Talk:Island/Archive 1

Archive 1

Manitoulin Island

Where do lake islands like Manitoulin Island belong in this classification? --Rodii 02:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An islands is an islands, and there really is no differentiation based upon salinity of the surrounding water. The same "problems" exist with respect to using 'islet' vs. 'island', which is a classification of sorts if that is what you are referring to. I do see a problem considering certain land areas in river deltas that are "surrounded" by river channels, although these are typically considered islands as well. And then see, for another "interpretation", Copper Island.- Marshman 17:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry I wasn't more clear. My point wasn't about salinity, but about the leaky classification scheme. The article text says "There are three main types of islands: continental islands, river islands, and volcanic islands" (and continental islands are "part of an adjacent continent and are located on the continental shelf of that continent"). But there's a whole class of islands on inland bodies of water that are none of these, like Manitoulin, which is the largest freshwater lake island in the world. So I'm suggesting that the classification scheme needs to be adjusted to take islands like that into account. (Or am I just being a nerd?) --Rodii

OK. I see. Well the island of which you speak would be a continental type. The classification scheme relates to the mode or origin. River islands are formed as sedimentary material, carried by the flow, accumulates in bars and islands; continental islands are composed of the same material as the surrounding mainland and are islands by virtue of having water separating (usually by erosion, possibly by submersion) the island from the mainland (thus, if you drain Lake Huron a bit, it would be evident that geologically Manitoulin is just a part of Ontario); volcanic islands arise as undersea volcanic activity proceeds until the land appears above the water surface. The scheme is complete, although maybe not presented all that clearly - Marshman 23:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I'm new enough that I'm not editing anything yet, but some of that might go nicely in the article. --Rodii 20:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a related topic, I've started List of islands in lakes, a type of island on which this article remains a bit confused. - BanyanTree 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Turtle Island

In western Lake Erie, Turtle Island is not a true island. Geologists believe it is a remnant of Little Cedar Point, which separates Maumee Bay from Lake Erie. Turtle Island has no bedrock substructure, only sand and gravel. The Ohio-Michigan state line runs through this tiny island. Musicwriter 03:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sizes of Islands

From whence came the notion that an island has to conform to a particular size range? I've never heard of this before, so I'm removing it until this is justified. jmd 06:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's simply the commonsense notion that a rock is not considered an island, so there must be a lower limit, and continents are, with one exception, not considered islands, so there must be an upper limit. I guess I would have to agree that "Bigger than a rock, smaller than Australia" isn't very useful ass an encyclopedia definition. rodii 04:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the island article's basic definition is too general, particularly in that it does not exclude whole continents. Anyone got any ideas for a tighter wording? Mark

I think that this article currently does a good job of describing Island while staying out of the politics of size. Leave that for the politicians. Fehrgo 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly this article is a bit of a mess. There is no universally accepted defintion of an island and this article should recognise this fact. Perhaps there should be a brief general description at the start with a more detailed section called "Problems of Definition" in which the following points could be expanded upon:-

1. Rivers and canals are not generally regarded as dividing a land mass in two, though islands may occur within a river.
2. Continents are often excluded from the definition, although Australia is not always excluded, and some people do not exclude Antarctica either (e.g. www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/geo/islands.html
3. Greenland consists of a group of islands permanantly under an ice sheet and hence is usually but not always regarded as a single island. As much of Greenland is permanantly under water (admittdely the frozen kind) it could be excluded altogether.

Taking points 2 and 3 together the world's largest island is therefore either Africa-Eurasia, Antarctica, Australia, Greenland or somewhere else (probably one of the Greenland components or New Guinea) according to which definition you prefer.

4. Historically at least the term island was also applied to areas cut off by marsh as well as by water
5. The term is usually applied to land which is connected to the mainland at low tide (e.g. Holy Island, off the coast of Northumerland)
6. There is no minimum size for an island, though most people would exclude rocks, particularly those only exposed at low tide.

And on a slight digression why does the article's types of islands only distinguish between two types of off-shore island? What about lake and river islands? -- Kevin Hawkins

I tweaked your markup so that the lines wrap. --82.46.154.229 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better image?

The image of a place in New York (which is not a good photograph by any measure) shows an island, yes..maybe? I guess. It cannot be seen from the picture. The originial image (a better picture, by the way) illustrates the term "island" as it shows land surrounded by water. - Marshman 03:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see something like this (not that exact one, of course, we don't have the permissions), but something that actually shows water surrounding land. I agree, though, that restoring the original picture is an improvement. rodii 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That one is a good picture. I'd certainly not object to that one or something very much like it. Unfortunately there are a lot not very good pictures being submitted to Wikimedia, but when they do not even compliment an article, I feel compelled to react - Marshman 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oceanic island

What's that? there is no such mention here and I think it could form an important part of the article. __earth ^(Talk) 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain further, or give an example? I think the article's contention is that all islands are either volcanic, continental or river islands. All the islands in the mid-Pacific, for instance, are volcanic in origin as far as I know. Are there oceanic islands that aren't already in one of those three categories? rodii 17:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good point, earth. Oceanic island is the same as what has been called volcanic island. The word oceanic is actually more accurate as volcanic islands can also form on continental shelves. I have now put oceanic island in the article. Nurg 09:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting: "Some of the Lesser Antilles and the South Sandwich Islands are the only Atlantic Ocean examples." What about Azores and Madeira?

I think their volcanoes were generated by hotspots not subduction. Nurg 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What about volcanic islands on geologic faults, e.g. the Cameroon Volcanic Line? Are these in a separate category that should be mentioned? Or is the Cameroon line on the continental plate, so the Gulf of Guinea Islands are volcanic continental islands? But if so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the section on continental islands?

And why aren't Ascension Island and other islands close to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the same category as Iceland and Jan Mayen? Are they formed by hotspots? I would naively assume that the volcanic activity is related to the divergent boundary between the African and South American plates.

Plutix 09:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

also a small ilend 40 km off the coast line. It has seveare hurricans and erupptions.

Suez Canal

Just a note about a change I made: there was a passage about how the Eurasian/Africann landmass was the largest island in the world before the Suez Canal severed Africa from Eurasia. I edited out the Suez bit. I think the whole passage is a little silly--no one really considers that landmass an island, in my opinion, but if people want to use it to establish the limits of the concept, OK. But the distinction between Eurasia/Africa and Eurasia simpliciter is just kind of a distraction. And a sea-to-sea canal doesn't divide a landmass into two separate landmasses. There are coast-to-coast canal systems in Great Britain (the Caledonian Canal, the Forth-to-Clyde waterway), and the Volga-Baltic canal doesn't cut Eurasia into two swparate continents. · rodii · 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. France also has a coast-to-coast canal, yet nobody considers Spain + Portugal + southern France to be an island. But, following this logic, on which we appearantly agree, isn't Africa-Eurasia still the biggest island technically speaking? Right now the article says that Eurasia is technically the biggest island, but if we agree that coast-to-coast canals (or combinations of rivers and canals) don't create islands, then it must be changed to Africa-Eurasia.

By the way, I do think it is important to keep this section in the article to point out that technically, there's no difference between islands and continents, contrary to what a lot of people think. As you say: to establish the limits of the concept which is, in my opinion, an important task of an encyclopedia. Also, shouldn't the definition of an island in the first lines be more specific? Right now it says that any landmass complete surrounded by water is an island. But appearantly, completely surrounded means that it should be considerable amounts of water, and not just an inland piece of land that is bordered by canals or rivers on all sides... and they do exist. Or maybe I'm thinking longer about this subject than the average reader of the article, and this specification isn't really necessary? :)(RagingR2 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

My proposal would be to add something like the following to the article, right behind the stuff about continents/Eurasia:

• "Also, when defining islands as pieces of land that are completely surrounded by water, narrow bodies of water like rivers and canals are generally left out of consideration. For instance, in France the Canal du Midi connects the Garonne river to the Mediterranean Sea, thereby completing a continuous water connection from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. So technically, the land mass that includes the Iberian peninsula and the part of France that is south of the Garonne river and the Canal du Midi is completely surrounded by water. However, generally cases such as these are not considered islands."

But maybe this information, together with the stuff about continents versus islands is a little too much to put in the first paragraph of this relatively short article. Maybe we should move both issues to a separate paragraph at the end of the article, and name it "Some technical stuff for nitpickers" ;) (RagingR2 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

I'm OK with what you suggest. As I say, I think we're pushing the limits of the concept a bit, but maybe that's useful in an encyclopedia, as you say. (I actually had the Canal du Midi as an example, but took it out because I thought if I piled up too many examples people I might start sounding like an enraged loony with an ax to grind. :)

By the way, is there a name for the Africa/Eurasia landmass? · rodii · 03:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If your okay with it, then I'll just add the stuff to a separate paragraph as I suggested, together with the stuff about continents versus islands. And as far as I have seen, people just call it Africa-Eurasia. But there's a little more about naming conventions in the article about Africa-Eurasia. (RagingR2 07:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

I added the Orinoco split because it's an example that doesn't include any artificial waterways (canals). At the same time, I took out the Scotland and Russia examples, (a) to avoid making the paragraph too lengthy and (b) because once you think of the Canal du Midi, it's easy to come up with many other examples - the Kiel Canal, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal, and so on.

I agree with all of the above, and here is a website that I found about Continents vs. Islands. Nocturnal Wanderer ^sign 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of mentioning Eurasia as an island, 'cause I've never thought of it that way, & since Australia is commonly called an island. (By the same reasoning, isn't North & South America also technically an island? Could that have been more awkwardly phrased?;)) Also, can somebody explain why riverine islands aren't generally included? And, is something about the fraction of global population that lives on islands worth including? (I have no idea...) ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trekphiler (talk ? contribs) 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea why riverine islands are not general included. I do know that 10% of the worlds population lives on Islands. Nocturnal Wanderer ^sign 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vostok is an island?

Looking at the definition, which says "above sea level", I have to ask, how does Lake Vostok have an island? Can anybody clarify? Or include it here? Trekphiler 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia

Why isn't Australia considered an island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.5.13 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia is a continent, and islands cannot be continents by their definition. Richard001 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see we're now saying "Australia is often considered the largest island because it is covered on all sides by water while not being connected to another body of land."

Whether or not it's excluded from "island" because it's already defined as a continent is neither here nor there to me. What concerns me is that surely this claim does not refer to the entire nation of Australia, which includes Tasmania, Kangaroo Island, Groote Eylandt, Lord Howe Island and many other islands, but to the mainland of Australia only. We need to make this clear. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Australia is interesting. Many Australians claim that Australia is an island but their view seems partial. If any landmass surrounded by water can be an island, then Afro-Eurasia is the biggest island. Also, Antarctica might have a claim to be either the smallest continent or the world's biggest island.

Another factor to take into account is that islands are best understood when compared to their MAINLAND. If Australia is an island, then where is the mainland - Asia, perhaps? The distinction between island and continent is not a scientific one but the spirt of the distinction is to say that we have big chunks of land called continents and small bits called islands. In the same way, nobody claims that hills can be mountains, or that seas can be oceans. Can a big sea qualify to be an ocean - no!

Finally, I don't think this page is a mess. It has been greatly improved since I last stopped by. Herngong (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Australia is an island. AUSTRALASIA/OCEANIA is the continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.107.159 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

On or in?

Don't know how relevant people think this is, but we say 'on' an island and used to say 'on' Crete, but now 'in' is more common for islands with proper names (Cuba, Crete...), though we wouldn't say 'in' with just 'island'. Anyone feel it's worth mentioning? Malick78 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ocean island versus inland island

Continuing the discussion from #Manitoulin Island, it seems to me that the first an most important distinct among islands is between those islands that lie in an ocean or sea versus those islands that lie in a lake, reservoir, or river. I think this article should make this distinction first and foremost. --Buaidh (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the article does have coverage of oceanic islands of various kinds but does not talk about islands in lakes and rivers. This seems a useful addition to the article. I'm not an expert on the geology of inland islands; could someone with some knowledge of this contribute? Wyvern (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is now covered, but the terms given (eyot /ˈaɪ.ət/ (also ait /ˈeɪt/), or holm) seem to be regional (according to some online dictionaries such as MW), though this is not mentioned. Kdammers (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tropical Islands

The sentence :"Almost 38,000 of them with a minimum size of 5 hectares (7,000 being in the Atlantic Ocean) are systematically described and illustrated with typical examples.[2]" refers only to the book in reference and doesn't make much sense in this article so I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.166.155 (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn;t Korea considered an island?

So if the Korean "peninsula" is surrounded by the Amnok, Heaven Lake, and the Tumen River, why is it not considered an island? I understand that these rivers may be small but they do effectively surround the peninsula such that you can't get off the Korean peninsula without taking a bridge. Thoughts? Nlsanand (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Small parcels of land -- say Manhattan, for instance -- can be considered to be "islands" because they are surrounded by rivers, but the bigger the parcel, the less that is applicable. The Korea peninsula (no scare quotes necessary) is not an "island" because it is too large to qualify under that definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That size comment is absolutely not true. In List of islands by area there are seven (7) larger islands than the Korean peninsula. So that could not possibly be the reason, which is given just below. 82.141.72.135 (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Korea is not an island because those bodies of water that you mention do not actually connect. I believe that you *can* cross between Korea and China across the top of Baekdu Mountain over the rim of the Heaven Lake caldera without crossing any rivers. True river bifurcations, like the Casiquiare canal, however, does create an island I believe. --98.210.210.193 (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case. The Cape Cod Canal bifurcates Cape Cod, yet the Cape is not generally considered to be an island -- perhaps because the canal is man-made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, man-made changes do not count. For example, the Corinth Canal separates the Peloponnese from the rest of Greece; however, the Peloponnese is not considered an island. --Spoon! (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I reverted the followng material from User:Denghu After "There is no standard of size which distinguishes islands from islets and continents." which was already in the article, Denghu added:

However, Greenland, the world's largest island [1] with an area of over 2.1m km², is surpassed by Australia, the world's smallest continent[2], by some 5m km², which makes a de-facto difference between continents and islands on Earth, in terms of size.

There are a number of problems with these statements:

• The conclusion is unsourced. The sources given was for Greenland being the largest island amd Australia being the smallest continent.
• It is synthesis, and thus original research. It presents the largest island and the smallest continet, and then says that this creates a de facto standard, but such a statement reuqires a specific citation from a reliable source. In fact, it is not impossible that the smallest continent could be smaller than the largest island, since the definition of "continent" is not contingent upon the definition of "island" or vice versa. The particular situation we find ourselves in in this current arrangement of tectonic plates fulfills the statement made, but it is not in any respect a "standard".

I have asked Denghu not to continue to revert, and to adhere to WP:BRD by discussing it here to see what consensus can be found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Greenland is the world's largest island, Australia is the world's smallest continent, and therefore the difference between them is a de facto difference between an island and a continent on Earth. I deduce this from facts. There is nothing of original research in this. I said NOTHING about a standard. My edit has no words like standard or any similar words. I quote your statement: "In fact, it is not impossible that the smallest continent could be smaller than the largest island, since the definition of "continent" is not contingent upon the definition of "island" or vice versa." This statement is controversial, because the article says (I quote): "An island or isle is any piece of SUB-CONTINENTAL land that is surrounded by water." Give me an example of a continent that is smaller than an island using the Wikipedia definition. On a related note, Merriam-Webster defines island as "a tract of land surrounded by water and smaller than a continent". LinkDenghu (talk)

What you are doing is called "synthesis". You have taken two sourced but unconnected facts and drawn a conclusion from them which neither souce supports. That is a special kind of original research called synthesis and it's not allowed. You need a citation from a reliable source to draw the conclusion, you cannot do it, nor can I, or any other Wikipedia editor. That's the way things work here. In addition, you cannot "deduce" a standard, it has to be explicitly expressed as a standard by reliable source. In can be a de facto standard, but even that has to be said by a reliable source.

Please do not revert again, two editors now have told you that the proper thing to do is to discuss this on the talk page, please follow our advice and do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is called "synthesis". This is not correct. Your claim about there being no connection is not correct either. What I'm doing is plain deduction. Here are dictionary definitions and references (sources): ISLAND -- "a tract of land surrounded by water and smaller than a continent" Link, "a land mass not as large as a continent, surrounded by water" Link; "a tract of land completely surrounded by water, and not large enough to be called a continent" Link; "a body of land smaller than a continent and completely surrounded by water" Link. In all these definitions it is clearly stated that an island is smaller than a continent. See also my reply to Vsmith. Yesterday I edited my sentence deleting the conclusion about the de facto difference because you are not happy with it. Why did you undo that edit again? Please read it carefully. It had accurate information and references. I'll add it again. Don't delete it because it doesn't contradict any rules. Here is a quote from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics". I've cited verifiable sources. Now it's your turn. Denghu (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BMK, although your conclusion is logical it is still synthesis and not allowed. Find a source which makes that conclusion if you wish to re-add the info and bring it here for discussion. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are dictionary definitions and references (sources): ISLAND -- "a tract of land surrounded by water and smaller than a continent" Link, "a land mass not as large as a continent, surrounded by water" Link; "a tract of land completely surrounded by water, and not large enough to be called a continent" Link; "a body of land smaller than a continent and completely surrounded by water" Link. My conclusion does not qualify as synthesis because the connection I disclose is already there (by definition). It is deduction. Dictionary definitions clearly state that an island is smaller than a continent. Therefore any island on the surface of the Earth is smaller than a continent. Australia is a continent. It is the smallest of all continents. Any island on the surface of the Earth is smaller than a continent. Therefore any existing island on the surface of the Earth is smaller than Australia (and this is a fact). I deduce this from dictionary definitions. Denghu (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A deducation is original research. If you deduced it, and it's true, then some reliable source miust have deduced it too. Find that source, and you're OK. In the meantime, stop inserting it into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, let it be original research. But what's the problem with saying Greenland is the world's largest island and Australia is the world's smallest continent? I provided references. I'm not inserting my conclusion about the de facto difference between islands and continents. Please, provide reliable sources that refute my statement. Also, read [| this]. Denghu (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You can say that Greenland is the world's largest island, that's relevant to an article about islands, but when you add that Australia is the smallest continent and give the difference in size between them, you are inviting the reader to make the conclusion which you are not allowed to make because is is synthesis, that there is a relationship of some sort between those two facts pertinent to the opening sentence of the paragraph, about there being no standard of differentiation.

Again, if you want to insert a statement into the article about a de facto standard (or any kind of standard) for differentiating islands from continents it must come from a reliable source. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. No one needs to "refute" your statement, if you want to add it it must have a source, that's basic Wikipedia policy. Please see our policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusing me of ownership is not particularly helpful here, since another editor has agreed that your edit needs to be sourced. I'm simply pointing out basic policy to you.

The solution to this problem is utterly simple: find a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my last edit saying that there was an implication of what you do not accept. I consider it judgemental. Is this enough for an edit to be reverted for a third or fourth time within 24 hours? ownership is very helpful since I provided sources and you ignore them. Besides, it was the statement about the de facto difference that User Vsmith was talking about, he said nothing about reverting my edit without that statement. I provided lots of sources. Do you accept that an island is smaller than a continent? Denghu (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop arguing and just find a source. Your statement, whether made explicitly or implied, will not adhere to Wikipedia's basic polcies until it is sourced. Sourcing it solves everything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lose my patience. I already quoted many dictionaries. I'm not saying anything about a standard. I'll add two sentences about the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent in 24 hours. If you revert my edit I'll take appropriate action because I can see no other way of dealing with this dispute. If you want more sources, here is what Encyclopaedia Britannica says: Continent, one of the larger continuous masses of land, namely, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia, listed in order of size. [...] There is great variation in the sizes of continents; Asia is more than five times as large as Australia. The largest island in the world, Greenland, is only about one-fourth the size of Australia. LinkDenghu (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, one more try to get you to understand the problem, then I'm going to have to retire for the night.

Your original edit took the statement that there is no standard to differentiate between an island and a continent, and tacked on the sourced fact that Greenland was the largest island at X size and the sourced fcat Australia was the smallest continent at Y size, and Australia was Z bigger than Greenland, so that creates a de facto standard. When you were told this was synthesis because neither source supported the conclusion, you changed to just inserting the two sourced facts, without the conclusion. Because this was still in the context of a statement that there was "no standard", your action created an implied conclusion, in that you invited the reader to draw a conclusion from the two facts, in the same way that you yourself deduced it. However, this, too, is synthesis, albeit implied.

Now, I happen to think that the conclusion you have deduced from these two facts is probably false, that because of their differeing tectonic conditions, even if Australia was smaller than Greenland, it might still be considered to be a continent, while Greenland would be considered to be an island. The physical state of the world is not set, it is contingent, and, as we saw in the change of status with Pluto, defintions of this sort can be changed when knowledge changes. However, be that as it may, what I think about the conclusion is totally irrelevant, because I am not an expert, I am not a reliable source, and neither are you. We, as Wikipedia editors, cannot stand on our own thoughts and conclusions because "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." In most cases, we are not experts, so we must cite the opinions of experts and other reliable sources in order to add information to an article.

You seem to feel that the conclusion you have drawn is so clear and obvious that it's annoying that someone such as myself is preventing you from adding it to the article -- and you may well be right. I could be obstructing you from putting in something that geographers all over the world agree on. I don't think so, but it's possible. If that's the case, though, it should be as easy as pie to find a statement from a reliable source which supports the conclusion that you have reached. All you have to do is find that statement from a reliable source, and put it in the article with a supporting citation. Not additional facts or other evidence that you feel supports your conclusion, but a statement of the conclusion itself, that there is a de facto standard based on size to differentiate an island from a continent.

In the absence of such a clear statement from a reliable source, your deduction remains original research, and cannot be added to the article. I'm sorry that you find that annoying, but it's simply the result of applying the most basic Wikipedia policies. It would be best if you put any additional energy into finding that source that makes the statement you want to make, and not arguing the point again. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I see your point and I think you are stretching it. I really do want you to be consistent and accept quotations from reliable sources I've provided. Just read the quoted sentences from the Britannica article again. Tectonic plates and conditional senetences are totally irrelevant here, especially if you do not provide sources for your conclusions. Also, the statement about there being no standard in distinguishing islands from continents is not supported by any source in the first place so it could easily be challenged and proposed for deletion unless you provide a reliable source supporting it. Moreover, there is the three reverts rule, so if you revert the edit I'm going to make tomorrow, you might be banned for a while from editing the article. Just to let you know, tomorrow I'm going to edit the following sentence "There is no standard of size which distinguishes islands from islets and continents" and it's going to look like this "Although there is no standard of size which distinguishes islands from islets and continents, Greenland is considered to be the world's largest island. Greenland is about one-fourth the size of Australia, the latter being the world's smallest continent." Encyclopaedia Britannica will be cited as the source of this statement. Denghu (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise by re-inserting your two sourced facts before the statement about standards, instead of after it, so that there is no implied sythesis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Please, provide reliable sources for the "no standards" statement. Denghu (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added sources for that.

I'd like to note that you announced here that you were seeking help on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but when you were told there that I was correct, you deleted the request, and overwrote your announcement with the statement above. I've re-instated the dispute resolution request, as I am interested in hearing other editor's views on this, whether they agree with my take or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Shifted the disputed para out of lead into its own section "Size". Modified one ref. Am a bit concerned about the references used. Is the island.info website a reliable source ... or just one guys collection of info? And the How I killed Pluto... book cite, interesting read, but is his Australia is big enough. Greenland is not. really a reliable ref? Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AGree about the Brown ref, will look for something more on point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Salt flat islands

So, what about islands like for example Incahuasi Island, which are in salt flats? I suppose technically the salt flat may occasionally get a very shallow layer of water, but most of the time these "islands" are not surrounded by water, and are still referred to as islands. Should this category be mentioned?--SkiDragon (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there many of them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Island spelling

Ilaun or something similar was the original spelling of island. Island came about because it was spelled like that in a dictionary. If I find anything that confirms "The Story of English" online I will come back here. 86.44.79.87 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

In the oceanic island section, it is claimed that Iceland is one of the examples of exposed rifts. But then it says that Surtsey is a hot spot island. These can't really both be independently true. The Iceland plume article suggests that the case is by no means clear cut. However, internal consistency in an article is generally considered a good thing! Comments? 150.203.35.193 (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? The article says there are three types of volcanic oceanic island: arc, rift and hotspot. Iceland, it claims, is the second type. Yet just a few km off the Iceland mainland coast is supposedly a hotspot island, with that hotspot having nothing to do with the rest of Iceland? Either it is not true, or there is a false dichotomy in the article. 150.203.35.193 (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Image caption

"Fernando de Noronha are submerged mountains islands" (under an illustration) seems grammatically incorrect to me. Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Improved it a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lake islands

Should probably be mentioned on types if islands but I don't have any refs to hand.Geni (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Natural islands versus Artificial islands

Hi and help requested - I noticed this weird apparent typo - the word "Ice cream" at the end of the sentence in the Artificial Island section - but when I went in to delete it - it does not appear in the edit screen. Is this a known Wikipedia joke? How can I fix it? Text as it appears on screen: "Sometimes natural islands are artificially enlarged, such as Vasilyevsky Island in the Russian city of St. Petersburg, which had its western shore extended westward by some 0.5 km in the construction of a new sea terminal.Ice cream" Depthdiver (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your browser must have loaded an old version of the page, or you clicked on the link to an old version. "Ice cream" was added by an IP vandal 4 days ago, but was immediately reverted by Cluebot, as shown in this diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All true, but I don't think it was totally caused by Depthdiver's browser. I checked the page when I first read the OP, and "Ice Cream" still showed up; after forcing a refresh by saving a null edit, it disappeared, so it looks like something may have gotten hung up on the server for a while. Go figure <shrug>. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Island vs Continent

What kind of a simple person wrote the article? Island is distinguished from a continent not in terms of geology. In that matter, India would be considered a separate continent.

The difference lays in number of factors, including landmass size, geology, biological diversity. What became the major argument to classify Australia as continent rather than island, it was the fact that Australia has an unique flora and fauna which are not the same as on other continents. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alluvial islands

Probably time to build an article for this: seems to be a lot of pages described this way but with nothing to link them to. (Alluvial itself redirects to alluvium which presents to misinformation that it is generally exclusive of river sediment, despite fluvial being a catchall describing nearly anything at all having to do with rivers.) — LlywelynII 10:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Islands vs. Continents Size Distinction

The citation for the claim that "there is no standard of size which distinguishes islands from continents," is cited to one Mike Brown in the book "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming". There is no dispositive information to this effect in his book. His book instead discusses how he inquired of people as to what continents are (as a way to grasp what qualifies as a planet). He describes some persons as reporting that continents lie on their own tectonic plates, even though we normally define the continents as the seven we have traditionally recognized: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Additionally, he notes that under the tectonic plate definition, the lower island of New Zealand would then qualify as its own continent. He is analyzing intuitions about concepts, not giving a purpose for identifying an "island" as any land (regardless of size) surrounded by water.

Mike Brown is a physicist and astronomer. We can find a better source (preferably a geologist) to assert the claim that "islands may be of any size," [if there is reason to support such a claim]. I became concerned about this claim because I do not know that most persons consider Afro-Eurasia to be an island. It is a landmass. If we want to distinguish a landmass from an island, it seems that there is a certain size criterion for what makes an island. In fact, the opening line of this article describes an island as a "piece of /sub-continental/ land that is surrounded by water," (emphasis added). This suggests that islands are smaller than a continent. Although this claim may also be in dispute, I would like this article to be consistent in its description of what an island is.

Full disclosure: I am no geologist, I merely have an interest in concept analysis, and thus would like some more informed/educated persons to clarify the claims in this article. RedDarling (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Garble?

"Largest island in a lake in an island in a lake in an island in a lake in an island in an island in a lake in a continent: Unnamed island at 69.793° N, 108.241° W, Victoria Island (Canada), Nunavut [1]" appears to be garbled. I think that it probably should read:

"Largest island in a lake in an island in a lake in an island: Unnamed island at 69.793° N, 108.241° W, Victoria Island (Canada), Nunavut [1]". I deleted 15 words before the colon preceding "Unnamed".

Not being sure, I have not edited the article.

108.180.121.113 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Australia (the landmass) is an Island, and not a Continent

The current "Source" for Australia being not considered an island is one persons blog, who isn't a scientist in any way, shape or form.

Australia (the country) is actually completely different from Australia (the continent) and Australia (the landmass) see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)

Australia (the continent) consists of many different landmasses, all joined by a continental shelf. Australia (the country) consists of the landmasses of Australia and Tasmania. Australia (the landmass) is an Island.

http://www.worldislandinfo.com/CONTISLAND.html is not a valid source - unless I can make my own blog spouting unscientific crud, while not being a scientist, and have it count.

If not then it will be bad... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:5445:A7B3:B589:552D:71D8:EB58 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have any guideline for what is and was isn't an island/isle ?

If a man-made channel divides a peninsula from a continent, can that peninsula be regarded as an island/isle ? Grateful for all replies. Boeing720 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with a specific guideline, but wouldn't we do what we normally do, which is to follow what mainstream reliable sources say? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There are some discussions in this page's archive which might interest you. [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The Best Definition of an Island

Without the precise book in front of me, the best definition of an island I have found includes some specification of the existence of life upon it (e.g. a tree, group of trees, or at least a bush), in addition to the fact that it is surrounded completely by water. I currently have not listed a source for this update. If anyone has a better source (e.g. Maritime reference books), please add. Beutber (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beutber: The lede section of a Wikipedia article is a summary of the body of the article, and I do not see the claim that you added to the lede -- that the definition of an island includes something about its potential to sustain life -- in the body. If you wish to add this information to the body of the article (and thus to the lede) you're going to need to find that "precise book" and use it as a reference to support the information. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dubai Palm and World Islands

A number of editors have tried to include the Dubai Palm Islands and The World (archipelago) islands in this article. I have reverted these edits repeatedly because I do not think singling these islands out for inclusion in the artificial island section is justified. The artificial island section seems concise and fit for purpose with a link to the Artificial island article. The Dubai islands and the current issues with them can be included in their relevant articles and in a summary included in the artificial island article. I have repeatedly asked one editor in particular - 144.138.236.221 - to come to this talk page to discuss this issue and they have failed to do this. Happy to hear comments from any editors. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(1) The section is "Artificial island"

(2) The Dubai islands are artificial islands.

(3) The Dubai islands attracted a great deal of media attention when the project started in 2000, and are perhaps the only artificial islands general;ly known of

(4) The source of the information is The Guardian, an extremely reliable source.

(5) The material that Robynthehode removed, in its most recent version, is this:

The World Islands and Palm Islands off the coast of Dubai in the Middle East are artificial islands built beginning in 2000s from sand dredged from the seabed. A small number of these islands have been commercially developed with hotels and shops, while others have been sold as residences to celebrities and other well-off people, while others had their development put on hold or outright cancelled because of the global financial crisis of 2008, as well as reports that some of the islands were sinking. In 2018, development of some of islands was started up again.(ref)Wainwright, Oliver (February 13, 2018) "Not the end of The World: the return of Dubai's ultimate folly" The Guardian(endref)

I see absolutely no reason in the world to remove this material from the article. Robynthehode's removals are unreasonable, and, since the material is supported by a citation from a reliable source, the removal should not have been made without a consensus from the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to the talk page.

(1) There is an article "Artificial islands"

(2) The Dubai islands have their own article pages

(3) The Dubai islands notability and any issues with them can be fulfilled in the "Artificial island" and relevant individual article pages

(4) No dispute about the source but that is not the only deciding factor for inclusion in this article.

(5) The material was removed because it is not relevant here because it is (or can be) fully respected with sources in the "Artificial island" and relevant individual island article pages

I can't see the justification for including it here. It does or will just repeat information elsewhere where it is more relevantly located. Robynthehode (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

These islands received a great deal of media attention when the project was first started, and it is probably the case that for most people the Dubai islands are the only artificial islands that they are knwingly aware of -- by which I man they quite probably know some other artificial islands, but aren't aware that they are artificial. As such, their inclusion in this section is justified. A single paragraph of information about possibly the best-known artificial islands does not unbalance the article (or the sub-section) in any way.

As for "relevance", that is an editorial decision, and, when disputed, can only be decided by consensus. Unsupported information can be deleted and the article restored to the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, but supported information is a different matter, simply because it is supported. In this case, the source cited is an eminently reliable one, The Guardian, so there's no question about the quality of the supporting source. Add to that that my re-write of the naterial brought it even more in line with source material, and there is no policy-based reason for material to be deleted during discussion. Please restore it, and then, if there is a consensus here to delete it, it can then be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I disputed the inclusion of this material in my edit summaries early on in this process. I don't need to be told that the Guardian is a reliable source and if you read above I clearly stated that there is no dispute about the source. If you look at the edit history of this particular issue you will see it is the IP mentioned above that is the one you should be focusing any efforts on rather than someone who tries (and sometimes) fails to follow Wikipedia policy. Thanks for reporting me to admins rather than just posting a friendly note on my talk page which would have sufficed. Always happy to discuss but I am not the editor you should be reporting. Robynthehode (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You're attempting to defect attention from your own misbehavior by making claims about other editors. The fact is you are the only editor who is edit-warrring to remove this material, and you are the only one making arguments for its deletion while at the same time not allowing sourced material relevant to the aticle's subject to the included. You have made absolutely no cogent argument as to why it isn't relevant (you have simply stated it as fact without any justificant behind the statement), or why it needs to be suppressed while discussion is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a question of weight. The Dubai islands seem to me to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in this section - but very briefly, such as only using the first sentence - "The World Islands and Palm Islands off the coast of Dubai in the Middle East are artificial islands built beginning in 2000s from sand dredged from the seabed." All the other stuff about those islands should be contained in more appropriate and detailed linked articles. There's no harm in having more than one artificial island mentioned in this article - alongside "the island in Osaka Bay off the Japanese island of Honshu, on which Kansai International Airport is located" - but mentioned only briefly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I am happy with this solution. Yes it is a question of weight. The mention of the islands should be brief. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A single paragraph is brief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the justification for including the words: "A small number of these islands have been commercially developed with hotels and shops, while others have been sold as residences to celebrities and other well-off people, while others had their development put on hold or outright cancelled because of the global financial crisis of 2008, as well as reports that some of the islands were sinking. In 2018, development of some of islands was started up again." .. in this article, which is about islands as a general geographical concept? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Can't see any cogent argument can be made for this section of the paragraph in an article which is about islands in general. Of course it may be fine in the relevant specific island article or possibly in the Artifical Island article. Let's keep any mention of the Palm and World islands to a single sentence. Robynthehode (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Kerguelen Islands

I have removed the Kerguelen Islands from the continental islands section as they were not created from continental rifting. Rather they were formed as a result of magmatic activity and are thus high islands. The Global Volcanism Program clearly states that the Kerguelen Islands are composed primarily of Tertiary flood basalts and a complex of plutonic rocks. Volcanoguy 19:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

No any Iceland contex? הראש (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"Former island" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Section on "Differentiation from continents needs some improvements for clarity and sourcing.

The section starts of by stating that Greenland is the largest island then mentions the larger size of Australia right after making one wonder why that's not considered the largest island. It then follows that by making the claim that a continent cannot also be an island. The problem is that it's not first established clearly that their is a general ensconces the relevant experts on this question all agree with the definitions of continent and island are mutually exclusive. Many dictionaries define an island as simply a body of land surrounded by water which would include Australia. They also define a continent as "any of the world's main continuous expanses of land" or something similar. That also does not preclude the continent of Australia from being an island. Now maybe a number of geographers agree that a continent cannot also be a island and agree with the criteria for differentiating them as stated in Encyclopedia Britannica article, merely citing that one article IMO is not sufficient to just state outright that Australia is not an Island. It would be better to include several sources that support this while at the same time making it clearer that there is not one single universally agreed upon definition of a continent. Something like "While there is no universally agreed upon definition of a continent, many/most geographers do not considered Australia a island or Greenland a continent for the following reasons..." and then go into a more listing of what they considered the relevant criteria for differentiation such as size, having a separate tectonic plate, etc. We could also point out that some/many dictionaries and other sources refer to Australia as an "Island Country" despite what many geographers argue. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Notcharliechaplin I would refer you to the sentence (in a separate paragraph) after the one that you think is unclear namely where Australia is stated as a continent geologically. There are also the two articles which make the differences clear: WP:Australia - the country (which includes mainland Australia, Tasmania and other islands) and WP:Australia (contenent) - the continent (which includes Australia and New Guinea and other islands on the continental plate). These articles seem to me to make it clear that Australia is a continent and a country and not an island as this would contravene the definition of an island in the article namely: 'An island or isle is any piece of subcontinental land that is surrounded by water' (my emphasis). As Australia is not subcontinental it does not fulfil this definition. While additional sources might be welcome to support this the current description of the status of Australia (continent, country but not island) in Wikipedia seems to be clear to me. Robynthehode (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition

What is the definition of island? Sea/ocean island and lake island are pretty straightforward, but what is the exact definition of river island? Is it any exposed landmass surrounded by river water or is it any exposed landmass within a river? If it is the latter, then would the former still be called an island? If it is the former, I have a big problem understanding it. As we know, rivers generally have tributaries and rivers often flow into lakes too. Some large landmasses can be entirely separated from their mainland by natural rivers and lakes. For example, Northern Scotland, starting from the River Ness in Inverness to Loch Linnhe near Fort William, is completely separated from the rest of Scotland by a series of natural rivers and lakes/lochs.

Hong Kong's mainland (comprising the New Territories and Kowloon) is also completely separated from Mainland China by the Sham Chun River and the Sha Tau Kok River. The Korean Peninsula is almost completely separated from mainland Eurasia by the Yalu River and the Tumen River too (from Google Maps, it seems to me that both rivers originated from the Changbai Mountains, but they do not share the same source).

Does anyone consider Northern Scotland and Hong Kong's mainland to be islands or river islands? I don't.

By the way, for some reason, Marajó is considered the largest island in Brazil. I couldn't see any differences between this landmass and Northern Scotland or Hong Kong's mainland. River islands are so confusing. 2001:8003:908F:BB01:A0DD:B8A8:5775:1C65 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)