Talk:Norfolk Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norfolk Island is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Norfolk Island is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
To-do list for Norfolk Island: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand lead paragraph in line with WP:LEAD
  • Ensure that lead summarises article
  • Change the Anthem - "God Save the Queen" is the Official Anthem of Norfolk Island, The Pitcairn Anthem is the un-offical anthem
  • 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

[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?

[edit] Referendum of November 6th, 1999 in external Australian territories

Please anybody give me a reference on source (on this page) about and Republican referendum on Norfolk island. --User:212.98.173.133 14:35 28 July 2007.

Not entirely sure what you're asking here, but if the Islanders actually voted (I'm not sure whether residents of external territories did) I'd imagine their votes counted either just to the national total or to the NSW one as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representation of Norfolk Island in the Australian Parliament

It is true that there is no provision under which NI is formally represented. However, this extract from p.19 of this document tells us that some NI residents can enrol, and vote, in either a state where some association can be proven, or failing that, in the ACT or the NT:

DETERMINING REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

3.15 Under section 38A of the Electoral Act, Norfolk Island is not considered to be a Territory for the purposes of determining entitlements. However, under sub-section 45(2) of the Act, a Norfolk Island resident who is one of the people of a State is included in the population of that State (and the Commonwealth). Similarly, under sub-section 46(2), a Norfolk Island resident who is enrolled to vote in a Territory – pursuant to section 95AA of the Act - is also included in the population of that Territory. [7]
[7]. Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its report, Islands in the Sun: the Legal Regimes of Australia’s External Territories and the Jervis Bay Territory, 1991. The Committee recommended that Australian citizens living on Norfolk Island be given the right of optional enrolment for the purposes of representation in the Australian Parliament. The Act provides for residents of Norfolk Island to enrol in the State where an association can be made. If an association to a State can not be made Norfolk Island residents can enrol to vote in a division of the ACT or the NT provided that the division does not include other Territories – see section 95AA of the Electoral Act. Also see Norfolk Island (Electoral and Judicial) Amendment Act 1992.

What can we say about this in the article? -- JackofOz 07:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As a really rough go-round, how does this sound: (Using this section title as a heading, in fact) "While Norfolk Island is not formally represented in the Australian House of Representatives, legislation allows for island residents to enrol to vote in a state where they can prove they have association [this is a bit sloppy, but it's only a draft]. If a resident cannot show association with any state, they may enrol to vote in an electorate based in the ACT or NT." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, BigHaz. (My only query with the citation is the wording "one of the people of a State" - not sure how this is meant to be interpreted. This tells us it’s about “people of a State” for the purposes of ss. 7 and 24 of the Constitution. Section 24 tells us it’s about “the number of the people of the State, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth”. So I don’t understand how a person could be counted in the census as a resident of, say, Victoria, if they actually reside on Norfolk Island. Maybe this is one for the lawyers, and we just cite whatever we have). -- JackofOz 08:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know one or two people who've done a bit of constitutional law during their time as students, so if the curiosity will kill us before the inexactness does, I can try to get them to have a look at it. I feel as though I should know more here than I seem to, since a colleague of Dad's owns/owned property on the island, so he must've at least looked at these issues. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read the above a bit more closely. In relation to "a Norfolk Island resident who is one of the people of a State is included in the population of that State (and the Commonwealth)", this tells me that the person is treated for electoral purposes as a resident of that state and not as a resident of Norfolk Island. So there's no problem after all. -- JackofOz 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undersea cable to Canada, eh?

The article cites the CIA list to indicate "undersea coaxial cable links with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada; satellite earth station". Indeed, there was an undersea cable from Australia/New Zealand which went to Norfolk, then to Hawaii, then to Vancouver or thereabouts. The ANZCAN cable was built in 1984 and replaced in 2001-02, according to atlantic-cable.com. Australian government documents suggest that the deployment of submarine optical fibre effectively replaced ANZCAN; there's nothing here to infer that the fibre follows the same route as the old copper cables - more likely a completely different system.

I'm hesitant to rely on the CIA factbook in this case; we may merely be redistributing their outdated information if we don't find some other source closer to Australia to get status of fibre links. --carlb 00:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

"The population of Norfolk Island was estimated in July 2003 to be 1,853, with an annual population growth rate of -0.01%"

Is it worth updating this information? And altering the population growth rate part (that means there is 1 (net) person leaving every 5 or 6 years, probably not very accurate or useful to average this for a yearly figure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.173.34 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand flax

On reading this, it seemed there was confusion between New Zealand flax (Phormium sp.), which only occurs naturally in the Southern Hemisphere, and the plant after which it was named, flax (Linum usitatissimum), which is a Northern Hemisphere plant. The two plants are completely unrelated, don't even look similar - the only thing they share is the ability to produce fibres of commercial value. I hope my edits have made this distinction clear.

However I left the last paragraph in the Early History section: The advantage of Britain's new colony providing an alternative source to Russia for naval supplies of flax and hemp was referred to in an article in Lloyd’s Evening Post of 5 October 1787 which urged: “It is undoubtedly the interest of Great-Britain to remain neutral in the present contest between the Russians and the Turks” and observed, “Should England cease to render her services to the Empress of Russia, in a war against the Turks, there can be little of nothing to fear from her ill-will. England will speedily be enabled to draw from her colony of New South Wales, the staple of Russia, hemp and flax.” as it is ambiguous and I don't have the necessary information. Does the Lloyds quote refer to using the new colonies to grow imported Northern hemisphere hemp (Cannabis sp) and Northern Hemisphere flax plants, or does it mean imported hemp and the New Zealand flax?

Jasper33 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)