Talk:Antipodes

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not even near missess? I bet I calculated they were... And even saw them as such in these maps... B.Why only cities are named? Wouldn't it be valid for land antipodes with a clearly distinctive name to apply too? Ok, that means listing too many land antipodes... Lets stay with those given and use parenthesis to point these non-megapolitic but more exact antipodes... It could, for example, be said that Madrid's true antipode lies 'bout 160 km n/s.w/e from Wellington (New Zealand) in an area called (and here the name of that smaller city, outer suburb or wild zone would be named) and, conversely that Wellington's true antipode lies 'bout 160 km s/n.e/w from Madrid (New Zealand) in an area called (and here, ya see how this would work) and so on... C.It would be optimal if the list extended to every country that had at least one land antipode, to every country's geopolitical subdivisions if possible when more than one apply.Undead Herle King 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the external website being linked to doesn't work correctly. I started in Missouri and ended up in Antarctica, when I should have ended up somewhere in the Indian Ocean according to this website [1] (linked to from Antipodal point. When I tried to revert my action to get back, I ended up in the Arctic (I think). Anyone else confirm or deny this problem? If I zoom out before clicking "Dig it" (since Google Earth understandably doesn't have street-level topo maps of either the Indian Ocean or Antarctica), it appears to briefly flash to an Ocean, then dumps me into the tundra. Even weirder, if I try to reverse my hole, I end up somewhere north of Siberia. Maybe it's a Firefox quirk...?? For right now, I'm linking it to the static map in the other article instead. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this from the article, where it was stuck in as a comment:

Coelius Secundus Curio 'De Amplitudine Regni Coelestis'

Should this be a reference? — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for merging is that the two articles seem to be about the same subject (the "Antipodes" of London is the same thing as the "Antipodal point" of London), and entirely complementary. Antipodes contains etymology and historical significance; Antipodal point contains (apart from some duplicated stuff) the technical side. What do folks think? I'd be happy to do the work, and a little cleanup at the same time. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that one article is mainly about geography and the other mainly about mathematics. Possibly some information should be moved from this article to the other, but I think it's important to have a separate article on mathematics. Something like the Borsuk-Ulam theorem would be out of place in an article on geography. Michael Hardy 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. The way I see it, Antipodal point contains the "geographical" info. about "antipodes" (ie. that you add 180 deg and flip N/S), plus the more abstract maths stuff. The main Antipodes article definitely (in my view) needs the geographical stuff — an article about a geographic subject that just explains its etymology is a bit naff — but the "pure maths" stuff (basically the Generalization to more dimensions section) could go to, say, "Antipodes (mathematics)". Antipodal point would then be a redirect to Antipodes, which would refer people to "Antipodes (mathematics)" for the more abstract version. (Or maybe it should be "Antipodal point (mathematics)".) The maths article would then be tagged with the appropriate maths categories. What do you think of that? — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Antipodes (mathematics)" is a terrible name for an article. I've never heard a mathematician use the word "antipodes" as a mathematical term except as a plural of the (back-formed) word "antipode". Wikipedia article titles should not be plural without an identifiable reason to avoid the singular in a particular case. Michael Hardy 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This merger is going to need a careful survey of all the links to these two articles, to make sure that they end up linking to the appropriate final article. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, FYI, I wanted to let you know that I'm planning on making another Antipodes-related page, Antipodes (sculpture). It's a famous sculpture at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington DC that is a sister sculpture of Kryptos at the CIA, and has one of the world's most famous unsolved codes on it. This plan probably doesn't have any direct impact on the merge proposal, since it'll just involve a disambiguation link, but I still wanted to give you advance notice since there's discussion about moving things around. Elonka 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I guess we need "For the sculpture, see..." at the top of the page. An alternative would be to make "Antipodes" into a disambig. page, but since I think the geographical meaning is the "main" one, I think it makes sense to do it the other way. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping the primary meaning (geographic) at Antipodes and making Antipodes (disambiguation) for linking to the others is the usual style when one use is overwhelming more common. How soon do you expect to be making your other article, Elonka? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion — yes, Antipodes (disambiguation) seems like a smart move. As for your question, you should probably use her talk page, as she may not be watching here. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article has been on my list for awhile, but I keep getting sidetracked with other articles or disputes (right now I'm gearing up for an RfC about a user who keeps making personal attacks). My best guess though is "some time within the next week". If you want me to hold off though, I can. Just let me know whatever is least confusing.  :) Elonka 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a go at making this into the "geography" article on antipodes, and antipodal point the mathematical article. It's far from perfect, but I think it's a start. I've checked the pages that link to both articles, and (after a couple of changes) they all seem to be linking to the appropriate place.

I've held off for now from renaming either article, as it doesn't really seem to be necessary, although maybe antipodal point could become "antipodal point (mathematics)" just for emphasis. Likewise, I don't see too much need to create "Antipodes (disambiguation)" right now... ? — Johan the Ghost _seance 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made antipode into a disambiguation page; formerly it redirect to antipodal point. Then I changed antipodal so that it redirects to antipode (the disambiguation page) instead of redirecting to antipodal point. Next I'll see what I can do with the links to antipode. Michael Hardy 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced this translation of Plato by W.R.M. Lamb (according to the article, but there was no cited reference) with a translation which actually uses the word antipodes.

[62d] For suppose there were a solid body evenly-balanced at the center of the universe, [63a] it would never be carried away to the extremities because of their uniformity in all respects; nay, even were a man to travel round it in a circle he would often call the same part of it both "above" and "below", according as he stood now at one pole, now at the opposite. (πολλάκις ἂν στὰς ἀντίπους) For seeing that the Whole is, as we said just now, spherical, the assertion that it has one region "above" and one "below" does not become a man of sense.

— Johan the Ghost _seance 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of this article contained the following text in the lead:

In the United Kingdom, "the Antipodes" and "Antipodeans" are often used to refer to Australia and New Zealand, and their inhabitants.

This information is expanded on in the Regional usage section.

I think that this text (or something like it) should be allowed to stand because:

1. (important) The purpose of the lead section is to quickly satisfy the needs of someone who comes to an article wanting to know what it is about. The "Australia/NZ" usage is not information about antipodes. It is a meaning of antipodes. As a meaning of the term, it should be mentioned in the lead.
2. (less important) The lead section should be a summary of the whole article, so it's perfectly legitimate to have repetition, as long as the lead is a summary of information which is filled out in the body of the article.

Comments?

And yes, I think the lead could mention something about the origin/etymology of the term. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections raised, so I restored it. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Tomer^talk 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it a bit to mention that the usage is common in Europe. Sergio Ballestrero 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that the article says "For example, the antipodes of New Zealand's north island lie in Spain." which does not match what I see in the map. Could this be a problem of the Mercator projection used by the map? or is it a mistake in the article ? If it is a problem of the map, it should be at least mentioned in its caption. Sergio Ballestrero 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the North Island is antipodal to points in Spain, so this was only slightly misleading. I fixed this a while ago by making the text more precise. -- Avenue (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of changes to this article designed to cop out the term and make it appear as though Britain has some sort of, albeit weak standing, case to refer to Australia and New Zealand as their antipodes, I suspect this is yet another case of this. I can't find a source to back it up so I have removed it and will continue to remove it until it is backed up by a source. Factoid Killer 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at it:Antipodi, which I had linked, and fr:Antipodes too, before asserting the lack of source. Quite frankly I do not understand why you have such a problem with the simple fact that in Italy we often refer to Australia as being "agli antipodi". I do understand very well that Australia is not exactly at the geometrical antipodes of Italy or France or UK, but it is still the piece of land that is nearest to it; and most people do not care about geographical or geometrical precision in daily language use... Just as a quick reference, a Google.it search of Antipodi Australia has ~24000 hits. And, according to the french wiki page, frenchmen do the same. So, I do stand for my edit, and I would really appreciate if you could put back the reference to wider European use of the term - do it yourself, so you can choose how. --Sergio Ballestrero 23:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS the term has no offensive meaning in italian, and is also generically used as a synonim of "opposite".

I don't speak Italian nor French and thus cannot verify the sources. There are 46 countries in Europe before you refer to Europe you should establish such use is representitory. But if you'd like to add the use of the term by the people of Italy and France and qualify it with sources, feel free to Factoid Killer 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally I can confirm that it is not a term generally used in Ireland. Factoid Killer 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually do not care that much about the question in itself, but the problem of proving the common usage in a language to a person that is unable to speak it is challenging and interesting in itself, as the combination makes it very hard to strictly comply with WP:Source ( isn't this a very encyclopedic point of view :-P ?). Finding documentation in English that discusses how Italians use "agli antipodi" ("at the antipodes") to refer to New Zealand or Australia is apparently bejond Google my skills. You would not necessarily trust my translation, and you may not really trust, or even bother, to use an automatic translator like Babelfish, but at least it is unbiased and independently verifyiable:

http://www.newzealandeducated.com/Italy/index.html says Un viaggio di studio “agli antipodi” può facilmente trasformarsi in un soggiorno indimenticabile. La Nuova Zelanda offre un grande varietà di paesaggi incantevoli... that http://www.google.com/language_tools translates to A travel of study “to the antipodal ones” can easy be transformed in an unforgettable stay. New Zeland offers a great variety of charming landscapes...

http://www.globalgeografia.com/mondo/antipodi.htm says Forse il diffuso errore, insegnatoci a scuola, che "la Nuova Zelanda si trova agli antipodi dell'Italia" nasce dal fatto che qualcuno ha considerato per sbaglio la longitudine, anzichè ad est, ad ovest del famoso 180° meridiano (nel qual caso molte nostre regioni avrebbero gli antipodi sul territorio di quel lontano Paese). that http://www.google.com/language_tools translates to Perhaps the diffused error, taught to us to school, than “New Zeland is found to the antipodal ones of Italy” is born from the fact that someone has considered for mistake longitude, anzichè to east, the west of famous 180° the meridian (in the which case many our regions would far away have antipodal on the territory of those the Country).

The Italian WP it:Punto antipodale says: Il termine antipodi viene usato in Europa per indicare l'Oceania. that http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr translates to: The term antipodal comes used in Europe in order to indicate the Oceania. A better translation would be The term antipodes is used in Europe to indicate Oceania.

The French WP fr:Point antipodal says: le terme « antipode » provient du pluriel « antipodes » qui désignait traditionnellement en Europe les régions situées de l'autre côté de la Terre , comme l'Océanie (désignées comme « les Antipodes » ou situées « aux Antipodes »). that http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr translates to: the term "antipode" comes from plural "antipodes" which traditionally indicated in Europe the areas located on other side of the Earth, like Oceania (indicated like "Antipodes" or located "at Antipodes").

The Catalan WP ca:Antípoda says: S'utilitza el plural, antípodes, per anomenar les terres més pròximes al punt antípoda. Per exemple, Nova Zelanda es troba als antípodes d'Espanya. that http://www.comprendium.es/index_demo_text_ca.html translates to The plural, Antipodes, is used for calling the earth|lands nearest in the Antipodes point. For example, New Zealand is in the Antipodes of Spain.

Spanish, German and Russian do not mention the use. Dutch, Polish, Swedish, Danish, Estonian WP only have stubs; Polish mentions "terra australis"

Just for fun, I tried also the translation of the Japanese WP by Google Language tools (Babelfish refused the UTF URL), which barely resembles English, so I would not dare assigning it any meaning: And, with Western Europe such as England and France, as for diametrically opposite area it hits against New Zealand, includes also Australia and when it points is many. And, the [anteipodesu] archipelago of the New Zealand southwest is the name which is associated with being categorized to the diametrical opposition of the Greenwich observatory.

I can add to this by mentioning sites in italian where the two words ("antipodi" and "australia" or "antipodi" and "nuova zelanda") are featured quite prominently, so that the correlation can be evident even for someone who does not speak the language:

• http://www.demauroparavia.it/6785
• http://www.paesionline.it/oceania/nuova_zelanda/ambiente.asp
• http://italiani.clifo.unibo.it/OceaniaEng/altreitalie/14Simini.htm
• http://www.lacunae.it/mitte_kalari.htm
• http://www.dweb.repubblica.it/dweb/dweb/2004/12/04/attualita/attualita/118ric429118.html
• http://www.ilguerriero.it/codino/cultura/australia1.htm
• http://www.castfvg.it/zzz/ids/antipodi.html
• http://www.turistipercaso.it/viaggi/itinerari/testo.asp?ID=4511
• http://www.nzviaggi.com/it/tours/gli-antipodi-a-piedi.htm
• http://www.alessandriadellarocca.com/festa%20madonna%202003/nuova%20zelanda2.htm

I can also give some titles of books and DVDs which mention both, or clearly refer to the other:

• http://www.dvd.it/page/dett/arti/80296/nv/LIB/verso_gli_antipodi._le_nuove_letterature_di_lingua_inglese%3A_india%2C_australia%2C_nu.html
• http://www.dvd.it/page/dett/arti/265207/nv/LIB/sguardi_australiani._idee%2C_immaginari_e_cinema_degli_antipodi.html
• http://www.edizionipontegobbo.com/scheda.php?id=46

Finally, Google associations, from http://www.google.it/, restricting to "pagine in Italiano":

• Antipodi : 248.000
• "australia" 15.900.000
• antipodi australia : 23.800
• "nuova zelanda" 2.000.000
• antipodi "nuova zelanda" : 10.700
• "sud africa" 1.820.000
• antipodi "sud africa": 764
• "giappone" 4.870.000
• antipodi "giappone" 18.300

so, the numbers alone are actually quite meaningless - I actually had to read the excerpts to discover that Japan is at the antipodes of Italy for culture, cuisine, business... :-)

Well, it took way too much time, but it was quite fun :-). FactoidKiller, everybody: would you consider this appropriate proof? Or how would you go about proving this to WP standards ? As I said, the specific case is not so important, but the general question is, especially for those like me who do some translations between it:WP and en:WP. Sergio Ballestrero 23:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good enough for me to add Italy and France. What about Spain? It is actually at the antipodes of New Zealand. Factoid Killer 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Portugal are also antipodes of parts of NZ. JackofOz 01:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found, by inverting geographical coordinates for Gibraltar, that Gibraltar is about 140 km from Auckland, New Zealand. The inverted coordinates actually strike land near the shore of the Great Barrier Island. To be sure, that spot doesn't look like interesting land, as it seems to be nearly unpopulated... but it demonstrates that at one time at least two parts of the British Empire were in fact antipodal. If one accepts that Gibraltar is a part of Britain, one can in fact state that Britain is antipodal to a part of New Zealand.

The Sun still does not set on the British Commonwealth, at least not without rising somewhere else! --Paul from Michigan (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It bugs me that the "List of antipodes" doesn't say they are in fact near misses. --Jidanni 10:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

the article states "Most of the earth's land surfaces have ocean at its antipodes, this being a consequence of most land being in the northern hemisphere." isn't this in fact a consequence of most of the earth's surface being covered in water? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ybbor (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yup. All of Australia and New Zealand's antipodes are in the North Atlantic and Africa's are in the Pacific. Grant | Talk 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being patronising, but let's do a bit of logic. If most land is the northern hemisphere, then most sea is in the southern hemisphere. Not only that, but most land BY FAR is in the northern hemisphere - an additional contingently (or "just-so-happens-to-be") true premise. So most sea BY FAR is in the southern hemisphere. Despite most land being in the northern hemisphere, a lot of the northern hemisphere is still sea (not sure how much, but I'd guess ≥40%) - another contingently true premise. The antipodes of any point in the northern hemisphere is in the southern hemisphere - an analytically/mathematically true premise. So things are already looking bad for land with land antipodes, because northern land is thwarted by all that southern sea. (So, yes it is partly because there is so much sea overall, but a predominance of land on one side of the earth doesn't help either.) What's worse, though, is that most (by far) of what land there IS in the southern hemisphere just happens to be opposite the comparatively small amount of sea in the northern hemisphere. So I make that three (contingent) reasons all up. No single one of the three clearly predominates. Simplifier 07:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the land-land antipodes aren't very interesting, matching as they do polar regions (Antarctica against parts of Siberia, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland). It might be possible to connect Barrow, Alaska to some research base near the coastline of Antarctica, but likely not. Even the oceanic islands of the Pacific that match locations in Africa generally match thinly-populated places in the Sahara or Kalahari deserts. I did match parts of Hawaii to the Okavango Delta, which at least is an interesting biome, if comparatively unpopulated. Kerguelen Island in the Indian Ocean is opposite a location almost central in North America -- but in some thinly-populated semi-desert in the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Easter Island is antipodal to a part of India... but to the Thar Desert.

Because of cultural connections between New Zealand and Europe someone might find other connections. The northernmost tip of New Zealand seems to correspond to the general area of Gibraltar. If someone can find an antipodal point for Gibraltar in or near New Zealand, then one has a good illustration of the old bromide that "the sun never sets on the British Empire".

Some heavily-populated areas, most notably in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Cambodia, southern Vietnam, and especially southeastern China match land positions in South America. Regrettably for matching of notable places, few of those highly-populated areas in Indonesia, Malaysia, or the Philippines match densely-populated areas in South America. The whole of Java, for example, 'matches' parts of Venezuela -- but the thinly populated Llanos. Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Ho Chi Minh City seem to match locations deep within the Andes. Forget the Philippines; it all corresponds to thinly populated parts of Brazil. The best matches for population centers are between southeastern China with locations in northern Argentina, central Chile, and southeastern Paraguay. Antipodal positions for southernmost South America seem to correspond with thinly-populated areas in Mongolia and Siberia... Parts of Patagonia with the Gobi Desert? Who cares!

Have fun. Maybe you will find some antipodal village across from Ushuaia in southern Siberia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Most of the non-polar land -- by far -- is to be found in the Northern Hemisphere. In the zone between 57°N and 63°N one finds much landmass and some significant cities: Anchorage, Reykjavik, Oslo, Stockholm, Tallinn, Riga, Helsinki, and St. Petersburg (Russia) Between 57°S and 63°S one finds next to nothing but a hostile environment of near-freezing water in the southern summer and sea ice in the winter. This is one of the deadliest environments on Earth, one into which any person cast would die quickly of hypothermia. Paul from Michigan (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one weird exception: South Georgia Island corresponds with the northernmost part of Sakhalin Island. If someone wants to connect these too, then find -- except that I consider these two places among the most trivial places on Earth outside of the extreme polar zones and deserts. Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo is the first European to visit the Southern Hemisphere? I find that hard to believe on it's face - and it's not even mentioned in his biography article. If it's unsourced, should it be removed? 71.183.12.121 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not true. The ancient romans are known to have circumnavigated Africa. At the height of their power they also ran yearly shuttles between the Red Sea ports and India for exotic trade. That's how Jesus' faith got to Malabar very soon (see the "Thomas-Christians" article for more info). 91.83.15.197 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that the Romans ever circumnavigated Africa, so far as I know. The Phoenicians might have, but there's a far better explanation: the Levant was trading with India for centuries. The sea journey wasn't that difficult: the Red Sea (roughly from Eilat, Israel), the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea. They could have hugged the coast of South Arabia, Iran, and Sind as their courage and caution dictated. Another trade route would have been across the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula (through modern-day Jordan and Iraq to about Kuwait), through the Perso-Arabian Gulf, and along the shores of what are now Iran and Pakistan to northwestern India. Levantine Christians would have had good cause to take refuge in India due to Roman persecution of Christians. India was relatively safe due to its traditional tolerance. They might also have found converts among the Indian population.

Not until the rise of Islam did those trade routes get cut off to Christian traders.Paul from Michigan (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Hungary has the "remotest" antipode, a perfectly blank spot in the souther pacific, with even the tiniest bit of land more then 2000 kilometers away and the nearest major land spot is almost 2500 kilometers away. 91.83.15.197 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. France has two locations, one near Cherbourg and one near Arles, roughly antipodal to some islands. France and Hungary are nowhere near 2000 miles apart. Moscow seems a better candidate. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the antipode of the oceanic pole of inaccessibility lies in western Kazakhstan. -- Avenue (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The antipodes of the entire continent of Australia are in the North Atlantic ocean. There is not a single overlapping speck of land anywhere directly antipodal to Australia (although Bermuda and the Azores come pretty close). I checked on "http://www.antipodemap.com/". I don't think this means Australia has the most remote antipode, but I'm not sure what the best word for it is...Hypershock (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'pole of inaccessibility' within the oceans (48°52.6′S 123°23.6′W) (Point Nemo) has its antipodal location at 48°52.6′N 56°36.4′E...in western Kazakhstan. It's hard to say what is "there". Both locations, one in subantarctic waters and the other in a nearly-unpopulated desert, are truly desolate. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have this statement in the text "Around 71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans; thus the majority of locations on land do not have land-based antipodes." This implies that the second fact is a direct consequence of the first. Is this actually the case, or is it just by chance? Granted, the statement is likely to be correct, but it would be possible to have a situation whereby a planet had 99% ocean with just two land masses of 0.5% each and which just happened to be antipodal. 82.26.76.131 (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the second fact is not a direct consequence of the first. Adding the fact that the northern hemisphere contains most of the land, or even better that the land hemisphere contains seven eighths of the land, will take care of the problem. -- Avenue (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like the pink side might be up-side down. Is that somehow intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morria (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - think about it. What's antipodal to a point near the north pole? -- Avenue (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question and reply make me wonder whether the article should point out that the antipodal mapping on the sphere is orientation-reversing. Or is that too technical an observation for this particular article? Ishboyfay (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wording seems too technical, but I think a more accessible phrasing would be fine. -- Avenue (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the transformation of a general point to its antipode. Therefore one would have:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f&\colon \mathbb {Z} \to \mathbb {Z} \\x&\mapsto {\begin{cases}x+180&{\mbox{if }}x>0\\x-180&{\mbox{if }}x<0\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}}$

for the longitude, and:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f\colon \mathbb {Z} &\to \mathbb {Z} \\x&\mapsto -x\end{aligned}}}$

for the latitude. It can therefore be seen that as one moves east or west, one's antipode will move the same amount in the same direction, but as one moves north or south, one's antipode will move the same amount but this time in the opposite direction direction. Therefore, a map showing antipodes will have the antipodal part upside down and with a 180 degree shift. Hence, the map is correct as it is. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 198° 36' 15" NET 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the lower map were not so feint and difficult to see, but more like the upper map. 78.151.110.54 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it too pale, if you are one of the 8% of American men who have even slight red-green colorblindness, you can't see it at all. In fact, I thought the map was "broken", until I came here, saw this post, and noticed that there is almost undetectable (to me) cyan region on the map. I think it should be fixed or the map deleted since there is already a far better antipode map further up on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.116.234 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor 18.202... added the following comment to the caption for the lead image:

Note: This projection may be inaccurate. Please compare with the following tool which uses Google Maps: http://www.antipodemap.com/^[discuss]

I've moved it here for discussion. From a few spot checks (Falkland Islands, Banks Peninsula, Kerguelen Islands), the maps seem to agree well. Am I missing something? --Avenue (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which %age of the Earth's land mass is antipodal to other land? It's obviously low, but it would be nice to have the figure. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fraction is one twenty-seventh, according to this book. --Avenue (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map with antipodes of the lands overlapping each other can give you an idea, visually, how much land overlaps antipodal-wise. I find this map very helpful. It's actually better than the 2 maps currently provided. In fact I suggested that this map be included under the section under "Mathematical description". Showmebeef (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be silly, but I think it might be nice to add an antipod parameter to the geo/city info box template. Although it has no practical value, it's the kind of trivia that can get kids excited thinking about the world. (Unfortunately, the most geographically illiterate major country has almost no antipodal land mass, but oh well.) Any support for this? — kwami (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says that belief that the antipodes were inhabited by humans was declared heretical as late as the 14th century, but this doesn't appear to be supported by the reference cited.

I suspect the supposed 14th-century instances being referred to were the cases of Cecco d'Ascoli and Pietro d'Abano. Andrew Dickson White said that the supposed belief of these philosophers in the existence of humans living in the antipodes was one of the reasons for which they were condemned by the Church. However, these assertions have apparently now been discredited. I have therefore requested a proper citation for the claim.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has come up with a good source to support this assertion, and I haven't been able to find one either, I have now removed it from the article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the most "antipodean" airports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.92.245 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to airports -- longest imaginable itineraries involving regionally-important cities I came up with places that have some cultural or political ties -- US to Australia (American East Coast -- any large coastal city would do to Perth, Australia) Honolulu (very isolated) and Johannesburg, and any part of New Zealand with southwestern Europe. Any Chinatown in Argentina has an obvious long journey for those seeking to visit the ancestral country. There is a significant Japanese population in Brazil. It's extremely that someone would go from Denver, Colorado and Amsterdam Island or St. Paul Island -- or from Calgary to the icy Kerguelen Islands. Pbrower2a (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question: Tanger International Airport, Morocco (TNG) to Whangarei, New Zealand (WRE). According to the great circle distance 10799 nm, only one nm short of the theoretical maximum of 10800 nm. But now comes the icing on the cake: Since this is the distance between the so-called designated locators, the actual runways cross in projection! I guess this is a bullseye. Regards, 89.15.236.198 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Great Circle Mapper, the distance from Mataveri International Airport, Easter island (IPC) to Jaisalmer, India airport (JSA) is exactly 10800 nm. Leob (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tematangi is apparently the point of land most nearly antipodal to Mecca... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Cocos Islands (Australia) and Cocos Island (Costa Rica) really near-antipodes, as claimed at the end of the section Cocos (Keeling) Islands#Geography? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use one of the maps links, like http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/tool.html. I get their antipodes separated by 860km, which wouldn't be notable except for their names: it's 2% of the Earth's circumference. The actual antipode of Cocos/Keeling is Corn Is. off the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a tradition, the Olympic flame travels from Mount Olympus to the site of the quadriennial games. It took an extremely circuitous path, and when in Buenos Aires, Argentina, it couldn't have been farther from China -- literally -- as Buenos Aires is antipodal to a site in China. I have few details on where it went within Buenos Aires, and maybe someone could fill us in on whether it traveled through Buenos Aires' Chinatown. Pbrower2a (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Antipodes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "turner":

• From Vergilius of Salzburg: Turner, William. "St. Vergilius of Salzburg." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 19 May 2013
• From Polaris: Turner, D. G.; Savoy, J.; Derrah, J.; Abdel‐Sabour Abdel‐Latif, M.; Berdnikov, L. N. (2005). "The Period Changes of Polaris". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 117 (828): 207. Bibcode:2005PASP..117..207T. doi:10.1086/427838.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The orphaned reference and much of the text preceding it was copied and pasted without attribution from the article Vergilius of Salzburg. Since such copying and pasting is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, I have now removed the offending text. At the same time, I also removed text telling of the dispute between Boniface and Vergilius over the proper form for the sacrament of baptism, since this is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or do the two maps only show the american continent. I tried to find Australia, but could only do so with the blue color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.135.59 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow Australia, that "unsigned" asked on 21 April 2015 23:27, is in the middle of the blue North-Atlantic Michel Merlin (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map is hard to read, as shows the question that "unsigned" asked on 21 April 2015 23:27: places are relatively easy to find or recognize on the direct map (here in blue), much harder on the flipped one (here in yellow); hence an efficient use is IMO to find a given place (that you already know) on the flipped map, and then to see its antipode on the direct one (that you will more easily read).

So I suggest to lessen the number and visibility of places and countries on the direct map (here in blue) and to increase the number and visibility of places and countries on the flipped map (here in yellow). For instance, the names on the direct (blue) map could be grayed, and the flipped (yellow) map could be completed with many cities, chosen as most helpful to help localizing everything else around, each one localized with a dot and its written name: London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Hamburg, St-Petersburg, Moscow, Istanbul, Tehran, Muscat, Colombo, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Anchorage, Seattle, New York, Panama, Lima, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Ushuaia, Dakar, Suez, Kinshasa, Cape Town, Sydney, Perth, Auckland, Noumea, Mauritius, Seychelles, Maldives, Jakarta, Darwin, Hobart, Papeete, Kiribati, Honolulu, Midway Michel Merlin (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other is close enough that it needs detailed investigation. Iceland and Antarctica's Balleny Islands at least seem to come very close, whether they actually overlap would depend on how accurate the mapping of the latter actually is. The island of Flatey, Skjálfandi with the northern part of Young Island in particular; the Balleny Islands article mentions sea stacks off the northern coast of Young Island for which I can find no co-ordinates. Additionally as both are active volcanic zones, there is always the distinct possibility of a new land antipode being created here. Walshie79 (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this section notable or useful? As it seems to me, the whole concept of antipodes is Earth-centric, and is linked with the scarcity of land antipodes (and the historical difficulty of getting to them) on a mainly water planet. By contrast, we could list out the entire map of Mars (for example) as pairs of antipodes, but none of them would be notable.80.6.141.218 (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't Earth-centric, the geometrical concept is universal. On bodies such as Mercury, the Moon and Mars, there are interesting geologic features antipodal to large impact basins (a result of focusing of the seismic energy released), something not apparent on Earth. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not use the barbarism "antipode". It should be mentioned, probably, but not used. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using the plural antipodes to refer to a region antipodal to a given region is perfectly sensible. Using the plural to refer to a single point on the Earth's surface, which is what you have done, is a logical and grammatical impossibility. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antipodes is the correct word for both singular and plural. Antipode is a barbarism. --Trovatore (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plural-to-singular back-formations are almost always barbarisms. It's like matrice (from matrices) or bicep (from biceps, another word that is properly either singular or plural). --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography to weigh in — see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Geography&type=revision&diff=812683982&oldid=812370602, hopefully a reasonably neutral summary. Let's see what the experts have to say. --Trovatore (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a word is in general usage according to the relevant authorities, as the singular antipode obviously is, I don't think you have the option of declaring it off limits, whether or not it's a "barbarism". WolfmanSF (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at OED online. Antipode is listed as a term from chemistry, but not in the meaning relevant here. (It does appear in some of the quotations, most of which are old.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also specifies that antipodes is a noun with plural and singular concord. --Trovatore (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the definitions I linked to above, however, do not so specify. Note that this source describes antipodes as "esp. the region directly opposite to one's own". That is the normal usage in geography, a reference to a region. However, virtually all the sources I linked to above describe the singular in a way consistent with use in geography (or the geometry of a sphere) to refer to a single antipodal point. Also, the singular has been in use since A.D. 1540-1550. As for chemistry, that usage is archaic. WolfmanSF (talk)

Well, the key test is not what dictionaries say, but what the literature in the field uses. That's why I pinged the geography folks. I'm not a geographer and I don't think you are either, so hopefully we can find out what the geographers know.

By the way, you keep referring to "the singular". The point here is that "antipodes" is singular (as well as plural). --Trovatore (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dictionary.com, that is true of the British definition but not the American. In which case, insisting on British usage in Wikipedia is inappropriate. Look at the definitions under "antipodes in Science" and "antipodes in Culture"; they are not singular. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's accurate. I'm American, and I have no reason to suspect that I've been overly influenced by British usage in this. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, the definitions taken as a whole indicate that the singular "antipode" is used and is acceptable everywhere. So, I think we should give preference to word usage that is not idiosyncratic and does not defy logic. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree that it's acceptable everywhere. It's extremely jarring. It's like "kudo" or other false singulars.

As for logic, "antipodes" as a singular is perfectly logical — it's the (single) point where someone would stand with "opposite feet" (to your feet where you're standing). "Antipode" is just completely etymologically wrong; if you were going to come up with a regularly-formed singular to "antipodes", it should be "antipus" (like octopus/octopodes).

But none of that really matters. What matters is what's used in the field (geography in this case). You aren't really going to find that out from dictionaries, or by logical or etymological arguments. We should find out what is genuinely used in geographical literature. --Trovatore (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my sense of what is jarring here is the exact opposite of yours, and I'm quite literate (although not into etymology). I also think, at least among Americans, you are in a very small minority. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless and until we receive an indication that usage in geography differs from general usage (which I doubt), we are going to go with the only authorities we have so far, the dictionary definitions, which indicate in no uncertain terms that the singular "antipode" is widely used and acceptable. Sorry, your personal sensibilities aren't relevant if they aren't backed up by the consensus of the authorities. Claiming otherwise is a clear violation of the "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are tertiary sources; Wikipedia relies mainly on secondary sources. You are the only one pushing "antipode". Unfortunately I didn't notice when you did it about a year ago. --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "no uncertain terms" claim is wrong. See OED and etymonline. --Trovatore (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't see the relevance of etymonline's listing, if that's what you're referring to. Also, how old is the OED entry? Except for chemistry, their most recent example is from 1879. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to sharply protest your actions here, WolfmanSF. You were the one to introduce this usage a year ago, and you have defended it just because you can find it in dictionaries. Being able to find a usage in a dictionary doesn't prove that it's good usage, and this one is appallingly bad. I think we'll have to go to dispute resolution of some sort. --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appallingly bad, based on... what?? Your musings on etymology? Where did you receive the notion that etymology must determine proper usage? That doesn't seem to be generally accepted. The problem all along has been that you haven't been able to support your position. Why should your opinion count for more than a synopsis of the world's most respected English dictionaries? I will gracefully concede if you can show me that I'm wrong, but that likelihood seems remote at this point. You also make outlandish statements like "Antipode is not a real word" that make it hard for me to take you seriously. It's not just a word in English, but also in French and Italian. A few more comments; the OED describes itself this way on its home page: "As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from Dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings." It really is present-day meanings that concern us here, and the Oxford Living Dictionaries support my position. (Both references are published by the Oxford University Press.) WolfmanSF (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are really not the test. We need to see how it's actually used in the geographical literature. But I think you have no ear for the language if you think this is a good word. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, there is a geography journal named, of all things, Antipode. I found that while checking usage in Google Scholar, which yields 99,300 hits for "antipode" and 129,000 for "antipodes". The results are probably skewed by the journal name, but I still don't think they support your position. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just noticing the journal name in the results. If you look at the first page of results for "antipodes geography" versus "antipode geography" on Google Scholar, the results for "antipodes" look relevant, but the ones for "antipode" do not — mostly they're the journal. I think this does support my position, though I'd have to do more work. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

"Pomponius Mela, the first Roman geographer, asserted that the earth had two habitable zones, a North and South one, but that it would be impossible to get into contact with each other because of the unbearable heat at the Equator." This maybe true, but it suggests to the reader that Pomponius was the first Roman author to make such an assertion. Almost the same assertion, however, is already found in Ovidius' Metamorphoses, Book 1, lines 45-51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:2EA0:A900:8A1:467A:AC90:A800 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is recorded as having two land antipodes; Antarctica and Peter 1 island. Peter 1 island is at 90 degrees west longitude and Norway is at 8-9 degrees east longitude so they cannot be antipodal; furthermore Peter 1 Island is claimed not by Russia but by Norway so even if it was antipodal it cannot be to a different country - only to itself. So Norway has only one 'country' according to this approach being Antarctica (via Svalbard or Spitsbergen). It should be removed from the table and put in the paragraph below recording one country antipodes only. But that raises another issue - what is a country - if Antarctica is considered one is it because of the continent itself or because of the claims of sovereignty (which have some level of international legitimacy in that some countries recognise the claims of others) for those areas or sectors be recognised e.g. Is Canada the antipodes of Antarctica or of France (Terre Adeline Land); Australia (Australian Antarctic Territory) and Norway (Norwegian claim - note not clear if Canada antipodes quite reaches the Norwegian claim). Antarctica is a Land mass not a country so using the territorial claims makes more sense. If that is used it is possible the Svalbard antipodes is in the unclaimed sector (east of the Ross Dependency) - if so Norway would have no antipodal countries. And if this approach is taken the claimant countries (of Antarctica) all recognised by the Antarctic Treaty as having claims (not agreeing or rejecting their legitimacy) should have their antipodes recognised where appropriate (mainly Canada, Russia and Denmark [Greenland]) adding to the antipodal countries of Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, United Kingdom, France, and yes, Norway (back on the list). Antipodenz (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The images of the globe are great, but I think it would be even better if there were instead a single 3-D globe that could be rotated by dragging with the mouse (like Google Earth). Or views of 3-D globes from different directions like Wikipedia has. Or just some views from above the poles with the existing type of diagram. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the idea originally came from, the idea that if you dig a hole in North America straight through the Earth you would end up in China? It's so often mentioned in cartoons and movies. Who started this and why do many people still believe that North America and China are antipodes? I mean, they're both on the northern hemisphere so it's obviously impossible. 2A02:908:1460:CF80:ED48:E198:8125:BC4E (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's roughly true in terms of longitude only (90 degrees West vs. 90 degrees east). Otherwise, I don't know that you should expect great geographic accuracy from the same entertainment industry which gave us Krakatoa, East of Java (a dumb error in a movie's title).... AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Moluccas seem to be antipodal to eastern Brazil. Therefore it was true of the Portuguese empire as well?Walshie79 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]