Talk:New World/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reference / Australasia

Is there a reference for Australasia ever being described as "Old World"... is it not more appropriate to say that it is occassionally included under the "New World" bracket? Muxxa 11:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello from eight years in the future. Every dictionary definition here defines "New World" as the Western Hemisphere, or as North, South and Central America. Not a single one mentions Australasia. I'm a little stunned that Wikipedia could be so wrong about something so big for so long. I think part of the confusion comes from the term "New World wine" which includes wines from Australia and NZ (but also South Africa and China!). If anyone out there is wanting to put Australia back in this article, please be sure to include appropriate sources. Thanks. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources stating that the New World is North and South America, or the Western Hemisphere:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/New%20World?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new%20world

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/new-world?q=New+World

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-new-world#the-new-world_1

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/New-World?q=New+World

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/New-World

--Whattheheyhey (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that the world's leading dictionaries are unreliable? --Whattheheyhey (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They're all reliable, if tertiary. Oceania is not a part of the New World (nor, I would assume, is it a part of the Old); anyone saying it is needs to provide a reliable source, dictionary or otherwise. As the article stands, aside from the user-generated map, there're only two paras that make tangential mention that Oceania might be included (Usage, 2&3), and even those assertions are unsourced. Bromley86 (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just quickly looked into it. I can't find any non-wine references to Australia being part of the New World. Wine-wise, it does rather seem that it is considered New World. Bromley86 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking this out. And even the winemaking sources don't back up the "Americas+Australasia" definition being asserted here, because they include wines from South Africa and East Asia as well. When I first fixed this article, I added this to the disambiguation at the top:

This page is about the term pertaining to the Americas. For the different definition used in winemaking, see New World wine. For other uses, see New World/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

Would it be appropriate to restore that disambiguation message? --Whattheheyhey (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. I was going to suggest you contact AbelM7, who reverted it last time, but it seems he's got himself blocked for socking. So do it and see what happens. Bromley86 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I was getting rid of the map, so I added your disam. Haven't copy edited the article to remove slight references to Australasia as NW (no time). Bromley86 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the one reference I noticed (in the biology paragraph) and restored the note about wine in the Usage section. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I came to wiki, having seen another website describe Australia as "old world", which seemed wrong to me & I wanted to check. Seems crazy though that I have to look in the talk section to find out where Australia fits into it all (or rather doesn't). Is it possible to put something into the main article about Australia/Australasia never being put into new or old world & being it's own separate entity? Presumably Antarctica would come into that too & New Zealand should also probably be mentioned if Australia is, given their PM being upset about how often NZ is left off world maps & generally forgotten. Is it maybe even "Oceania", rather than Australia that fits into it's own category completely separate to new & old world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.176.101 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think this should be merged with Western world. They are two different things.--Cuchullain 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering...

I was just wondering was Greenland considered part of the new world?

Considering that there was Norse/Viking settlement in Greenland about half a millennium before Columbus, I think Greenland could fairly be considered Old World. True, the colonies eventually failed, but the fact is that Europeans knew that the land existed and they knew it existed before the voyages of Columbus. That should make Greenland Old World. 141.166.153.104 (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What continents did the new world include? Mary Back (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What continents did the new world include? Mary Back (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth?

Since when was New Zealand settled a few generations before Columbus reached America in the 15th Century? New Zealand was discovered in the 17th Century by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman, and then the British colonised it in the 19th. And it isn't right to say "humans". Native people such as Maori were living before, and they are human. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.223.10 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, the whole sentence sounds a bit screwed up - i'm not sure what its trying to achieve plus its factually incorrect . Will try and edit .Boomshanka 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain the previous version was referring to the Maori as the human settlers who arrived in New Zealand before Columbus came to America. Please assume good faith, anon. I'm sure is was trying to point out that in such cases as New Zealand, where humans arrived fairly recently, terms like "New World" are obfuscated. But from what I can tell, the Maori did arrive hundreds of years before Columbus' time, not a mere "several generations".--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote placed at top of page

I don't understand why a quote about the New World's discovery would be placed above the actual definition/summary of this article's content...it seems very out of place, confusing, and distracting, so I removed it. Putting it above everything else interrupts the flow of the article...it's very different from usual Wiki style. -- Flummery 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called an epigraph, Flummery, and is a very common device. It may not yet be common here, but that is a product of ignorance, not of stylistic standards. Renyseneb 06:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for expansion and reinvention of Wiki articles...but not at the cost of convenience. -- Flummery 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're no people's warrior, Flum. Let's keep our feet on the ground. --Renyseneb 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Biological Use

I find it interesting this article is completely lacking any reference to what is likely the most common modern use of the terms "New World" and "Old World" - referring to biology and the origins of species of plants and animals. (e.g.: "Despite their common historical association with Ireland, potatoes are originally New World vegetables", etc.) --Lurlock 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Iceland and Svalbard

How can Iceland be part of the New World when if it was discovered in the eigth century, while Svalbard be a part of the Old world and was discovered in the 12th or possibly even later in 1596? --Fomerom (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OR

new world is neither australasia/greenland or iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.209.83 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Australasia is definitly part of the new world. visit a wine merchant and ask for a new world wine and he'll offer you something Australian. Also, While I'm here why does this article say some one went down the coast of what would become the USA and Canada when it was more than 2 centuries before this happened and the area would have first been British North America and possibly Spanish North America?(Morcus (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

How's this? Also, Canada and the U.S. have two shared coasts, so I added that it was the Atlantic coast that Verrazzano explored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 03:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of of the uses in New World (disambiguation)#Biology refer to the Americas and not Australasia. --JWB (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the article just makes a mess of things. "New World" has a well-defined meaning in the context of the age of exploration, and in the context of zoology / botany / ecology. Arguing whether Greenland or Maritime Southeast Asia are "New World" is completely beside the point. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica?

It seems evident to me that Antarctica should be included as part of the New World, since it was one of the last locales to be discovered & explored eg., Shackleton's expeditions, and the like. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to think that people who navigated the world thousands of years before the "Shackleton's" may have discovered what we now call Antarctica. But because of the extend that it is uninhabitable, they didn't settle and thus hide their probable true discovery.

The so called Age of Discovery should be renamed Age of European Invasion(s) , for one does not discover what is already discovered. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Editorial Comments"?

Since folks seem intent on deleting passages, I reproduce this from my talk page:

To answer your question, the paragraph starts with a reference to the passage above, and the makes assertions like "the known stretch of Central America was definitely not Asia, but part of the "New World", without any further support. The internal reference to the passage above is editorial and other assertions in the paragraph are opinions as they are not supported with sources. Britmax (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing opinions with helpful clarification and useful information. The way the article is currently written gives the incorrect impression it was always used for the Americas as a whole. The reference to South America is a clarification of the archaic terms used by Vespucci - "southern quarter", "south of equinoctial line" - for the benefit of readers who might not see it immediately, and imagine his term refers to the whole (which he doesn't). That is beyond dispute. It is there in black-and-white. (P.S. - I wrote the entire Vespucci thing, and felt clarification was needed in retrospect.)

Once that that is clarified, it is consequently necessary for readers of the "New World" article to have some idea when the term transitioned from referring to South America alone to the Americas as a whole. We don't have a definitive answer. There are no primary documents making such a declaration ("Hereafter, we shall apply New World to the whole"). We know usage transitioned sometime between 1504 and 1511. When exactly is uncertain. But we are not without ideas or possibilities. The Juntas of Toro & Burgos in 1505 & 1508, smack in the interlude, were assembled precisely to decide on that. These were highly important historical conferences, assembled by the Spanish crown so the leading geographers and navigators could digest all existing information about the Indies, come to an agreement on what they had really discovered, and set out the future goals of Spanish exploration. (Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no pages on the important Juntas de Navegantes; I might get around to composing them myself, but I am a little busy at present). All I have pointed out is that it seems that this is where such a transition would likely have happened. How do I know? Firstly, because of Rodrigo de Bastidas & co. (look 'em up) had already established prior to the conferences that Central America was connected to the South America by the Panama isthmus - Central America is part of the New World landmass. That such was discovered is not an "opinion", but a fact. And that the Junta knew they were connected is implied by its explicit designation of governors for "Castilla de Oro" (central America) and "Nueva Andalucia" (south America), along a continuous coast with a land border designated between them. Secondly, the Juntas set out explicitly the goal of finding a straits through the landmass so they could reach the Moluccas. To our knowledge, this was the first official explicit recognition that the Moluccas didn't lie somewhere in the Caribbean, and thus by implication that Central America could be not the Asian landmass (known to be west of the Moluccas).

It is useful for this article to point out that these highly-important conferences were held in this 1504-1511 interlude. Conferences where the geographic status of Central America and the Antilles were debated, discussed and determined, in which we seem to have transitioned from still imagining it still might possibly be part of Asia prior to the Juntas to being quite certain they weren't afterwards.

It does admittedly need references. I'll get around to it when I have more time. But the information shouldn't be deleted in the meantime on account of that. There is nothing controversial in any statement I made. The article is misleading as is - the Vespucci passages is at odds with the general statements in the lede, and I provide supplementary indications towards to the next inevitable question - when did the transition from Asia to New World happen? - which will likely be asked by many who visit the page. Remember: I make no definitive assertions, just pointing out to readers the highly important Juntas were assembled for that purpose, and that their timing and conclusions indicate that is where the transition seems to have happened. You are welcome to correct it. But it should not be omitted. Walrasiad (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow very interesting but we need a ref for the editorial worded paragraph that was added pls ...will remove in a few days if not referenced Thank you . Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycleMoxy (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Better now? Walrasiad (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Updating Third World, New World and Old World

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Third World#We need more on the shift in usage for discussion on how to bring these three articles up to date with modern (i.e. last 3 decades or so) uses of these terms in socio-political discourse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I think even the term "New World" as used to refer to Americas and Australia are offensive to the true discoverers of these continents.

The term, Old World is of no consequence I think. But New World implies indigenous people of Americas and Australia are "still" not regarded as people with mental capability to discover, like settlements by other nonhuman life forms. All the while, these indigenous people aught to be accorded much more greater respect for having even travelled and truly discovered remote places like island of Hawai thousand of years ahead of the so called Age of Discovery. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reason why the queen of Spain ordered Colombus to try and find new trading routes.

For years Europeans throught there was just Europe, Africa and Asia, and that was until 1492 when the queen of Spain asked a man who we now know as Christopher Colombus to try and find new trading routes. He accpeted her request and found the Americas in August of 1492. Which the country of Cuba became the first to be discovered by Europeans and thus began the colonization of the Americas. Which also included France, England/Great Britain and Portugal to colonize this new world! Bubba2018 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Which the country of Cuba became the first to be discovered"

Discovery means newly found, as in not found before then!

Was the place we call Cuba not inhabited by August of 1492?

If no, please use a different term than "discovered"...

It like saying Musi wa Thunya (proper name of Victoria Falls) was discovered during Victorian era.

Wikipedia really needs to have these kind of discussions as such insults to indigenous people of the world are common on this platform.

... it's like saying the Nazi discovered France while they actually INVADED France. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead and Amerigo Vespucci

@BilCat: As currently written, the lead states, "... Amerigo Vespucci concluded that America represented a new continent". This is misleading, especially since the word America is often considered synonymous with the United States. I have attempted to correct this twice, but the correction has been removed both times. I don't plan to make any further corrections, but please be aware the lead is not correct as currently written. Many will think the lead is indicating Vespucci was referring to the United States or North America when he first used the term "Mundus Novus". In fact Vespucci didn't visit North America, other than some of the Caribbean Islands. It was South America he was referring to when he was describing a new continent in his pamphlet "Mundus Novus". The main North American continent had not yet been explored. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It does need to be rewritten, but he didn't call it "America" either, to my knowledge. Also, this is in the lead, so it doesn't need all the details. Hopefully we can figure something out. BilCat (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: What if we split the sentence up as follows:

The term gained prominence in the early 16th century, during the Age of Discovery, when Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci concluded a new continent had been discovered, the future continent of South America. In 1503 Vespucci published his findings in a pamphlet titled Mundus Novus, or New World.