Talk:Norfolk Island

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:

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)

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.

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)

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)