose to only notify one of those projects. Hopefully some participants from them will show up over the next few days. Until then, the world isn't going to end because something you think is "incorrect" isn't changed immediately. BilCat (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure I agree with your logic. Either the sources support what is written in the article or they do not, and if they do not then the unsourced claims should be removed. Per my analysis below I believe they do not and as such the article should be amended, the information remains in the history and, if new sources are presented, there is absolutely nothing preventing the reintroduction of this information. Policy does not allow local consensus to override WP:V. Cavalryman (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC).


 * Further, the first reliable looking text book I found on Gbooks with a preview was this – page 4 of which says Cavalryman (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC).
 * I note that figure 2.2 there does include new guinea as part of the same continental shelf, and page 4 as well as 6 and several others refer to the australian continent as "currently involved in an active collision in/through new guinea", so that might be a matter of precision in wording, more than anything else. This source does seem to otherwise be including New Guinea as part of the Australian continent.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, I have no real knowledge in this area but the article's sourcing that supports the inclusion of Papua seems incredibly weak, and then the rest appears to be cobbled together SYNTH. The lead states This is unsourced but that is not an issue given it should simply summarise the article. But ... in the body of the article, the sentence  is cited to:
 * "Andy" at countrydigest.org, does not appear to be reliable.
 * This article, which is about the Sahul, which it says was a . Further, an RSN discussion about ThoughtCo a couple of years ago wasn't exactly a glowing endorsement.
 * Anthropology and Global History: From Tribes to the Modern World-System makes a single mention of
 * The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania which is hard to read in the GBooks previews but seems to mention Sahul again.
 * The Archaeology of the Aru Islands, Eastern Indonesia makes passing mention of Sahul.
 * None of the references really give good coverage of the claim. And further, the preceding sentence, which states Sahul and the continent of Australia are one and the same, is completely unsourced.
 * Another claim in the lead that may substantiate the claim and is sourced is:  This is cited to:
 * This Aus Gov webpage which appears to define the Australian continent as Australia.
 * This, which surely we're not considering as quality enough for such claims and further does not state much of what is cited (Wikipedia could very well be their source, the website was started in 2011, five years after this page first made the claim).
 * I may have missed something as I only skimmed through the article, but the sources supporting the claim seem incredibly weak. Cavalryman (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This publication, by the Australian National University, as far as I can tell refers to two entities only, the Australian Plate, and the Australian Continent, the latter of which is the Australian mainland and Tasmania only (and nearby islands), ie, the same area as the country of Australia.  It is very detailed in its analysis of the geological history of the Australian Continent.  It would seem that the current wikipedia article, Australia (continent), is at best fringe, at worst psuedo synth.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I note in this source new guinea's central southern side does seem to be connected to the current australian plate via the north australian element. (page 72) I also found this which does go into quite a lot of detail about the connection between that specific part of new guinea and the australian mainland, and does seem to be in accordance with the source above. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the plate - yes; continent - no? Aoziwe (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, the article does talk about the continental shelf being under a horizontal stress regime due to the ongoing collision in new guinea, and image 2.34 does include the location of modern new guinea as part of the continental shelf. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If we are considering "Sahul" to be synonymous with the continent of Australia, then it absolutely includes New Guinea, which lies on the same continental shelf and was connected by land during the Last ice age. It's like saying the British Isles aren't part of Europe, or that Newfoundland or the islands of the Canadian Arctic aren't part of North America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a pretty big “if”. That claim is currently unsourced in the article currently and most of the sources I have checked specify Sahul was a prehistoric era continent. Cavalryman (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC).
 * This comes down to the vague and useless definition of continent, and is an issue of semantics and not geology. An article that solely covers the territory of the modern country of Australia would be redundant with Geography of Australia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well no. Sahul was not the "Australian continent". It was a pre-Holocene land mass that included Australia as part of it. It is gone now with the rising sea levels at the close of the Late Pleistocene. Another editor merged the Sahul article into this one to help push a POV, despite Sahul meeting WP:GNG and warranting its own article, and something that I intend to remedy as it has only created confusion here. As for other articles, such as Australian Plate, Australia mainland, and Geography of Australia, those are separate articles, there is no WP:YOUAREBOUNDBYOTHERARTICLES - our attention is focused on this article. And should it even exist. Additionally User:BilCat, you still haven't explained why you reverted my edit - you appear to be waiting for someone else to come from another Project and explain why you reverted my edit. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Continents are not defined by the boundaries of the land mass, otherwise great Britain and Ireland would currently be on their own, separate, individual little continents. Could you elaborate?--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Licks-rocks. If continents were defined by the boundaries of the landmass, Greenland, Newfoundland and the Arctic Archipelago wouldn't be considered part of North America, same for the Indonesian, Japanese and Philippine archipelagos, which are considered part of Asia. What makes these islands part of continents is that they lie on the same continental block as the main landmass. This source clearly states that New Guinea is part of the Australian continental block and this claims New Guinea is usually considered a part of Australia. Likewise, this source on page 523 claims New Guinea is part of the same piece of continent as Australia. This source on page 120 claims the Australian continent includes New Guinea. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 09:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Regarding your first reference which refers to the "Australian continental block", would you dispute that this would be a block which is "rigid from Cocos Island in the west to Noumea in the east and incorporates the entire Australian continent."? That would be the Australian Plate (refer page 49 of the reference below). It cannot include New Guinea, because the top half of New Guinea is sitting on the Pacific Plate (refer the graphic on page 50 of the reference below) with the New Guinea highlands being the collision between the two. The same thing was said in the Kennett 2018 reference, a reference which I attempted to introduce into this article but it was reverted. The Australian continental plate is not the Australian continent; both references state that. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 09:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Nouméa then yes I would dispute that. The Cocos are not continental given the fact that they consist of two separate coral atolls formed atop an old volcanic seamount rather than continental rocks. And Nouméa is part of New Caledonia which lies on Zealandia's Norfolk Ridge. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 10:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worthy to note that a large portion of the Australian Plate is not even continental; the section underlying the Indian Ocean consists of oceanic crust rather than continental crust. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 11:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aditionally, the nothern half of an island being part of a different plate does not disprove that island (or at least the southern half) being part of a continent. After all, continents are made by fusing smaller continents together. This source goes into a lot of detail about how exactly everything fits together in that region. I note that there do not seem to be any major currently active faults between the Australian mainland and New Guinea past the suture between north and south New Guinea that would justify them being on separate continents. Worse, it's treated as part of the same craton here, making this an example of accretion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur that Davies 2012 does use the term "Australian Continent", and he is certainly an expert. (Perhaps he meant the Australian plate rather than the Australian continent, terminology is important here.) I trust you have both referred to the schematic on page 50 of the first reference below. How do you reconcile Davies terminology published in a paper with that used by two expert WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources published as books by Australian authorities, including the Australian National University and Geoscience Australia, that do not share it? Do you rebut them? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are linking to their wikipedia pages. If you got this from a publication(s) from said institutions, could you actually link us to said publication(s)?--Licks-rocks (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of those pubs already appear in the References below, in addition to this one by the Geological Society of America and the Geological Society of Australia (2003). This reference also uses the Australian Plate and Australian Continent as separate terms, with the Australian Plate including the southern part of New Guinea. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 18:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "australia is the worlds smallest continent" makes for a nice description, but to be honest it doesn't sound all that precise. And to be clear, Davies is indeed talking about the continent. He's referring to S. New Guinea as part of the australian craton. Cratons are the oldest parts of continents, having formed the core of one since the precambrian. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed that is what Davies 2012 said. As I have stated in the third paragraph of this thread: WP:NPOV applies, and under WP:WEIGHT that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".
 * I am immediately about to depart for 3 days, returning on the forth day, and will be offline - Australia still has its remote places. There is need of a common position. I suggest interested parties spend some time reviewing the references below. There are some things which are beginning to clarify:
 * New Guinea is divided in half on two tectonic plates; the Australian Plate and the Pacific Plate
 * and therefore the article Sahul (continent) needs to be reactivated as part of that now-gone landmass that once sat astride 2, maybe even 3, different plates because it is a separate topic that meets WP:GNG. (Just because something once sat above sea level does not mean that it sat on just one plate.) Alternately, Sahul could be made a section in the article Australian Plate (which needs a serious update and renewal) but with mentioning that New Guinea sat not only on the Australian Plate. As it is now, it only serves to confuse.
 * Merry Christmas to all, I shall return online on the 26th. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The northern half of new guinea is not part of the pacific plate. It probably used to be, but the subduction zone has moved to behind the island, so N. New Guinea has been sutured to south guinea, and for all intents and purposes that means they can be treated as being on the same continent. The same way italy is considered part of eurasia, and not still part of africa (since there is a suture and remnants of a subduction zone in the alps.) It's a same that both the suture and accretion articles aren't very clear, by the way. They're pretty important parts of modern geology. -- Licks-rocks (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If sources really do consider the continent synonymous (or so near it makes no difference) with the country of Australia, it should be merged with Geography of Australia as identical scope. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * New Guinea is not part of the country of Australia. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 11:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * People are arguing above that it is not part of the continent either. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited RS say otherwise. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 11:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Buidhe, we are still trying to define the scope of this article, not what is to be done with it; I suggest that you may have jumped-the-gun with your WP:SPLIT proposal. (Please also note that it was not my intention to see this article broken up - that would be for others to discuss once the scope is clarified.)

Licks-rocks, what you have said just above needs to be sourced as it relates to New Guinea. Back to my original question to you which you have left unanswered - do you rebut the other sources provided here, including this new one? (refer graphic showing plates dividing New Guinea). To be fair, this source here on page 65 states that southern New Guinea sits on the Australia craton, in addition to sitting on the Australian Plate. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a rebuttal would be the wrong way to frame it. I think they might simply be too imprecise/too Australia-centric in their description of "the Australian continent" to be useful here. I think a problem we're possibly running into here is that Australia and New Guinea are two very different countries that have (thank you Europeans) wildly different cultures. It might very well be that a bunch of sources (government-relaLicks-rocks (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Compromise via RSPRIMARY and NPOV

 * Perhaps, but we need to return to WP:POL. Written within the last decade, we currently have three expert WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources which state that the Australian coastline contains the Australian continent, and that the Australian Plate includes southern New Guinea. We have one expert reliable WP:PRIMARY source (Davies 2012) which states that the Australian continent includes southern New Guinea but is unclear regarding northern New Guinea, plus one WP:SECONDARY source (by a non-expert ornithologist and a wildlife photographer) which states that the Australian craton includes the southern section of New Guinea.
 * According to WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere". Based on this policy, the 3 secondary sources carry more weight than Davies 2012. Nonetheless, according to WP:NPOV, all points of view need to be represented and which I fully endorse. Therefore, I propose the following lede statement:
 * "The continent of Australia is the earth's smallest continent and its largest island, defined by its coastal outline (3 sources cited here), however some sources regard southern New Guinea as part of the Australian continent (2 sources cited here). It forms part of the Australian plate (no sources disagree with this)."
 * Other editor's views, please? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I think this is a bad idea. I don't think Davies is a primary source here, as it seems to be a summary of knowledge gathered elsewhere, rather than a research paper. (easy mistake to make though.) And like I said, I do not think the other three sources are at all reliable when it comes to supporting the statement "New Guinea is NOT part of the australian continent". Not affirming that something is part of the continent is not evidence of the contrary, it's merely an absence of evidence. The Australian continent is also not defined by its continental outline, because that's not how continents are defined. Continents are defined by the extent of their continental shelf, and every illustration I've seen has the Australian continental shelf reaching New Guinea. For me to believe they're separate continents I'd need to see positive evidence of something separating the two, and I'm just not seeing that. Licks-rocks (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Australia...is the earth's largest island and smallest continent...defined by a distinctive coastal outline" (Kennett 2018). "Australia is a nation continent" (Blewett 2012). "Some call Australia the worlds largest island, but it is a true continent." (Henderson 2016). I do not know how you expect to fit New Guinea in any of those three definitions - none of them included New Guinea. Yet your position is that because New Guinea was not specifically excluded in those statements, it might be included. On that same basis, we could possibily include New Zealand as well, because it wasn't specifically excluded. Or any other country.


 * So it would appear that maintaining a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV does not apply to this specific article and no other points of view are to be expressed, because you believe that the authors of 3 secondary sources - including the Australian National University and Geoscience Australia - are mistaken, is this a fair summary of your current position? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno what to tell you man, all three of those are just factually wrong about how continents are defined. Continents are defined by the extent of their continental shelfs, because that's how far the Sillica-rich continental crust that maintains positive buoyancy over the mantle reaches. The New Zealand continental shelf does not reach the Australian one, ergo, they're not on the same continent. Australia is also not the earth's smallest continent, because New Zealand is smaller. (unless you want to define it as a microcontinent, which some do.) Here's a source for that definition. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would advise against using the National Geographic website as a source, the same webpage tells me that "...the continent of Australia itself includes only the nation of Australia, the eastern portion of the island of New Guinea (the nation of Papua New Guinea) and the island nation of New Zealand." Once again, that is not all of New Guinea but the southern-most portion, and this source includes New Zealand. An internet search will reveal sources (including Henderson 2016 below) stating that the New Zealand's North Island sits on the Australian Plate - once again, Plate and shelf are being confused in the discussion above.
 * Assuming that you are correct, what do you propose the lede should state, because the current nonsense is not sourced - the citation provided (New 2002) says no such thing. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 01:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are confused about continents and tectonic plates. They are not the same thing. For example, the Indian Plate is a tectonic plate, but it is not a continent. The Arabian Plate is a tectonic plate, but it is not a continent. The Caribbean Plate is a tectonic plate, but it is also not a continent.
 * The term continent generally has two definitions:
 * Continent is a landmass which is completely surrounded by the ocean. In that case, mainland Australia is a continent, mainland Afro-Eurasia is a continent, the Americas (mainland) is also a continent.
 * Continent is a geographical region which often includes one continental mainland, as well as its nearby continental islands (except Asia and Europe, which share the same continental mainland).
 * As it stands today, most countries and organisations around the world use the second definition. Therefore, Great Britain and Ireland are parts of the European continent. Taiwan and Japan are parts of the Asian continent. Tasmania and New Guinea are parts of the Australian continent. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:6D0C:8D73:73CB:24F9 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this article, I have been reverted 3 times by three different editors who could not explain their position with reference to a reliable source, and none of whom bothered to either find a reliable source nor participate in the discussion on this talk page. What there role is regarding this article is unclear.

In my 8 years editing on Wikipedia, never before have I come across an article where the "non-negotiable" Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV about maintaining a neutral point of view has been completely ignored, because one or two editors believe that expert WP:RELIABLE sources – including the Australian National University and the Australian Government's Geoscience Australia – can be dismissed with "all three of those are just factually wrong".

I am no longer watching this "article". <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 00:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, apologies for neglecting this discussion for a period. From what I can see there seems to be some conflicting advice in the various sources presented here of what the “continent of Australia” is, and if so then the article should reflect that. It is worth noting that statements like conflict with what is written at continent. Further, I stand by my earlier statement that most of the article is pure synth and as such it should be deleted, consistency with other articles is no excuse to maintain OR. Cavalryman (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
 * I was just about to comment about continent myself, having noticed it shortly before you left this comment. If you scroll down to the geology section you'll find the definition I'm using, which may explain our conflict here. I, being an earth scientist, am strictly using the geological definition of a continent, which to me seems like the obvious one to use anyway. You seem more inclined to use the more wishy-washy definition used in the first sentence of that article. This ties neatly into what I would name as my major hang-up with this article in general: Despite being about the continent, mainly seems to be about Sahul, the ancient landmass as well as the modern politics of that region, and not so much about the geology of the continent of Australia, which is what I would associate with a continent to begin with. I think we really need to hash out which definition of continent we want to be using here, and then make the article conform to that, because as it is now it's neither, and that's causing a lot of confusion. Licks-rocks (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice this article has gone by the name "oceania" at one point and that "Sahul" was at some point merged into this one, which might very well be what's resulted in the current Identity crisis. Might one solution be to rename this article back to Oceania and then make a subsection, or even an entirely separate article about the continent Australia, as used in geology? I notice some discussions have already taken place about this in the past Licks-rocks (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My wish is the for the article to be written using reliable sources, if they seem too for you then bad luck; WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia policy and no local consensus can ride roughshod over them. Conflicting, reliable and credible sources exist about what the continent of Australia is, and if this article exists then it should state as much.
 * Oceania already exists, so I agree it may be appropriate to redirect this article to Oceania, and then resurrect Sahul (continent). Cavalryman (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
 * I don't mean to sound condescending when I say "wishy washy", I simply mean it's more imprecise, because it's based in public opinion more than anything else. I'm just not a native speaker and couldn't come up with a better description. I do feel the need to push back a little. I was talking about two different definitions in my reply. Both exist and are based in reliable sources, but they're fundamentally different definitions. We're not having a NPOV problem, we're just pointing at two different things and using the same name for both. As explained, I went into this discussion using the geological definition. You are using the geographic one. Other than the aforementioned nitpicks we're in agreement. Well, except it's probably a good idea to stop calling sahul a continent, because as far as I can tell it's a name for a landmass that existed in the recent past, rather than just a different name for the Australian continent as defined in geology. So it would be either "Sahul" or "Australian continent (geology)" depending on which you're going for.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am now beginning to understand just how much of a train wreck this entire topic area is. The first two sentences of Continent which I assume you are basing your definition on,, are not supported on the cited pages of the paragraph’s only source (it does support the next two sentences).
 * Anyway, it appears we agree this page needs to be redirected somewhere and I am agnostic as to where, so am happy with either option above. Further, I am very happy to stop calling Sahul a continent, Sahul (continent) has the article history (last version) but that can be moved. Cavalryman (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Bit bold to call the entire topic area a trainwreck just because one sentence isn't explicitly sourced. Most of my coursebooks as well as the source you mentioned use this definition, whether explicitly or implicitly. Doesn't need to literally include the sentence "a continent is defined by" to support this definition. It IS called "continental crust" for a reason, after all. But here it's spelled out, so I'll just go ahead and add the glossary of geology to the sources for that alinea. I'm also not basing my definition on continent, having only become aware of it shortly before your comment dated the 3rd of january. I'm simply a geologist. (more accurately an earth scientist.)  --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Geoscience Australia defines the Australian continent as the continental landmass which includes mainland Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania, as well as the submerged continental shelves which connect these three main parts together as one piece of unbroken continental crust.
 * There is a YouTube video created by Geoscience Australia with their definition of the Australian continent clearly explained:
 * Introduction to the Geography of Australia
 * 2001:8003:913E:5D01:6D0C:8D73:73CB:24F9 (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If key sentences are unsourced then yes, it’s a mess, as with this article much of that one appears to be WP:OR. Also, please include page numbers when citing sources so others can WP:Verify what you are citing, if you are citing the entry for “continent” on page 139, it says which is quite different from. Anyway we appear to be off topic, what to do about this article. As already said, if not redirected somewhere soon it needs to be rewritten to reflect the various sources as opposed to the status quo. Cavalryman (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Yes, and what are continental shelves made of? that's right! continental crust, which is made of more silica rich granitic, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks, which is why they are more buoyant, which is why they end up sticking out above oceanic plates ,. That's not OR, except if you want to describe "following a first year geology course" as OR, which seems like a good way to reduce WP:expert retention. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and if you, as you state here, feel like we're getting off topic, please don't add any useless maintenance tags to continent just to prove a WP:POINT. That's called disruptive behaviour. You're not improving anything by adding them in the middle of a discussion just because you think it MIGHT be incorrect, despite the fact that a cursory glance at any academic textbook would have shown the contrary to be true. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would we redirect it anywhere? This article is about the continent of Australia. Not the country, which covers the majority of the continent, but not all of it. And not Oceania, which includes much more than the continent of Australia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Licks-rocks, everything on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented, please read WP:UNSOURCED. I have no way of verifying who you are, and to be honest it’s irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains this article is a complete mess and needs seriously overhauling if it remains. And no, verifying sources and pointing out inconsistencies is not being disruptive.
 * Khajidha, as has been demonstrated above, reliable sources differ as to what the continent of Australia is and this article is written using what can only be described as sketchy sources and a lot of synth. I am agnostic about which way to proceed, but this article needs serious work as it currently gives undue weight to one definition and completely excludes the other. Cavalryman (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
 * You're not verifying anything though. You're just adding a maintenance tag because you don't really have the subject matter knowledge to understand that the edge of a continental shelf and the point where the continental crust ends are the exact same place! that's not verifying, that's just making a mess. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have said previously, my wish is the for this article to be written using reliable sources, and now the other. You invoked Continent and so I had a look at it, it’s terribly sourced. Anyway, I have started a conversation there. Cavalryman (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
 * I need to remind you that sourcing is not a requirement, as long as the information is verifiable. Judging by the terrible job you're doing here, I doubt you're the standard for what counts as verifiable in this topic area.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, this has degenerated quickly. Wikipedia essays are great, but they are not policy, WP:V is. As is WP:CIVIL. Please confine your comments to content. Cavalryman (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Yes. The essay I cited is an explanation of WP:VERIFIABILITY. I quote "whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". I don't think anyone is likely to challenge one of the fundamental definitions underlying modern geology. That you decided to challenge it anyway is why I have now added an inline citation. If you want to challenge every sentence on Wikipedia that hasn't been sourced, go ahead, but don't involve me in it because I'm not interested in fixing that mess. Have a good day. Licks-rocks (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have just rewritten the article to encapsulate both definitions for this continent that have been discussed above. The only verifiable sources here that define the continent as including New Guinea (& one I found), and what they state are:

These on their own provide insufficient WP:SIGCOV for this article to meet WP:GNG. There are entire books cited about the continent including only Australia, but so as not to provide undue weight I have tried to limit what is included. Cavalryman (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Further, I have already recreated the Sahul (continent) as there were no sources here that stated it was the same as the continent of Australia. Reliable sources there state Maganesia, Papualand and Greater Australia are all alternate names for Sahul. Cavalryman (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

You may wish to consider the following: (I cannot find Berra on-line to look at.)
 * 1) Blewett et al: figure 2.10 on page 71 and on page 72 The Australian continent is grouped into six major elements [ The Northern Australia Element, in simple terms, includes the "southern half" part of the island of New Guinea. ]
 * 2) Davies: figure 3 on page 90 and on page 89 The hinterland of the Papuan Basin extends from .. CB .. to .. FR .. and is made up of terranes that have accreted to the Australian craton ..  [ In simple terms, includes the "southern half" part and the "northern half" part, ie, all of the island except West Irian Jaya. ]
 * 3) Gribbin: para mid page 523 Since New Guinea is part of the same piece of continent as Australia, with only the shallow sea of the continental shelf spearating them, .. whole of the only continent ..
 * 4) Zookeys: figure 1 on page 103 Map of the greater Australian continent .. larger land mass know [ n ] as .. when the contintal shelf is exposed .. [ In simple terms, includes all of the island of New Guinea. ]
 * 5) Kennet et al: para mid left page 4 This caused the flooding of the land bridges between Tasmania .. the mainland .. New Guinea .. isolating ..

Note that:
 * items 1 and 2 are related to geology
 * items 3 and 4 are related to topography and climate history
 * item 5 is related to topography and climate history

Some points of potential issue are:
 * Are you looking for a geological definition of continent or a climate history definition? Zookeys and Gribbin are both essentially ecosystem studies, and (of course) it makes sense to include land masses separated by shallow seas (or large lakes) as one broader macro eco-climate zone (which were also at one time (recently) connected).
 * Relying on item 5, Kennet et al, to define the "continent" may be unsafe because they do not seem to explain why New Guinea is not part of "Australia" but Tasmania is, when both have been "isolated" from the "mainland" by the same climate change process, in geological time scales only a second apart.  (Geopolitically, NG could also be part of Australia and for some time it essentially was.)
 * Blewett and Kennet are authors to both item 1 and item 5.
 * The Gribbin item is now over 40 years old and much more is now known about the underlying geology.
 * Item 1 and item 2 both provide very specific geological definitions, but neither include the whole island of New Guinea.

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aoziwe, many thanks. I have found geographers, geologists, biologists and archeologists all have different interpretations of the subject, and if we can find a source that explains those then that too should be outlined in the article. This is the first attempt at trying to explain what different authorities state, there is clearly room for more. I am keen to avoid the previous situation where 90% of the article was pure synthesis based on a tenuously sourced (and that’s charitable) proposition. Cavalryman (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC).
 * I look forward to it. Cheers.  Aoziwe (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Drastic rewrite"
This recent edit with a summary of Drastic rewrite to encapsulate both definitions of the Australian continent that have been discussed at length at Talk:Australia (continent)#Definition of the continent. This rewrite introduces the first sources to the article that actually state the continent includes New Guinea removed 85k of article content, taking out seven large sections about the human history, ecology of the region and leaving it as just the definition of the physical continent.

Was this removal intentional, or was User:Cavalryman only meaning to replace the "Definition" section? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes the removal was deliberate.
 * First, none of the sources cited in those sections described any of those aspects of the continent in a "whole of continent" way, they were all sources about Australia or separate sources about New Guinea. And so most of the content was just a series of statements about Australia followed by a series of statements about New Guinea, usually in separate sentences.
 * And second, any attempt to reintroduce that content would need to completely rewrite it to account for the two different definitions of what the continent is, giving appropriate weight to both. To be honest I think refocusing that effort into ensuring the content of New Guinea is as good as it can be would be far more productive.
 * But, I would not oppose any attempt to rewrite and reintroduce such content, provided appropriate weight was given by section to both definitions. Cavalryman (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022
There's no protection template, and I have VERY MASSIVE headaches. Whislife (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – F  Adesdae  378  23:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be dab page
Local usage should prevail in such cases, surely? The exonymic, broader usage of "Australia" is obviously interesting, but it is no longer used in that way in Australian English. (It was, more often, before 1901, before there was an a single, independent country called the Commonwealth of Australia.)

Here in Australia (country), "Australian continent" simply = Australian mainland, i.e. not even Tasmania is included. Were we to talk about a wider region, terms like Australasia or Oceania would be used.

The idea of dividing every single landmass into several continents is alien to Australians. Hence it is also an alien idea to lump together remote, tectonically unrelated islands, with the nearest large, contiguous landmass

I also don't believe that anyone in New Guinea (PNG or West Papua) would consider any part of that island to be "Australia".

58.162.241.149 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to cite reliable sources to support your assertions that most Australians don't accept the concept of a continent that includes Australia. Many of the editors to this article are Australian (I'm not), and they appear to accept the concept. Further, whether or not most Australians accept the concept of an Australian continent, it is a common concept elsewhere, as cited in the article, and rightly covered in an encyclopedia. As to a DAB page, there already is one: Australia (disambiguation). BilCat (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Big fat boiler plate tag
Can we have the boiler plate tag addressed please? It's been there 12 months. There is no active discussion or apparent pathway to resolve. Is it just a sign of some wiki-stalemate from stubborn editors digging their edit heals in from some previous disagreement?

The tag reads as follows:


 * This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
 * Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (January 2022)
 * This article possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. (January 2022)
 * This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (January 2022)
 * This article possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (January 2022)

I don't find this useful way of addressing the issues. As a reader of the article, it just says to me that someone/s had 5 issues with it.

What needs to be done to resolve them? Remember, wikipedia is firstly for reader - editor's convenience comes second to that - or at least should be kept to a talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Bump". Hello??? Anyone there? --Merbabu (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that seems to have been a result of this discussion, which is quite a while ago, and I think it's safe to say this is still the consensus version. I'll remove the template.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Area of the Australian continent is wrong
The area of the Australian continent in this article is wrong. This article provides 2 different areas: Both of these areas are larger than the area of Oceania (8,525,989 km2). Oceania is bigger than the Australian continent as the Australian continent is entirely located in Oceania. The first area, 8,600,000 km2, has no source supporting it. The second area, 8,560,000 km2, uses a citation that doesn't even support its claim, well actually the citation's URL was put in incorrectly in the article but if you go to the correct URL and use internet archive you can browse through all of the versions of the website and find that it doesn't once mention that area, it only mentions the area of the country of Australia. I've tried to find a reliable source that mentions the actual area of the Australian continent, but I only get the area of the country of Australia or the area of Oceania. Help would be appreciated. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 8,600,000 km2
 * 8,560,000 km2


 * You are right. I can't believe that people are just so neglectful about geography, people just seem to not care about geography at all. I too couldn't find a single reliable source on the Internet which actually gives a figure for the area of the Australian continent. I think one way we could solve this problem is manually add up the areas of the country of Australia, New Guinea (including Western New Guinea), and the Aru Islands.


 * The area of Oceania (8,525,989 km2) is also wrong. This figure only represents the area of political Oceania, not geographical Oceania. It doesn't include the areas of Western New Guinea and the Aru Islands (both are administered by Indonesia). In pure physical geography, the whole island of New Guinea is considered a part of Oceania, not just Papua New Guinea. The real area of Oceania is approx. 8,935,502 km2 (see: List of Oceanian countries by area), but again, I couldn't find any reliable source on the Internet which actually gives a correct figure for the area of Oceania, so we might have to manually add up the areas of political Oceania, Western New Guinea, and the Aru Islands too. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Somebody explain why New Zealand isn't part of this continent?
Pleas tell me how new zealand became not part of a continent (you're wrong anyway but if nobody can give me a reason I'm changing it because this is absolutely stupid) DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * They're on different geologic and continental plates. Local consensus on this article is to use the geological definition of a continent. On that note, you might find this article to be of interest.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because New Zealand and other island nations in the Pacific Ocean are NOT part of the Australian continent.
 * For the extent of the Australian continent, see: https://www.virtualoceania.net/australia/maps/australian-continent.shtml
 * You can also find Geoscience Australia's definition of the Australian continent in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz4mPJyERLA 203.46.37.2 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because a "continent" is not a region. NZ is not part of the geographical continent of Australia, anymore than geographically the British Isles are part of the geographical continent of Europe! JellyThoughts (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)