Talk:Norfolk Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norfolk Island has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Portal	Norfolk Island is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Norfolk Island is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Ecoregions, a WikiProject that seeks to provide complete articles about each of earth's ecoregions. Please participate by contributing to the article Norfolk Island, or by visiting the project page for more details on current projects.

	To-do list for Norfolk Island:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Expand lead paragraph in line with WP:LEAD Ensure that lead summarises article Improve in-line citations Divide "References" section to have separate "Notes" section relating to in-line citations Resolve redlinks, either by creation of new articles or getting rid of link syntax Deal with over-quotation Improve citation of quotes themselves Ensure that sections hold together by themselves and do not duplicate each other Any other suggestions at the peer review Copyedit the entire thing

Contents 1 Misc 2 The Panorama Photo 3 Neutrality 4 Territory 5 Norfolk Island & Britain 6 Palm Cabbage 7 Population Rank 8 Van Diemen's Land vs. Tasmania 9 Parliament 10 Culture 11 History 12 Taxes 13 New South Wales

[edit] Misc

Who are you two and how do you know so much about norfolk? In relation to puting the Norfolk Amateur Theatrical Society link on the page, i believe it has a right to be there as it is a non-profit organisation so its not making any money off the link being there, and it helps people find out about the island which boosts the islands toruism.

• In relation to the link to the Norfolk Amateur Theatrical Society, your case for putting it in the article is exactly why it should not be in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not the yellow pages or a web directory, and it certainly does not aim to boost tourism to any particular part of the world. People wishing to find theatrical societies on Norfolk Island are quite capable of using google (or their search engine of choice) to find them. JeremyA 01:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well then why is there a link to www.norfolkisland.nf which clearly states beside it, Norfolk Island Tourism. If they want to find out about Norfolk Island Tourism, they are quite capable of using google (or their search engine of choice) to find them.
  • Please feel free to remove any external links that you feel violate the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External_links. JeremyA 02:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I'm getting thoroughly sick of your constant removal of perfectly valid footers from the article on Norfolk Island. The list of Pacific Islands specifically includes Norfolk Island. If you don't believe me, look at this:

Countries in Oceania
	Australia : Australia · Norfolk Island
	Melanesia : East Timor · Fiji · Maluku Islands & Western New Guinea (part of Indonesia) · New Caledonia · Papua New Guinea · Solomon Islands · Vanuatu
	Micronesia : Guam · Kiribati · Marshall Islands · Northern Mariana Islands · Federated States of Micronesia · Nauru · Palau
	Polynesia : American Samoa · Cook Islands · French Polynesia · Hawaii · New Zealand · Niue · Pitcairn · Samoa · Tokelau · Tonga · Tuvalu · Wallis and Futuna

The list, as I'm sure you can see, includes several "non-countries" by what I assume is your definition. Everything under "Other political units" is some form of external dependency or another (Pitcairn, for example, is minute but still qualifies for the list). If you want to keep removing that footer then you're going to have to give a much more useful reason than "Norfolk Island isn't a country". I will put that footer back every time you remove it.

As for the Commonwealth footer, I accept that Norfolk Island is not listed there - however the Islanders do compete at Commonwealth Games, which implies (to my mind) that they should warrant having the Commonwealth footer. Is there an individual one for "Countries which compete at Comm. Games"? If there is, perhaps that would be a more useful compromise. --User:BigHaz

So the Pacific Islands footer includes Norfolk Island. That doesn't mean the footer needs to be added. What other reason can you give? I won't oppose having it there though.

Norfolk Island is not a commonwealth member. The Commonwealth is reserved for independent sovereign states. Norfolk Island is a dependency. To put the footer there would be to imply that it is a sovereign member when it is not. The Commonwealth Games is separate in status and significance and should not be confused with the organization. I don't see how the games are important enough to have a footer though. Should be make a "Countries which compete in the Olympics" footer too? Add a categories tag if you like, but the Commonwealth footers (even if Norfolk was sovereign) are not going to stay. --Jiang 01:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Norfolk Island is part of the Commonwealth of Nations because it is part of the Commonwealth of Australia. New South Wales and Ontario are not members of the Commonwealth of Nations, but I doubt anyone would argue they are not not part of that Commonwealth. Australia's other inhabited external territories, Cocos and Christmas Islands, are in the same situation. The Commonwealth Games Association includes a number of non-independent areas such as the Falklands, Niue, the Channel Islands and for that matter England and Scotland.

Small footnote. Shoudl the Oceania footer include Lord Howe Island? Alan 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then Jiang, I'll back down on the Commonwealth issue if it makes you happy. My question, then is this. If it's good enough for every other country/political entity in Oceania (with the exception of Wake Island - according to the check I've just done) to have the Pacific Islands footer, why should Norfolk Island not have it. The footer is explicitly devoted to countries (which are sovereign) and "Other Political Entities" (which are at various stages of sovereignty). Locations such as Hawaii and the Indonesian province of Papua are - I would suggest - significantly more "integral" (for want of a better word) to their respective countries than Norfolk Island is to Australia and yet are listed in the footer and have it on their pages. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the footer is about places located geographically in Oceania, then why is a place which is located geographically in Oceania not listed? To my mind, that would be like saying that a small principality of Europe can't have a "Countries In Europe" footer on its page.

In terms of the "Commonwealth Games" footer, my argument is based on the fact that a series of non-state entities (such as Norfolk Island, prime example in point) have competed at them - unlike the Olympics where participation is limited to actual states. But that's a side issue. As I've said, I'll back down on that side of things. BigHaz 06:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll back down on the Oceania footer then. IMO, calling it both a country (as the Oceania footer implies) and a dependency of Australia contradicts). But until we remove it from Oceania footer (as has been done for Hong Kong), then it can stay. --Jiang 21:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the Oceania footer implies that it contains only countries. It is quite clear (to my view) that it contains "Other Political Units" as well as 100% sovereign states. The other issue is that for a whole host of reasons, locations in Oceania have very different forms of sovereignty than in, say, Europe. To take a random sampling - Norfolk is an Australian dependency, Pitcairn is a British colony, French Polynesia is either a French Department or the rung below that, places like Niue are reasonably sovereign states who happen to be in "free association" with other larger states...and so on. Locations like that are linked geographically at the very least and that's what that footer attempts to do.

[edit] The Panorama Photo

I know it's very attractive, but is it necessary to have the panorama at the top of the article? It's pushed the top line of text downwards (on my browser) so that it begins to run into the flag image. It also just looks a bit like a picture for the sake of a picture. BigHaz 08:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

A few passages in this article are shining examples of POV, even as the content wedded to it appears sound. Some examples:

• These included an attempted overthrow of King in January 1789 by incorrigible rogues who took his 'goodwill' for weakness.
• While some convicts responded well to the opportunities offered to become respectable, most remained idle and miserable wretches despite the climate, and their isolation from previous haunts of crime.
• Only a handful of convicts left any written record, and their descriptions of living and working conditions, food and housing, and, in particular, the punishments given for seemingly trivial offences, are unremittingly horrifying, describing a settlement devoid of all human decency, under the iron rule of the tyrannical autocratic commandants.
• The actions of some of the commandants appear to be those of a sadist or someone suffering from a mental illness.

I'll try to give it a thorough go-over and fix the POV when I have time, but if anyone would like to make changes before then, I would be most happy. Chris Roy 21:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shining examples indeed. You might be able to milk some fact from the latter two, though - in that it would have been a particularly nasty experience. Not to the extent, of course, that the commandants could be described as "sufferring from a mental illness". --Cyberjunkie 08:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, points taken! As the original author I would argue that the statements I've made are defensible and supported by the evidence, so I don't really want to sanitise the article by completely removing what amounts to the judgement of history (as distinct from my personal view which of course is inappropriate in Wikipedia). So perhaps I can work with Chris Roy to make the article more acceptable. Dick 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the sadism and mental state reference and written an article on John Price, and people can make up their own mind on his state of mind - hopefully I've included sufficient verifiable evidence to avoid an NPOV accusation here, but others can be the judge of that! Dick 02:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As Dick noted on my talk page, several of the passages in question are actually quotations, and, Dick having cited them, I see no problem with including the quotes. I'll remove the ugly neutrality header from the article, now. Thanks, Dick! Chris Roy 08:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chris - I appreciate you drawing attention to the matter. This is how Wikipedia can improve its quality to become a more learned and reliable reference tool. BTW, I've reverted "Norfolk Island began to wind down" to NI 'began to be wound down" to give the sense that it was a deliberate policy, by the British Government (which I've included) rather than unplanned attrition. Dick 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 'wound' certainly makes more sense there than 'wind'. Who knows what I was thinking ... I probably meant to get rid of the 'be' and make it simply 'began to wind down'; it was fine until I decided to incompletely change it. I'm notorious, by the way, (at least among myself) for writing extensive edit summaries and then forgetting to commit the actual edits to which they refer. Fortunately, that didn't happen here. :-) Chris Roy 23:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Territory

Should Norfolk Island be considered as a Territory of Australia? It is self governed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubert Wa (talk • contribs) .

See the sections on Politics and Constitutional Status --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

'Territory' has no specific meaning beyond implying dependent political status. The Norfolk Island Act 2001 defines the island as a Territory of Australia. The ACT and the Northern Territory are self-governing but that does not alter their status as territories. The important consideration is that the Commonwealth retains the same plenary legislative power over Norfolk Island as over every other territory of Australia. Alan 21:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubert Wa (talk • contribs) 1 December 2005.

[edit] Norfolk Island & Britain

With Norfolk been so faw away from the motherland dose the island have any support to Britain :) like we do for Norfolk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunderlandNation (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 April 2006.

I'm not sure quite what you mean. Norfolk Islanders are proud of their heritage, and loyal to the Queen, but regard themselves and their territory as their own, not part of either the UK or Australia. See the section on Constitutional status. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palm Cabbage

Question from Europe: Are there pictures of the "Palm Cabbage" mentioned by Andrew Kippis in 1788?--Kresspahl 07:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population Rank

Where does the population rank of 232nd come from? If you click, the link the list only goes to 230, with number 230 (Pitcairn Islands) havind a population of 67, less than Norfolk which is allegedly ranked 232nd! With a population of 1,841, Norfolk Island should be ranked about 227?144.136.77.65 07:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Diemen's Land vs. Tasmania

It states in the article on Van Diemen's Land that the name was changed to Tasmania in 1856. If, as stated here, the second penal colony was closed with the transfer of its population in 1855, then they presumably went to VDL, not Tasmania.--King Hildebrand 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament

Has Norfolk Island any Parliament?

Yes, there's a Legislative Assembly with nine seats. See Politics of Norfolk Island.-gadfium 08:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has the Legisative Assembly of Norfolk Island the same constitutional status than other states and territories parliaments?

Sorry, I don't know. If you need an answer quickly, or don't get one here after waiting for a few days, try asking at the Humanities Reference Desk.-gadfium 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read through the Norfolk Island Act but there is a clear distinction between the powers of state and territory governments, namely the Commonwealth can over-rule legislation passed by territories. This however is based on the premise that states were sovereign states prior to federation and as such maintain all rights not ceded to the Commonwealth at federation or since then. Territories (I believe) exist basically as an act of parliament and their status could be changed by the Commonwealth. Tigerman2005 (21/1/7)

[edit] Culture

Where does this information come from? "Businesses tend to be closed on Mondays, for example." Not that I can ever remember experiencing this. Wednesday afternoons, most businesses close, compensating for Saturday mornings. -One_time_resident.

My own experience visiting the island has been that some businesses are closed on Mondays. Not all, as the sentence implies, but certainly some. I'll try to chase up a reference, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I find it rather sad that the majority of this article concentrates on the 60 years of penal settlement, and barely manages to scrape together 6 paragraphs describing the history of Norfolk Island over the next 160 years. What happened? People died of boredom? Participation in two world wars, the construction of the airport (and destruction of a beautiful piece of Norfolk), the history of various industrial initiatives (whaling, fishing, various cash crops), and various political initiatives leading up to the present system could all be described here. -One_time_resident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.8.150.6 (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Taxes

Taxes are also raised by a charging of 1% on all deposits and withdrawals from local accounts. For further information, contact the local banks: Westpac has a local branch there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.8.150.6 (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New South Wales

The New South Wales article said Norfolk Island was part of New South Wales when the colony was created. What were the reasons why the state upon joining the Commonwealth transferred Norfolk Island to the Commonwealth? - Privacy 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that the first penal colony was abandoned in 1814, the second in 1855 (IIRC), and the Arrival of the Pitcairners in 1856, which had been clearly promised their own land. In other words, exected to govern themselves as they had done on Pitcairn?