Talk:Continent/Archive 1

Olympic Continents Part 2
Most of the comments below should be deleted. The Olympic Flag does not represent continents:

On the Olympic flag, the rings appear on a white background.

This flag translates the idea of the universality of the Olympic Movement. At least one of the colours of the rings, including the white background, can be found on the flag of every nation in the world.

'''But watch out! It is wrong, therefore, to believe that each of the colours corresponds to a certain continent!'''

http://www.olympic.org/uk/utilities/faq_detail_uk.asp?rdo_cat=10_39_0&faq=81

Olympic continents
we should also mention the 5 continent system as seen on the Olympic games logo, the Esperanto flag etc. I'm not sure which 5 it is though, I'm guessing one of the 6 models minus uninhabited Antarctica, but maybe there are different 5s too! -- Tarquin 18:43 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * TO COMBINE OR NOT TO...mistakenly inserted here, moved farther down and completed, sorry 1st time on Wiki


 * Afrasia is no different than America: a narrow land connection, cut by a canal, and on separate tectonic plates that all move relative to each other (although Arabia is part of Africa geologically, so that's a pretty solid connection). If you want to be consistant, then there are either 7 continents or 4, not 5. But since when are humans ever consistent? kwami 19:19, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Good luck finding a definitive answer for which five continents are represented by the olympic rings. The "official" answer from the olympic committee is simply that they represent the "five continents that send athletes". They never say exactly what they consider to be *the* five. There are MANY pages on the web where people claim the continents are A,B,C,D, and E - but guess what, they disagree with each other. (anon)

There's some discussion of Spanish views of continents (combined America) at Talk:List of people from the United States/naming that might be worth a glance. Martin 23:52 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Er... in the article: "Five Continents: Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Oceania." Where's Europe? (anonymous)


 * Removed. Ambarish | Talk 02:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For regions; someone should make a world map of regions of every continent and add it to a new regions page; aka red shades for north america (dark red=caribbean, light red=central america etc); for each continent
 * Suggestion: Red for North America, Green for South America, Blue for Europe, Orange for Asia, Yellow for Africa, Pink for Oceania, and Gray for Antarctica


 * Like this atlas of Canada world map ?

North America is a sub-continent, not a continent, so that would be both the north and south sub-continents red, right? Or maybe you were thinking only in terms of the way continents are often taught in the US, with north and south contoinents instead of sub-continents?:) What color should the continent of Australia be, since it's not part of Oceania? Or is it? Well, that depends on how you were taught. I gather that US people are usually taught that it's part of something weird called oceania, while Australians are usually taught that it's a continent. If you're a US person, what do you think the rings on the Olympic flag, one for each continent, should mean?:) Jamesday 02:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you're going to argue that North America is a subcontinent, then you should also argue that Europe, Asia and Africa are all one continent. North and South America are connected only by the narrow Panama ithmus, which is no wider than the Sinai (which connects Africa and Asia)--and far narrower than the huge land connection between Europe and Asia.


 * 65.34.180.172 20:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * TO COMBINE OR NOT TO COMBINE, 'TIS THE QUESTION
 * In fact you should either combine or not combine :)
 * Just make sure that you are consistent, ah semantics.
 * If you don't combine, do it fully: 7 continents.
 * If you do combine, do it fully: 5 continents (same words...without leaving any land out)


 * In geogical uderstanding there is no real reason to seperate the Americas from each other, they seperated from the old world at the same time and moved away at the same time, As there is no reason other than political to seperate the European from the Asian subcontinents, they've been together throughout much of the earth's history. Africa is an entirely different matter, although connected by a land bridge, it has moved on it's own from Asia and Europe. So you don't really need to give a @#$% about what whoever thinks this or that about names and places that we read on the web and in books. True knowledge is not based on single individual facts but on your ability to put things together and make sense of them.


 * To delve a little deeper into continent terminology, there are 4 aspects to consider:
 * 1. Contiguous land: how much water above land makes it "non continuous"? If parts of Louisiana go under, they don't become a seperate continent! "Land bridges" don't make an iota of difference in this discussion, because they are extremely volatile.
 * 2. Tectonic plates: someone later on says that because North and South America are on different tectonic plates, that's cause to say they're different continents, well I guess in his POV of the world there are nearly 20 continents!!! The tectonic plates are not to be ignored in this debate, but we must add just a dash of antropocentrism. The 5 or 7 continent "concept" is an antropocentric take on the world. It's a wording teachers use to help students get a grasp of the distribution of countries of the planet. It really doesn't have much more value than that.
 * 3. Biology: Animal and plant classifications are also a good indicator when it comes to defining continents. The duration of distanciation between land masses is reflected in the world of the living before global transportation, just think of marsupials or the death of local indigineous groups in the Pacfic islands and America after exposure to European colonial viruses and infections. In this context, we see how and why Africa is considered a seperate continent from Eurasia. During colonial times, European diseases did not conquer black africa, because the infectious/viral gene pool was similar enough, not identical mind you. Africa 's world of the living (in an extended historical sense) shares little else with Eurasia. As for the "political entities" that are Europe and Asia, living organisms don't give a hoot about that, organisms large and small can go anywhere they want in Eurasia, just depends on their transportation abilities and resilience to weather differences!!! LOL
 * 4. Inclusiveness: If we are to have an "Australian continent" that excludes all the Pacific islands, just because it doesn't stand up 100% to scientific scrutiny, that would be unpleasant for the islanders.
 * Student: "So teacher, what continent is Figi on?
 * Teacher: "Sorry love, they don't have a continent"
 * Student: "Dont't they live on land?
 * Teacher: Ugh?
 * While some Pacific islands are on one tectonic plate, other Pacific islands (even parts of NZ) are on the same plate as Australia. That's a little like splitting hairs, or another analogy is the rule of exceptions in French grammer!!!
 * MY CONCLUSION: 6 CONTINENTS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, it's either 7 or 5 and the only difference is subcontinental nomenclature. Antartica is never to be left out. And that's that.
 * Now wether any of this comment should be on the main page, I'm not sure, as it seems that different countries will insist on their own little insular POVs of the world and who am I to tell them they're wrong. After all, it took a hell of a long time for people to believe the earth was not flat, those original "round planet" folks were heretics weren't they LOL ;)65.34.180.172


 * No, making almost every "continent" a subcontinent would be very boring I guess. The normal US interpretations of continents are North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antartica and Australia (or sometimes grouped in with Oceania even though that's not a continent.) I'm not here to argue whether or not Europe is a continent or not, I just think it would be nice to make a map of this. Just an idea.
 * By the way. What do the 5 rings on the Olympic Flag represent? You said the 5 rings stand for each continent. Well the Americas is one, Eurasia-Africa would be another, Australia a third, then Antarctica would be only the fourth. What's wrong with this?

Whoever teaches that the Middle East or Central America are continents? Is that relevant at all? Gzornenplatz 06:20, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * It should be noted to all people who didnt have the opportunity to have a reasonable Geography teacher that America is the name of one continent. It is not supposed to be the name of a nation, and it is not supposed to be used in the plural, for there is only one such continent. North, Central and South America are subdivisions (or subcontinents) of the continent of America. We are all aware of the many differences between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. And we dont refer to that continent as "The Europes". The same goes for Far East and Middle East. The continent of America is one contiguous land mass, and should be adressed as that.

The Athens2004 Olympics website suggests that the 5 continents are Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa. - Jonel 23:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who Cares [Jebus Christ]

Oceania v. Australasia v. Australia
I came to this page to find out which of the terms Oceania or Australasia is the best to refer to the continent in question. Is "Australasia" another proper way of refering to the "Oceania" continent? Or is it just plain wrong? Should this issue come up in the article? &mdash; Eje211 17:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Australasia simply refers to the region including Australia, New Zealand and nearby islands. Oceania strictly speaking does not include Australia, but just New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Confusion between Australasia and Oceania has led to the term 'Oceania' being used to refer to Australia as well. It has been argued that the continent covers New Zealand, and hence should be called Oceania, but as the lead paragraph of this article says, a continent is a large continuous area of land, which does not lend itself to recognising the continent as spanning several land masses. It is most accepted that Australia alone is the continent, and the Pacific Islands including New Zealand do not belong to a continent at all. - Mark 07:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But isn't New Zealand part of the same continental shelf as Australia?. In much the same way that the British Isles share the continental shelf with Europe. The British Isles are certainly considered to be part of the European continent as far as i'm aware. The same applies to many islands. In British schools at least, it is taught that the continent is 'Australasia' and that 'Australia' is simply a country. MagicBez 22:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, geologically, New Zealand is its own continent. It's a separate fragment of Gondwanaland, and it broke off Antarctica, not Australia. New Caledonia is another local fragment of Gondwanaland. kwami 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Oceania is not a continent.  Australia is. Jebus


 * I've always seen both the continent and the country referred to simply as 'Australia', except for occasional uses of the name Sahul. I've only seen 'Australasia' as a geopolitical term, equivalent to the ex-British colonies (with mostly ex-British inhabitants, as opposed to British possessions with mostly non-British inhabitants) in the Asia-Pacific region. Since a geographic continent is defined by social convention, you'd expect the definition to change from country to country and from year to year. There is no "right" answer, except perhaps in accordance with official usage of some government or other.


 * Geologically, of course, New Zealand is its own continent, but that's another matter.
 * kwami 00:36, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

If that's true then why all the volcanic activity? NZ is sitting int he middle of a tectonic plate!
 * Exactly. Just like North America.

Section 0
The intro defines a continent as a large continuous mass of land on the planet Earth., however continents also theoretically exist on other planets and most certanly in science fiction covering other (and fictional) planets. –Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason] 21:14, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

What I was taught in Italy was that Australia is part of a continent called Oceania. In a geographic context, this makes good sense, as other models leave New Zeland et al without a continental home. As for the definition of continent, the proper interpretation of the latin root is the sense of containment - the root does not presuppose containment within a landmass.

There are a great many islands in the world that aren't considered to be part of a continent. Who cares if NZ is part of a continent or not? The good ppl of New Zealand certainly don't! They follow the 7 continent model too! You can't have an area of ocean and call it a continent. It just isn't consistent with the defintion of the word nor the other continents in the world. 62.254.168.102 15:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oceania?
When I was taught elementary geography (in California in the 1980s), we were never taught about a continent called "Oceania". We were taught that Australia was the 7th continent, and that all the islands in the Pacific were just islands in the Pacific, not "part of" any continent. I believe this paradigm is fairly common here in the U.S., yet, it doesn't seem to be represented here. Any suggestions for how it might be added? Nohat 17:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I added my example to the page. I think the so-called "Oceania" continent is kind of silly, on the grounds that it's based on the word ocean which is the opposite of the word continent. Seems a bit counterintuitive to me, but I guess lots of kids get taught that. Nohat 22:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was taught that a continent consisted of its main land mass and only its continental islands. Put another way, it is not the current shoreline that marks the extent of continental land masses but is the continental shelf. Which I think the IGU define 200m as a guideline for identifying the cut off point between the coastal and deep ocean.

Thrusting this subject into the final realm of analysis, do we have to determine if the term "continent" is both geographic and geological; the former being always integral with human perception of land and/or biology of the regions, while the later is isolate from human preception issues - I would imagine largely based upon continental plate science and current bonding points. I tend to think of continental plates as the final limit to continental extents; but that would also mean that the Pacific plate is separate from Australia which seems to conflict with the US concept of continents.

Funny enough, the 18th century definition of Melanesia which included Australia; may prove to be a better definition of this continent than the current political borders which seem to be influencing the US impression of the region.--Daeron 02:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry if I sound a little bit to rough, but for crying out loud! There are 6 continents in the world: America (singular), Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania (which does include Australia, and New Zealand and de Micronesian and Polynesian Islands) and Antartica (which would perhaps sound better in English as Antartic Continent). The Artic (i.e.North Pole) is not a continent (Perhaps for the same reason that Greenland/Newfoundland is not one either).200.216.81.202 02:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about the Arctic? Geography is socially defined; it does not directly reflect the external world. A geographic "continent" is anything maps and books on geography say it is. Geology, of course, is another matter - New Caledonia is a geological continent, and Europe, Asia, and N America are parts of Laurasia - but that's not what this article is primarily about. kwami 02:40, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

Britain teaching five?
In the British school system I have always been taught the seven-continent version with oceania.


 * The 5 continent model is obsolete. It existed as a result of imperialistic arrogance.  They classified North and south america as 1 continent but then still expect to separate europe from asia as two separate continents.  Then they group Australia with the south pacific islands claiming a continent called oceania and completely ignore antarctica.  The 5 continent system is as flawed as it is obsolete.
 * Oceania is not a continent under any model


 * My goodness! America being taught as one continent is arrogance? Im sorry, have you been living under a shell? There is no such thing as North America being one continent and South America being another!! The American continent is one, and only one. North, South, and Central Americas are subdivisions of that continent, pretty much the same way that the Middle East and the Far East are divisions of the Asian continent! You seem to have your concepts mixed up. A contiguous land mass is one thing, and a continent is another.


 * Living under a shell? That would imply it changed from 7 to 6.  Anyway, I can only speak from my own experience.  Being educated in Australia we were taught the 7 continent system.  I now live in Ireland and everyone I know here (spaning up to the age of 40) has been taught the 7 continent system. If you apply your own argument,suggesting that a continent is a contiguous body, to other contiguous bodies then Europe, Africa and Asia are not separate continents.  You can't have it both ways.  Your suggestion that the 7 continent model isn't taught anywhere is pure ignorance to match your extreme arrogance.

Models taught in North America?

 * "The seven continent model (with Australia as a continent) is usually taught in the United States, while the six continent (combined Eurasia) model is taught in other parts of North America. The five continent (combined Americas, no Antarctica) model is commonly taught in ... Latin America including ... Mexico."

According to this, the U.S. teaches 7 continents, Mexico teaches 5 (as do the Latin American countries of Central America) and "other parts of North America" teach 6. Can we just say "Canada" instead of "other parts of North America"? Not to overlook the islands of the Caribbean, or Belize, but I would guess that they teach a variety of models. FreplySpang 00:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed/Dubious claims
There is a severe lack of clarity in this article. It would be a pity indeed if an unsuspecting reader were to take the information published here at face-value. That Australia is mentioned only once in the percieved continent equations is laughable: Oceania is given far too much credence as a continental entity - it simply is not; it is a region. A more factual approach would be to list the continents as geographically defined - the 7/6 approach: Asia, Africa, Antartica, Australia, North America, South America and Europe; or Asia, Africa, Antartica, Australia, the Americas, Europe - and then discuss the alternate names or continental make-ups, i.e. 'Eurasia'. Oceania should be discussed as a region substituting a continent for the purposes of dividing the world into clear-cut regions. --211.29.3.135 14:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Oceania should be removed, because this is the article on continents. This decision gives the following list:


 * 7 Continents: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 6 Continents (A): Africa, Eurasia, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 6 Continents (B): Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 6 Continents (C): Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australia.
 * 5 Continents (A): Africa, Eurasia, America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 5 Continents (B): Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Australia.
 * 4 Continents: Africa-Eurasia, America, Australia, Antarctica.


 * Moreover, we can include Antarctica all the time as follows:


 * 7 Continents: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 6 Continents (A): Africa, Eurasia, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 6 Continents (B): Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 5 Continents: Africa, Eurasia, America, Australia, Antarctica.
 * 4 Continents: Africa-Eurasia, America, Australia, Antarctica.


 * This list is simple enough. The Olympic flag shows the six-continent model (B), excluding Antarctica.  The six-continent model (A) is common in geology.  Historians may use the five-continent model (North Africa is usually included in Eurasia) like Jared Diamond or the four-continent model like Andre Gunder Frank.


 * By they way, during the ice ages, Beringia connected Africa-Eurasia and the Americas, forming a supercontinent consisting of them. There seems no name for it.  There were only three continents then: Africa-Eurasia-America, Sahul, and Antarctica.  This may be interesting information. - TAKASUGI Shinji 16:36, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * I have completed the change. - TAKASUGI Shinji 10:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * Great work TAKASUGI!--Cyberjunkie 12:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the changes made, but then there are a lot of articles uncoherent to this: North America, South America, the Continents template, the Continet category, etc, etc. --Marianocecowski 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im shocked. I didnt know this many people thought that North America and South America were different continents. This is so absurd I find myself speechless.


 * No it isn't - the Panamanian isthmus is relatively young, geologically speaking, and N and S America are on different tectonic plates.

Okay, the French Wikipedia article says the 7-continent model is taught in Western Europe and North America. I assume they at least have that right for France and Quebec. Other language pages that list 7 continents: Chinese Indonesian Malaysian German Turkish Bengali Danish Finnish Kashmiri Swahili Dutch Swedish Gaelic Welsh Bretton Taiwanese. Afrikaans is the same but doesn't list Antarctica.

The Spanish page says the 6-continent model (America combined) is taught in "America del Sur". The Japanese page says this model is taught in Japan. Other language pages with the combined-American 6-continent model: Portuguese Hungarian Greek Slovakian. Farsi is the same, except it doesn't list Antarctica. The Catalonian page says it is customary in Europe to speak of 5 continents, with combined America but minus Antarctica. This is presumably the origin of the rings on the Olympic flag.

The Walloon article is similar. It specifically says that there are 5 continents, but the list includes Antarctica instead of Europe!

The Hindi page says a 5 continent model is common in UK, but doesn't indicate what it is. I would think it's what's described in the Catalonian page.

The Russian page lists 6 continents, with a combined Eurasia. So do the Chuvash Polish Norse and Sundanese pages, but the Norse page specifically counts by tectonic plates.

The Arabic Bulgarian Bosnian Croatian Hindi Lithuanian Romanian Ukranian pages either do not say or else list various possibilities. The Czech Hebrew Serbian Thai pages list various possibilities with explanations that I cannot read. Notice the large number of Eastern European pages: I speculate that they used the 6-continent Eurasian model under Soviet occupation, but now are open to the Western 7-continent model.

This of course does not consider the UK, Canada (the Japanese page says Canada uses the same system as Japan), Mexico, or Central America. (The Spanish article only said that "South America" uses the 6 model and "North America" uses the 7 model, but "North America" frequently means Anglo-America.)

Does this help any? kwami 02:02, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

microcontinents
From a geological point of view, ephemeral shallow seas such as the Berring Straight are not sufficient to define continents. A continent, geologically (as opposed to geographically) speaking, is a piece of continental rock (granite etc.) floating on the Earth's mantle. From this point of view, Laurasia, Africa, and South America are a single solidly connected continent, regardless of the comings and goings of Berringia, just as geologically, the British Isles are part of the European land mass.

However, I have never been able to determine just how many geological continents there are. Iceland is out, of course, since it's volcanic, but Madagascar, New Zealand, New Caledonia, and the Seychelles are all splinters of Gondwanaland and therefore microcontinents. But what about Cyprus? Cuba? Does anybody know just how many pieces of continental crust there are floating on the Earth's mantle? kwami 02:35, 2005 May 7 (UTC)


 * To discount Iceland because it's 'volcanic' might be a mistake - the west coast of N.America has many 'slivers' that are believed too have once been oceanic island arcs accreted onto the coast during subduction, so they were originally oceanic crust when formed, but are now 'part of a continent'. I think this, along with the above arguments, simply helps to illustrate that 'continent' (as distinct from 'continental crust') is not a well-defined term. The geological definition is fuzzy at best, varies depending upon your field of interest, and bears little relation to the historical/geographical meaning. Remember continent != tectonic plate.


 * Very true: but when island arcs get plastered onto the edges of continents, the pressure and heat tend to metamorphize their rock. Certainly by the time a few more bits are plastered on outside them, this tends to happen. And New Caledonia, as far as I know, is very old and pretty thoroughly metamorphic, very unlike young igneous Iceland or Hawaii. Perhaps some of the islands are intermediate, as you suggest. But it's rather frustrating to not be able to find out which bits are continental crust, and which bits oceanic or volcanic. kwami 00:59, 2005 July 14 (UTC)


 * I agree - I was simply trying to point out that the oceanic/continental divide is not a sharp line. There is plenty of metamorposed rock in oceanic crust, and plenty of basaltic/ultramafic rock on the continents (as an extreme example, consider ophiolite sequences in eg. Oman or the Lizard - believed to be oceanic crust/mantle overthrusted onto a continental shelf). I was simply suggesting that the exact details of how many continents/micro-continents there are was not something to get too hung up on, because no definitive answer is possible. --138.253.112.241 09:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Inferiority complex
Those suggesting anybody taught the 7 continent system are wrong or uneducated need to look this up =).

Origin of distinction between Europe and Asia
The article says:
 * Because of the perceived cultural differences by the inhabitants, it is conventional to subdivide Eurasia into Europe and Asia.

I would argue that this is incorrect. Surely cultural differences inside of Asia (between Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists, between rich places like Japan and poor places like Afghanistan, between speakers of Indo-European languages and speakers of Chinese, and so on) are larger than any (perceived) cultural difference between Asia and Europe.

The reason for the distinction between Europe and Asia is purely historical: because we have always done it that way. It goes back to ancient mediterranean civilizations (Egyptians, early Greeks) who actually did not know that Asia and Europe were connected, because their maps didn't cover anything north of the Bosporus. Comments? --Chl 15:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that Europe, Asia, and Africa were considered peninsulas of "the" Continent, just as the Med, Black Sea, Red Sea, etc. were seas of "the" Ocean: one body of water encircling one land mass. Anatolia (and the lands beyond) was Asia; Greece (and the lands beyond) was Europe; Tripoli (and the lands beyond) was Africa. The Greeks, at least after a point, understood that the Continent was a single land mass, for they had colonies all around the Black Sea. Of course, it may well be that the Egyptians and Greeks at an earlier date did not know this, and that the Greeks later reinterpreted Egyptian geography, but I'd like to see some evidence for this.


 * Later on, there were two large empires in Eurasia: Rome and China. However, Rome still used the names Asia and Africa for lands close to home, in its dominion, rather than for distant China or Nubia. I don't know when the current usage developed, but it seems possible that it was after the Portuguese and Spanish explorations of the globe, and the discoveries of America and the Pacific. kwami 19:15, 2005 July 29 (UTC)


 * However, I think the Middle East is a cultural term; it's only attested from 1897 (as "middle East") and originally referred to India. kwami


 * The Herodotus passage (5th century BC) at the bottom of the article would be evidence for early Greeks not knowing that Europe and Asia are one land mass. ("as to Europe... it is clearly not known... whether it is surrounded by sea"). Later Greeks, of course, knew all about the Black Sea. This quote also shows that Europe, Asia, and Africa/Libya were already considered the three main divisions of land at this time (whether they were called continents or something else, I don't know). Another piece of evidence is one version of the myth of Jason; he sailed all the way around Europe starting in the Black Sea, going north, and coming back from the western Mediterranean.


 * Middle East: To complicate things, there is also the term "Near East". This used to refer to what is now known as the Middle East, and the term is still used for this area in other European languages. To complete the list, there is of course also the "Far East" - China and Japan. Considering the Middle East as a region comparable to a continent is a very recent thing (not older than 1970s?). In popular culture, Asia came to be identified with the Far East for cultural/racial reasons, and so a new term had to be found for western Asia. --Chl 21:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon's additions
These additions by an anon are out of control POV. There is some useful information here, so I'm hesitant to revert, but the slavish application of the geological definition of "continent" is inappropriate and needs to be tempered. Nohat 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Problem is, it's not even a good understanding of continent in the geologic sense. Arabia and India are geologically as well as customarily part of Asia; historically, Arabia is part of Africa, but now Africa has joined up with Laurasia. Geologically, Cape Town and Buenos Aires are on the same "continent", but New Caledonia is a separate "continent". But by custom, New Caledonia doesn't count at all. I think your revert is appropriate, but doesn't go far enough: India is still defined as both a subcontinent and a continent. kwami 19:27, 2005 July 29 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't mind having this stuff, but if we go this way, I think we should clearly distinguish between continent as a human construct (the continents of Europe, Asia, etc.), geological land masses (the continents of Laurasia, New Zealand, etc.), and land on separate plates (the "continents" of Arabia, California, etc.) kwami 19:57, 2005 July 29 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just took it out, with some other edits. (Needs to be cleaned up a bit, though: 'supercontinent' too prominent, etc.) "Continent" is commonly understood as a geographic construct, and that's how the article should be presented. Geological land mass is also useful, and could use being expanded. Tectonic plate usage is news to me; it may be used in some fields, or may be POV/"original research". Could be placed under Tectonics if people still want it: but why stop at #8 Arabia? kwami 21:08, 2005 July 29 (UTC)


 * Reorganized to separate geographic, geologic, and tectonic conceptions. Anon should now be able to add to Tectonic to heart's content without upsetting common usage. kwami

Official definition in Italy
These are very good lists, but you missed the proper definition: Earth is composed with lands and waters where lands are continents and waters are oceans, so a Continent is a land surrounded by oceans. The first continent is the Old one or the Big one (Africa and Eurasia), surrounded by Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Arctic Glacial Sea. It is composed with two sub-continents (Africa and Eurasia) and divided by geographers into three World Parts: Africa, Asia and Europe. The second continent is America, surrounded by Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Arctic Glacial Sea, and composed with two sub-continents corresponding to two official World Parts: North America and South America. The third continent is Antarctica, surrounded by Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean and not divided into World Parts. The fourth continent is an artificial one, Oceania, composed with all the islands of Pacific Ocean which cannot be related to Asia or America. Properly it is a World Part and not a continent, but officials consider Australia as a continent (between Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean) and other islands as related to it. I personally don’t agree with this definition, because Australia is only an island clearly related to Asia. As everyone knows, islands are not properly parts of any continent, but they are usually and officially related to the closer one. The most famous example is Tristan da Cunha, which is in Atlantic Ocean, about midway between Africa and South America, but it is officially considered as part of Africa because it’s a little closer to it than to South America. Australia is very close to Asia and clearly part of the islands chain beginning with Indonesia and ending with Melanesia (and their original peoples belonged to the same Australidian race) and there is no matter to consider it separated. It’s true that Pacific Ocean covers a whole hemisphere, so its islands are in a different situation than islands closer to continents, but there are two more normal ways to classify them: 1) the usual way about the closer continent: they are between Asia and America, so they could be classified as part of one of these two continents; 2) considering Oceania only as a World Part, but not part of any continent. However, official classifications are only an instrument for studying and can be changed: the most famous example is Pluto, formerly considered as a planet, now classified as a planetoid after the discovery there are a lot of other worlds like it. I think that the idea of Oceania will be given away, also because it has no roots in the islands, where nobody considers himself/herself as “Oceanic” and where this name is rarely used. Val from Italy, Teacher of Geography Note: In common daily life, it's true that peoples consider Europe, Asia and Africa as different continents and America as one continent, while ideas are confused about Antarctica (few know if it's around north or south pole, and if and where there is land) and Oceania (whose name is unknown to many. One of my pupils thought that it included oceanic islands all over the world!). However, geography books (in Italy) are divided for World Parts, starting from us: Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Oceania, Antarctica.

Table of continent models
Having the areas of these continents in brackets in the table is quite disruptive. I suggest splitting the table up like this.

Models

 * I've always thought the current continent system was an awful hybrid of geological and cultural dividers. I much prefer the cultural/linguistic method myself, which is why I advocate the following sytem - http://stevewalsh2.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/800px-Continents_vide_couleurs.bmp - Walshicus

Area
By the way, why is New Guinea included in Australia. New Guinea is not part of the Australian continent. On the other hand, you might not want to call Australia a continent, then why only include New Guinea and not the whole of Australasia (or Oceania)? Jimp 12Oct05


 * I like it. Go ahead and put it in! As for Australia, go ahead and change the figures to Australia proper if you like; it's a minor point and not important here. Australasia and Oceania are not continents in most conceptions. Australasia at any rate is a geopolitical concept, and Oceania is mentioned elsewhere. But both Tasmania and New Guinea are geologically part of Australia the same way that the British Isles and Sicily are part of Europe, and very close to the mainland just as they are, but unlike New Zealand or Fiji. Or maybe you'd like to add Oceania as an alternate to Australia, maybe in a second row beneath it? I don't think that would be contentious, unlike replacing Australia with Oceania. kwami 05:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the Australasia article it's no mere geopolitical concept. It's divided from Asia by the Wallace line which is a biologically significant boundary as well as being a tectonic boundary.

I think I will change the figures. The article goes on to talk about which model is taught where. I was never taught that New Guinea was part of the Australian continent.Jimp 12Oct05


 * Both New Guinea and Tasmania sit on the Australian continental shelf. Before the rising of the sea levels, the three formed Australia-New Guinea/Meganesia/Sahul. Australasia, in its primary definition, is a geopolitical region comprising the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand, and sometimes including PNG and even Fiji. Less commonly, Australasia means the Australasia ecozone - an ecozone separated from Asia at the hypothetical Wallace line.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But Tasmania is an Australian state. New Guinea isn't part of Australia

I think you may be confusing 'Australia' the country and 'Australia' the continent, either way i also was never taught that New Guinea is on the Australian continent as its part of the Asian continent?

To me the Australian continent = Australia + nearby islands, Tasmania, and New Zealand

Why is it listed in the table as Australia/Oceania, Oceania is the region, the continent is just Australia

I live in Australia and go to school in Australia and we have always been taught that The continent of Australai consists solely of the country. We were even told New Zealand is not part of the continent and I am sure New Guinea is part of Asia. Just saying this because on your map its shows New Zealand, New Guinea and Micronesia as part of the Australian continent, which they are not. Then again I may be wrong, Australian Schooling is probably pretty biased.

Confusion is being created here by referring to a continent by the name 'Australia'. Is anyone aware of any other continents that share their name with a country? I'm not because it is confusing and frankly wrong. That's why it is referred to (in other parts of the world) as Australasia or Oceania and continuing to refer to a continent called Australia will mislead readers. As per the comment above I am also Australian and I think Australian schooling is not deliberately biased but rather that the teachers have grown up with mis-information, only to then teach it. If people recognise that there are 7 continents, then it is quite easy to see that the country of Australia is not a continent in itself but part of (all be the major part of) a continent referred to by another name. If anyone doesn't accept this then could they please explain what continent New Zealand (and other Pacific nations such as Fiji etc.) is part of, certainly not Asia and certainly not South America. Also try telling a kiwi that there country is actually part of 'Australia' (those that understand the rivalry between Australia and New Zealand will understand).

Done
I've replaced the old list with two tables. I hope people like them. Note: I've rearranged the order of the continents. Whereas they had been ordered by size they now are ordered according to the Dymaxion map by Buckminster Fuller featured in the top right this allowed me to make the table much clearer, for example, "Eurasia" is under "Asia" & "Europe". Jimp 17Oct05

NPOV
This statement expresses POV in that America (continent) is divided whereas Europe (continent) is united.
 * There are names for six, but America is often divided, and Europe is often united with Asia.

Look at the converse:
 * There are names for six, but Eurasia is often divided, and North America is often united with South America.

Which would be Eurasia (continent) and North America (continent).

I would think that it would be best say:
 * There are names for six, though Eurasia and America are often divided.

or
 * There are names for six, though Europe and Asia are often combined, as well as North and South America.

As a side note, I have never heard of laurasia as a continent geographically. Geologically sure, but not geographically.

134.250.72.141


 * This section deals with the history of the term continent, and as such it is correct. Europe and Asia were two of the original three continents. America was the fourth. America was divided before Eurasia was united. Therefore, the only way of getting to five is to divide America, or to discover a new continent. kwami

I would guess that Europe and Asia are traditionally considered separate continents because where they come together at Istanbul they would SEEM like almost separate land masses virtually surrounded by water if one knew nothing of their geography further north. Does anyone know if that is the reason? Where would one start with the historical research? User:Shulgi


 * The Europe and Asia concepts (and words) go back at least to the ancient Greeks. Herodotus wrote about the terms and concepts in his book The History (see parts 4.40 to 4.45 or so).  He writes about the world being divided into three parts, Europe, Asia, and Libya (Africa).  His geographic knowledge was quite good for the time, but still quite distorted and vague and missing vast areas.  For example, he claims that Europe is as long, east-west, as Africa and Asia combined.  Apparently Herodotus regarded all of northern Asia as part of Europe.  He regards the boundary between the two as the Black Sea, Caucasias Mountains, Capsian Sea, and east of that his knowledge becomes vague.  So his Asia is essentially modern Turkey, Arabia, Iran (Persia), and India.


 * On the origin of the names and why the world was so divided, he doesn't know. He writes: "I cannot guess why, since the earth is all one, there should be three names set upon it, all indicating descent from women, or why, for boundaries, the Egyptian Nile is given as one and the Colchian river Phasis as another -- though there are those who speak for the Maeetian river Tanaïs and the Cimmerian Ferries.  Nor can I find out the names of those who established these boundaries or whence they got these names of descent." (History 4.45)  I think the Phasis River is today's Kura River and the Tanaïs is today's Don River (Russia).  Anyway, this could be a place to start in trying to learn how Europe and Asia became defined as they are. Pfly 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographic Realms?
I found the Geographic Realms article. I hope people in touch with this article may see if the information found there is worth to add here. If not, I guess it should be deleted. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! IMO: mildly interesting, but unsourced and not necessarily verifiable; may also smack of POV.  Consolidate/co-ordinate with subregions or delete it. E Pluribus Anthony 05:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't delete my article!!!!!!!!!!!! My article breaks up the world in CULTURAL regions, NOT PHYSICAL (like a continent) by the way I added my source.

Cameron Nedland 19:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah; "more or less"? If there's a body of literature that can support these definitions (and if they can be cited/verified), a separate article may be warranted; if not (or even if so), consolidate/co-ordinate with subregions or delete it. E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The articles information comes from a college textbook by H. J. de Blij.

Cameron Nedland 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe that particular article seeks to explore Huntington's Clash of Civilizations notion or De Blij's "Realms and Regions" school book series? Both make quite interesting reading, with many philosophical theses and theories to ponder. And maps to admire! =] //Big Adamsky 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My information comes from De Blij.

Cameron Nedland 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By all means, then, beef up the article with these ... particularly (and we can too) if you can cite sources, and wikilink to other articles where needed. :) Oh: unless this term is specific, the article should probably be at/entitled Geographic realms (lower case r). E Pluribus Anthony 16:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cameron, I'm thinking that these are all just ways of dividing up humanity and associated physical zones and mental spheres according to various subjective (but nonetheless fascinating) criteria of common denominators and fault lines. Maybe such thoughts don't really merit an entire encyclopedic entry of their own? You could always try to incorporate some of Huntington's or De Blij's points into other relevant articles, such as subregion. If so, I'd be glad to help out. Chanukka Matata! B-} //Big Adamsky 17:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Further to this, the term/notion doesn't seem to be very prevalent (at least online): there are relatively few mentions through Google of "geographic realm". This is, by no means, the only gauge of whether the article should hold.  If the article can be enhanced, great; if not, perhaps it would be better to incorporate relevant notions into the subregion article. E Pluribus Anthony 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll see what I can do.

66.205.108.8 01:58, 5 January 2006


 * I've been following the discussion about the "Geographic Realms" entry and

have taken the time to go through it and list some serious problems. It is fixable but then needs to be put under one of the human geography sections. It should not be put on the continents page since that is a physical geography section. I haven't heard back from anyone. Is anybody out there? WLE 23:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Map
Someone has naively included a United Nations produced map; I imagine they assumed the United Nations was free of political and fiscal manipulation by Corporate America. Of course the map is meant to represent regions of the world by geographic and / or ethnic groupings; as a result the entire map is expected to show irregular boundaries as oppose to the straight lines which political States or corportaions draw to divide lands in disregard to ethnic or geographic groupings.

And the U.N. map does show this, excepting for one straight North-South line ; most people might not be aware of the U.N.'s first political intrigue and its conflict of interests between John Rockefeller donating $8m of land for the U.N. building and fast tracking a mostly Asian Federation designed to be overthrown by a internal military power promising to give Rockefeller's companies access to the wealth of Asia in exchange for his support. In any event, the island of Papua, or as German speakers called it New Guinea, should not be divided by this political border designed to protect the gold mining interests of Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.211.30.95.182 04:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Paranoid fantasies aside, can you imagine a body, designed to facilitate international diplomacy, implicitly advocating the dissolution of a sovereign member state by dividing Indonesia in two? Please. kwami 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hillarious comment! =] //Big Adamsky 19:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you care to explain WHY the Wikipedia should mis-represent what you yourself described as a political map, as a "geographical subregions" map ? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.84.166 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:57, 3 January 2006.


 * I agree H: a spade is a spade and there's no misrepresentation. The apparent UN-POV, which is cited and verifiable, is of course countered by a 'NPOV' from an anonymous IP regarding New Guinea and the North-South dichotomy.  Hmmm; which do I choose?  Next.  E Pluribus Anthony 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The caption says right there "in use by the United Nations". It does not claim that it is the absolute truth. There is therefore nothing wrong, in my mind, with including the map. —Felix the Cassowary 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * User:211.30.84.166, please do not delete talk page content, unless you discover unfactual slander/slurs. Also, do feel free to enlighten yourself at this related discussion. //Big Adamsky 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The "in use by the United Nations" citation is good, but does not warn a reader that this specific document (the map) has been subjected to political editing to avoid the alleged insult to Indonesia which kwami mentions above. Can anyone seriously claim the western half of New Guinea is in Asia? Either a corrected map should be provided or the error identified. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.84.166 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2006.


 * Please do not remove other editors' comments unless you can justify such action through our no personal attacks policy. Admittedly, BA's initial comment has not contructive and perhaps mocking, but its not necessary to remove it or his secondary advice. Also, please sign your posts.--cj | talk 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not an error and doesn't require correction. And yes: politically and arguably, the western half (Irian Jaya) is in Southeastern Asia (as part of Indonesia) and/or Australasia/Oceania (part of Papua New Guinea); for additional discourse, see BA's link above. E Pluribus Anthony 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The map as the anon alluded to does not actually show continental regions in the tectonic sense- rather it shows loose political subdivisions- and is in this instance an inappropriate image for an article on continents. A better illustration would be one like this.--nixie 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is indeed much better.--cj | talk 14:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The current map also mkaes no sense in terms of the text- which discusses a 7 continent model - while the map shows supposed "subcontinents" model not mentioned in the text at all.--nixie 14:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What is a "contintental region in the tectonic sense"? The article itself says that definitions using tectonic plates have rarely been accepted. The map also shows things like parts of Indonesia as being part of the same thing as Australia and the arbitrary division between Europe and Asia which are not justified on tectonic grounds. I do not claim that it's an unreasonable definition of the contintents (I mostly agree with it, in fact), but it's certainly based on historic and social grounds. In that sense, it's not "better", just "different". Simi'ly, there are also very real political and commercial senses in which Irian Jaya is a part of Asia, but Papua New Guinea is a part of Australia and Oceania/the Pacific. (Nixie brings up a good point though, posted after I wrote this. Damn slow brain.) —Felix the Cassowary 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent map! This map limits itself to showing only what the article is actually covering, namely the continents, whereas the other images show additional/different information. Colours are nice and clear, too! I'm putting it in right away, folks. 8σ] //Big Adamsky 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means inlcude both, but what the UN map is showing needs to be clearly defined in the article so it doesn't further confuse the mess of definitions discussed in the article.--nixie 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the postings of E Pluribus Anthony and User:211.30.84.166 up there: I think it is essential to distinguish between


 * which continents certain islands (should) "belong to" or be associated with (see also this attempt to present the continental appertainance of Indonesia)
 * how to best depict cartographically the area covered by a particular state or grouping of states.


 * By the way, New Guinea is not called "New Guinea" in German (it's the English name). And also, its western half has recently been renamed Papua, which historically was also the name of its southeastern part. Trust me, I can understand why so many object to the events in the 1960s and 70s in Dutch New Guinea and Portuguese Timor (and other instances of annexation, irredentism and separatism in many other places), but I think we still need to let the UN position on matters of international law override all such considerations. There is still plenty of room for critical discussion in these articles and for footnotes in tables that draw attention to the fact that a status or border might not be unanimously recognized by the entire world community. Sound fair enough? //Big Adamsky 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the UN map doesn't have much to do with most of the article. At best it goes with the section on subcontinents/subregions. And I also like the newly proposed map, beside the purdy colors, for the fact that none of the continental boundaries follow political boundaries. But of course it too is POV. Why should a couple ditches (the Panama & Suez Canals) define continents? (POV) Why should the ecological Wallace line define a continent? (POV) I presume that Easter Is. is included in Australia. (POV) I think it's a good map, maybe as good as we can get, but no matter what we do someone is going to object to some aspect of it, and we won't be able to justify it with any rigor. kwami 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very to-the-point points indeed. Well, if all of these points of view are addressed and given due mention in the article then it should end up reasonably balanced, eh? As long as all agree on what we are counting, then it should be pretty straight forward.
 * I really like the note about the deliberate choice of colours from the creator of Image:Continents vide couleurs.png. //Big Adamsky 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great map! I agree with using the current image too – it's clear, sensible, and more descriptive of the traditional notion of what the commonly-known continents are.  I may tweak it a bit (i.e., make it larger).  However, the original notion of the prior map being POV is in fact, just another POV: as stated, depending on authority, there are various interpretations of what a continent actually is – geographically (islands or not), geophysically/seismologically, culturally, politically, even ecologically, etc.  Whatever map(s) are included, including the two of note, they must summatively state rationale/source in a proviso.  E Pluribus Anthony 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Geological POV
Hello. I'm not sure if it was my map you are talking about or not. I made a map for Wikipedia showing the geographic subregions used by the UN Statistics Division.

There's a problem with this article as it stands. It focuses on the geological concept of a continent to the exclusion of the political concept. Each continent has a definition, the "political" definition, in which countries are allocated in their entirity to one continent or another. This is perhaps best illustrated by a country like New Zealand, which geologically is non-continental, but which is politically part of the continent of Oceania.

Now if you look around the Internet, or around other resources, you will probably find it reasonably easy to categorise the use of the term continent as political or geological. If we can keep those concepts separate in our minds hopefully we can write a more balanced article that addresses both concepts without defining one or other as normative.

Politically, the only debate seems to be debate about whether East Timor should be allocated to Asia or Oceania. The UN Statistics Division assigns it to Asia. If we can find sources that assign it to Oceania then we can address the dispute appropriately in the article.

So I suggest:


 * We make it clear in the introduction that continent is both a geological term and a political term. Citing the Australia/Oceania case may assist in illustrating the point.
 * We create a new section to describe the political assignment of countries to continents and note any disputes.
 * We put the map of UN subregions in the new political section.

What do others think?

Ben Arnold 23:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I separated geology vs. geography to some extent. The revert wars prior to that had been ridiculous. It might be wise to make this distinction more rigorous, as you suggest. However, there is no universal definition of geographic continents. For many people, Oceania specifically excludes Australia, for example. kwami 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Geology
I would advise merging the last two sections into a section called "Geology" Geologists use of the word "continent" is the same as a geographer's.  Plus I can correct the use of geology jargon; some of it's pretty loose. For example, "lithospheric mantle and crust": I know the lithosphere includes the crust and upper mantle, but the mantle definitely can't be described as lithospheric. And metamorphic rock forms at depth and/or at high temperatures, so it is not necessarily found on top of granitic rock.--Cjackb 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean merging the 'Geologic continents' section with 'Tectonic plates'? That would make sense.  Merging either of them with 'Geographic continents', though, wouldn't; moreover, perhaps the section titles/content need to be refined?  Cite sources. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think refering the community of geographer as scientific community is pushing it a bit. Anyway, it is better to disambiguate POV according to appropriate definition. FWBOarticle 16:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In Germany at least, but probably in much more of Europe the six continent model is taught, taking North and South of America as one continent! In German America has no plural.

Australia or Oceania
The most common name for the Continent where Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Polynesia and other countries is located is Oceania. Australia is the name of one specific country of Oceania and not the name of the whole continent. We can see, for example, the Oceania Football Confederation. Can I change it to Oceania? --201.44.215.240 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Oceania is not geologically or geographically a continent. It is a only conceptually so, as a matter of convenience.--cj | talk 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sporting associations use the geographical region of oceania rather than the continent of Australia to differentiate regions because it wouldn't make any sense to reference the continent of Australia as its own region due to the fact that there is only one country on the continent of Australia. Factoid Killer 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While it is more properly a region (and I'm not debating this point per se), there are numerous instances (for example, Collins World Atlas and the online Atlas of Canada) where Oceania is referred to as a continent. However, whether this is due to propriety, convenience, or consistency with the six 'other' major regions/continents – given the islandic nature of this region – remains to be seen. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oceania is not a physiographic continent, neither in the standard definition of a continuous landmass nor in the broader sense of mainland plus continental islands (ie, islands on the same continental shelf). Most lands of Oceania are oceanic islands, ie, non-continental islands. The 2 templates at the bottom of the article have it right - Oceania is one of the major regions of the world but not a continent. I have checked the continent entry in 8 encyclopedias and dictionaries (Britannica, Columbia, Macmillan, Hutchinson, Crystal Ref, Andromeda's Illus Dict of Sci, Houghton Mifflin Dict of Geog, Oxford Dict - English & Amer) - they all list the continents and not one mentions Oceania. Incidentally, all but 1 give the 7 continents, altho Britannica notes "Eur & Asia are sometimes considered a single continent"; Columbia gives 6 continents but notes Eurasia is "conventionally regarded as 2 continents". Any mention of Oceania in the article should state that it can only be considered a continent as a cultural construct. Nurg 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that Australia itself is a continent, but you cannot deny that the islands around it are also part of that region of the world and in practice should be considered part of the same continent. In Africa, Madagascar is still considered to be a part of the continent and in Asia the Indonesian archipelago is also considered to be part of the continent. Australia is a Nation, an island, and it constitutes the vast majority of the continent it is part of. Because of political reasons concerning objectivity and points of view, we must for the common good name the continent Oceania. The continent is in itself a collection of islands and isles (whether you like it or not Australia is in itself an island) and should be referred to as Oceania, because if we do not, we are only referring to one nation and we are forgetting many others. I know that by Australia you do not mean the country, but to the uneducated masses it would seem that we are regarding Australia as a nation, which we do not want to do. We want to be objective; hence we must call the continent Oceania. We all agree that the National Geographic Society is a dedicated, objective and knowledgeable association in the field of geography. Their atlases have always described the continent we are talking about as Oceania and not Australia. On another note, regarding the 7 continent part of your response, well, Let me tell you sir that the 7 continent format is strictly American, Canadian and British. The number of continents defers from place to place, to many America y one continent and Europe and Asia are two separate ones. It is not wrong, it is not right to see it as this, it is just different, and just because they think differently than us we must not criticize it or condemn it. But please change Australia to Oceania. 201.98.153.203 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We can be objective and correct at the same time. Geologically speaking, Oceania is absolutely not a continent, while Australia (including some of the surrounding islands) absolutely is. For this reason, we have the article Australia (continent). That's not to say Oceania isn't a region of the world, and it should appear on atlases (and Template:Regions of the world) as such. But it's not a continent. -- bcasterline • talk 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many people, both anglophone and francophone, who use the term Oceania to describe this continent. Voilà three sources.,,   I've put Oceania (back) into the article, and corrected some confusion between Australia the country and Australia (Oceania) the continent.  --Aquarelle 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's times like this,
It's times like this, that I wish wikipedians wouldn't care about politics and simply write a geological meaning. --161.76.99.106 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, at least as the primary one --161.76.99.106 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Geological definition
I agree this article should start with a good geological definition, since "continent" DOES, in fact, have a distinct geological definition - as distinctive as as "vertibrate" is to a Biologist, and very different from a geographer's.

Continents are land masses characterized by a platform of stable ancient (Precembrian aged) metamorphic and igneous rock called the "craton". The central parts of the craton, which is not covered with younger sedimentary rock, are called the "shield". The ancient cratonic rocks are an accretionary mishmash of old long-gone mountain belts and/or fragments of other continents from earlier cycles of continintal collision/break up. An outward-thickening veneer of younger, minimally deformed sedimentary rock covers the craton. The margins of the continent contain "mobile belts" - currently-active or recently active mountain belts of deformed, predominantly sedimentary rock. Beyond the continental margin, there is a: 1) shelf and drop off to the basaltic-rock ocean basin; or, 2) the margin of another continent, depending on the current plate-tectonic setting of the continent.

So, continents are accretionary structures not unlike the ice pancakes and rafts that form, fuse, breakup and re-forms on a river when temperatures fall sufficiently below freezing. As long as the "joint" between two cemented rafts are still apparent, they are still considered separate because of the other separate distinct structures.

By this definition, Europe and Asia are separate continents since they have separate, distince shield areas and a (albeit fairly old) mostly sedimentary rock mountain belt (the Urals) forming the mutual margin. Also, India is a bona-fide continent too - it also contains a central shield, and the very active Himalaya form it's northern margin. And, North America and South America are separate continents the connecting istmus being only the result of recent subduction tectonics. New Zealand is not a continent yet - it still needs another cycle or two of tectonic events to form the necessary craton structure, but in the process will probably lose it's "identity" since one of those events will likely be an absorbing collision with a large continent.

Comments? I'll re-do the geology part of this article - and probably move it to the beginning as a start of fixing this article.


 * I'm personally in favour of expanding the geological definition. It is much more relevant to me than a political description.  The land its self could care less about what the people who live on it think.  Fehrgo 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ext links removed from article
These links removed from article as none are about continents per se. Nurg 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names
 * Webteka.com
 * Google Regional Index

Australia is a country but not a continent
None of country has been having its name same as its participating continent or vise versa. Australia is the biggesst island of the globe because island can be named as country; there are many examples. One must call Oceania a continent if he/she wishes Australia remains as a part of continent.Kevin Taylor 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If one were so inclined, they could pile a heap of references that Australia is a continent, no problem. My desktop dictionary lists 7 continents, including Australia - to pick the closest example (~1 meter) WilyD 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "ORIGIN from Latin Terra Australis ‘the southern land’, the name of the supposed southern continent." &brvbar; Reisio 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not this again, why is Oceania listed, and why is "Australia alone" listed in the continent sizes table? Can't people get it, that 'Australia' is the name of the country, AND ALSO the name of the continent which includes the outlying islands (and in some definitions, New Guinea)


 * Listing "Australia alone" is referring to the NATION named Australia, which shouldn't be a reference made at all, "Oceania - 8 500 000" should read "Australia - 8 500 000" and the word Australia should be linked to the Australia_(continent) page..


 * Oceania shouldn't be listed there, or in the table above, or anywhere else, as it is a political region, geographical region, etc


 * Calling Oceania a continent directly contradicts the 'Oceania' page, and the 'Continents of the World' table/template at the bottom of the page


 * I think we should change these things.. --Nirvana- 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Continent definition 100 years ago
My father is 90 years old, I'm spanish but for him the continents are four, which is consistent with the continent definition: Old continent(Africa, Asia and Europe), New Continent (America), Antartica and Australia. Australia is a country and a continent simoultaneusly, there are the Australia country and the Australia continent, like in spain is the city of Madrid and the region of Madrid.

There is another typical definition confused with the continents, this is "parts of the world", which is a political division, Oceania is a part of the world as Europe, but not a continent.

Continent meaning in British English

 * When the Continent is referred to without clarification by a speaker of British English from Europe, it is usually presumed to mean Continental Europe, that is, Europe excluding the British Isles

I modified the above to include from Europe. It depends on your definition of British English but it is fairly common to say that Kiwis and Australians speak British English or a variant thereof. However while Kiwis and Australians may usually understand the usage of the term, they're less likely to use it. Indians, Malaysian and Singaporeans and I suspect some Africans who are also said by some to speak British English are unlikely to use the term with that meaning and many are probably not that likely to understand it either... Nil Einne 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Size of continents
The table with the size of the continents is wrong. The sum of the size of all continents from the table totals to 339,230,000 [Km^2]. In the article "Oceans" the total surface of the oceans on the globe is given as 361,000,000 [Km^2]. From the average radius of the Earth, equal to 6,367.4425 [Km], one can compute the surface of the Earth as 509,495,002 [Km^2]. This number is much smaller then the sum of the surface of continents and oceans on the Earth, given in this encyclopedia. The total surface of the continents on Earth should be 148,495,001 [Km^2], if the number, given for the surface of the oceans is correct.

Regards, Boris Spasov, bspasov@yahoo.com


 * You are double- and triple-counting when you add them all together. Nurg 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ideal model
The model that makes the most sense is the 4 continent model. The second best one is the 6 continent model that includes N. and S. America, Africa, EurAsia, Australia, and Antarctica. By the way, the Olympic rings need to reflect either of the above models.Jlujan69 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)