Talk:Continent/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section 0 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Models taught in North America? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  microcontinents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geological POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Australia or Oceania 

message: 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)
replies: text:  ok, at least as the primary one --161.76.99.106 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's times like this, 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geological definition 

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Continent meaning in British English 

message: 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)
thread_title: Size of continents

message: 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)
thread_title:  ideal model 

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