Talk:Continent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
Start	Continent has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Continent is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Archive I

[edit] 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.

[edit] Models

* 7 continents:	Asia,	Africa,	North America,	South America,	Antarctica,	Europe and	Australia.
* 6 continents:	Asia,	America,	Africa,	Antarctica,	Europe and	Australia.
* 6 continents:	Eurasia,	Africa,	North America,	South America,	Antarctica and	Australia.
* 5 continents:	Eurasia,	America,	Africa,	Antarctica and	Australia.
* 5 continents:	Laurasia,	Africa,	South America,	Antarctica and	Australia.
* 4 continents:	Afrasia,	America,	Antarctica and	Australia. If u see proper definition of continent!!! u will see that continent is a big land, which is bathed with ocean from all sides!!! so Europ can't be a continent! it is a part of the world!

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

[edit] Area

Afrasia	90,500,000 km²
Laurasia	84,500,000 km²
Eurasia	60,300,000 km²
America	42,050,000 km²
Asia	49,700,000 km²
Africa	30,250,000 km²
North America	24,230,000 km²
South America	17,820,000 km²
Antarctica	13,200,000 km²
Europe	10,600,000 km²
Australia	8,500,000 km² including New Guinea

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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.84.166 (talk • 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.—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)

This map shows continents

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Not true

"In East Asia, especially in the Orient, it is taught as a 7-region model since the rendition of "continent" in Chinese is similar to "island", which connotes a separate smaller landmass surrounded by water. "

Not true - it is called the 7 continents. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. 大陸 (Continent) should be opposite of 島 (island). Both require water to sorround it. If it is taught differently in China, do they call Europe, European大陸? FWBOarticle

"The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England"... this is rubbish too, I'm english and I've never heard this model. I've always been taught that there are 7.

I also live in England and have never been taught the 6-continent model. The 7 continent model is what the national curriculum specifies should be taught and is what the significant majority of English people would refer to the world as being divided into. "The 6-continent Americas model is taught in England" is incorrect and superflous

It's actually more incorrect than stated, in Latin America and Iberia it's taught a 5-continent model and, as far as I understand it all of Western Europe, except for England (and this is probably for political reasons) a 5-continent model is taught as well.

There is obviously not one single model and it's admirable that and effort has been made to reflect this, but the final distribution is completely incorrect. eduo 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[1], [2], [3] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Ext links removed from article

These links removed from article as none are about continents per se.

Nurg 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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."[4] ¦ 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Ahem... Don't think Latin Americans consider Antarctica a continent

I disagree with this sentence:

The 6-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America,

Iberia and some other parts of Europe.

In the part of Latin America where I live - Costa Rica - part of my explanation that American doesn't mean americano includes the number of continents: seven (according to my American education). My students from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Chile, and Argentina agree that there are FIVE continents, count 'em: América (from Canada to Tierra del Fuego), Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceanía. What about Antarctica? Their teachers never mentioned it, so it's not a continent, so there. Other students (I think from Columbia and Ecuador) learned there were six (divide América into North and South America and voilà).

So we can't generalize about Latin America. Shall we take a poll and specify which countries in Latin America teach 5 and which 6? Also, keep in mind the subset of students who go to bilingual schools in Latin America. They will often learn American, English, German, French (etc.) views of continental geography. Dblomgren 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I studied some years in Latin America and what I was tought; there were 6. Antartica is usually excluded because it's desertic. You can see that even in worldwide known issues the continent is excluded, just look at the olympic games logo. each circle supposedly represent each continent... and about the spanish name for this symbol (~) it's virgulilla. chech the name in the spanish wiki... it's there. --F3rn4nd0 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. In Colombia and Venezuela, but it may defer by country, Latin America is very diverse. Educational guidelines are established by ministries of education (Department of Education). But something interesting is that most of the Latin American major countries have signed the Antarctic Treaty System that recognizes Antartica. read also: [5]

--F3rn4nd0 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese view

I've asked for a citation for the Japanese view because it is unclear. I take it they count 6 continents but do they count the Americas as one (implied in the History section) or do they count the Americas as two but Asia and Europe as one (stated in the Models section)? Nurg 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EContinent_905e.html"