Talk:New World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] Merge

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

hi peeps