Talk:Continent/Archive I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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? — 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 [1] 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
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EContinent_Archive_I_992f.html"