Talk:Northern Territory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Military control

During World War II, most of the Top End was placed under military government. This is the only time that an Australian state or territory has been under military control.

During the Rum Rebellion New South Wales was under military control. During various convict revolts such as the Irish revolt in New South Wales in 1803(?) and the Black War in Tasmania, martial law was declared (military control). Added "since Federation". --203.52.130.138 05:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

they weren't Australian states or territories before federation :P Felix the Cassowary 11:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rum Jungle

Rum rebellion reminds me... Rum Jungle (in Northern NT) is named after what long time locals have called the most enviable piss up in history, amoungest other things. During the wet season the dirt track would get very bogged and therefore, the oxen cart got hopelessly bogged. The drivers who were taking the rum out to the mining communties proceeded to drink all the rum. It's an urban myth that the Daly River settlement started up because a cart taking liquer out to the workers got bogged- actually, quite a few communties are rumored to have started up that way... Yes, Territorians loved and still love their alcohol very, very much. :) --Celestialstarco 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Australia?

I don't really remember the details of the referendum, but what would the Territory have been called if it became a state? Just might be worth including something like "North Australia" in the article. Evolver of Borg 21:09, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It was still going to be called the Northern Territory. 74.60.7.53 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

G*d what a stupid idea. PMA 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Northen Australia

I don't recall anyone ever thinking that far ahead. The Australian Government delibertly set the referendum up to fail by not giving aussie citizens enough details about what would happen.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialstarco (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sport Reply

He has a point, can someone put sport in?

Harry the potter Hudson digby 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

territory day

I'm attempting to find some information about Territory Day, which is celebrated on July 1. I'm not too sure what it's for, but in Darwin we used to celebrate with fireworks and intoxication. Good times :) Anyway, I've been looking on the net for some help, but haven't found a reason for it. Is it just an arbitrary time to get more pissed than usual? (Having lived in Darwin for the past 5 years, I wouldn't put it past 'em). Or is it some sort of commemoration? I thought it had something to do with the Northern Territory being considered separate from South Australia, but I couldn't find any indication of that. Some help would be appreciated. Cheers riana 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

re: territory day + other stuff/facts.

I can't give any cold hard evidance about Terrtory Day, but yes, it is to celebrate becoming independant of SA. I've lived in the NT all my life, so... I'll keep an eye out next NT day. I would say it's definatly worth mentioning, espically that the NT and the ACT are the only places in Australia where one can run around with fireworks. It might also be worth mentioning that those drinks in demographics are for every MAN, WOMAN and CHILD, not just the adult population. :) te he. Celestialstarco 09:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Uluru and Kata Tjuta

An anon editor continues to alter the links to Uluru and Kata Tjuta to the redirects Ayers Rock and The Olgas and removes reference to the sacredness of these places to Aboriginals. I have reverted them several times but he keeps putting them back. What do other editors of this page think about this? --Bduke 05:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is keep reverting and hope they give up, as blocks on the editor's variable IP address are unlikely to be effective. If the vandalism increases in frequency, I'll institute semi-protection.--cj | talk 08:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor has now given reasons for his changes on his talk page. They are:-

The terms "Ayers Rock" and "Olgas" have been in use for longer and are more common among the Australian community. Re. the "sacredness" of places to certain races, this is clearly a racist supposition; perhaps it is sacred to people of a certain religion but certainly not of a certain race. Clearly being of a particular genetic makeeup does not automatically make a person of a certain religion, it is a crass generalization; there are white people to whom these places are "sacred" and black people to whom it is not. Also, supposedly all the land of Australia is "sacred to Aboriginals", so for consistency, such statements would need to be added to every Australian geographical reference." copied from User talk:220.236.14.130.

OK, let us debate the change here and see if we can develop a consensus. cj, as an admin, would you close this debate in say a week? --Bduke 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 1, as currently added by User talk:220.236.14.130.

The paragraph would read:-

The Northern Territory is also home to two spectacular natural rock formations, Ayers Rock and The Olgas, which have become major tourist attractions.

• Support version 1. User:220.236.14.130

Version 2, as it was previously.

The paragraph would read:-

The Northern Territory is also home to two spectacular natural rock formations, Uluru (Ayers Rock) and Kata Tjuta (The Olgas), which are sacred to the local Aborigines and which have become major tourist attractions.

• Support version 2. This user's objection is in part an objection to the naming of the articles, which are Uluru and Kata Tjuta. Ayers Rock and The Olgas are redirects. This is correct. The names are Ulura and Kata Tjuta. I note also that the map to the right names Uluru as such and not as Ayers Rock. I would suggest that the sacredness of these places to Aboriginal people is not racist but fact. The ownership of Uluru was passed to the local Aboriginal people, for example, and they are now the custodians precisely because it is sacred to them. White people may like Ulura but it is not sacred to them because it is not part of their religious belief. --Bduke 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're generalising again. Assuming people's religion based on their race is wrong. I know several Aborigines who do not believe in this "dreamtime" religion and who do not hold these rocks to be particularly sacred. Ownership was given was made as a political decision by politicians for their political benefit.

Please sign you contributions with ~~~~. Above was by 220.236.14.130. --Bduke 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uluru and Kata Tjuta are the correct terms, and should stay as such. I think a rewording needs to be done for the sacredness section. The anon is correct in saying that it is not the entire race which hold it sacred, but some within the race. It says "local aboriginies", which restricts is a bit, but maybe it should be "some local aboriginies". Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal people work together as a community. The local community at Uluru has responsibility for the rock as a community, so I think using "local" is OK. Would "sacred to the local Aboriginal community" be more acceptable? --Bduke 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict, current version as is or name the local people to whom its scared ie sacred to the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara, Gnangarra

support version 2 these are the gazetted(official) names for the sites, as for the sacred sites I too could role out a number of aboriginal persons that wouldnt know their sacred significance but doesnt dimish the importance of the site, there are specific areas that are excluded from access and photography for this reason. What needs to be noted is that the term "aboriginal" is applied as a blanket description to all those decendents of per-european people, the term is no more specific than that of European. That prior to the european settlement of Australia there was more differing laws, languages, cultures, religions, and borders than that of Europe. Ignorance of and to these differences doesnt devalue them, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia all facts(cited) whether we agree with them or not, they still need to be included in the article. Gnangarra 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Version 2 Just because something is not sacred to a part of an ethnic group does not make that non-sacred; I imagine there are many Christians in the world who do not consider St Peters Basilica to be sacred. And many Melbourne-ites who don't consider the MCG sacred. The names should be the ones adopted by the local community, and I disagree that Ayres Rock remains the preferred name in the Australian mainstream - almost all media commentary now refers to Uluru. MojoTas 05:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We hashed this out some time ago on Talk:Uluru. See "Nomenclature" and following sections, including a straw poll held after much discussion which reached almost unanimous agreement (only one user disagreed) that the present names (Uluru and Kata Tjuta) ought to be used. --bainer (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support version 2. The dual naming policy has Uluru / Kata Tjuta as the first name of the formations. So the name was the original name, the current official name, and the popular name among most younger Australians (although the European names are still more common among older Australians). Besides from which Ayers Rock and the Olgas are offensive to the traditional owners (and now legal property owners) of the land. Finally, having visited Uluru and Kata Tjuta this year, these names are the ones ones used at the sites. Sad mouse 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Transport

This section covers Road and Rail, but I suspect the main form of Transport to/from NT is Air, could this section include coverage of the major airport(s) of the Area? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

History

Just added some history. --Metternech 09:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Railway

The article has the sentence "A railway was also built between Palmerston and Pine Creek between 1883 and 1889". My recollection is that the railway was built from Southport, which was reachable by water from Darwin across Darwin Harbour to Pine Creek. Southport is not really near the modern Palmerston, but out along the Cox Peninsula Road. We also have to take into account that Darwin was at that time called Palmerston. Does anyone have the sources to fix this. I'm away from the NT these days.--Bduke 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

"Despite its large area ... it is sparsely populated." This sentence makes no sense. It is as if one should expect a large place (km²) to be densely populated (people/km²). Absurd. Grassynoel (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's a tautology. It would be a surpirse for a very large area to have a very low population (which I think was the point the writer was attempting to make) but not to be sparsely populated. Orderinchaos 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian gov't copyright

G'day! I was dab'ing Mary River and created Mary River (Northern Territory) (which is rather stubbie, as yet) and found this nice pdf map here. There's no obvious copyright notice. Do gov.au care? Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Inpex LNG Plant

I'm guessing it could go into the Economy section but I'm not really in a writing mood. Some sources fo the plant can be found in the Inpex article. Bidgee (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Darwin & Cyclone Tracy

what about the bombing of darwin in the first wave over 150 japanese planes bombed darwin to hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.238.208 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

and why isn't there any mention of cyclone tracy im not kiding the entire city was flatend because all the houses were c-class houses which were cheap weak and fast to build and were there because the was nothing left after the bombing of darwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.238.208 (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add your comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. The reason why they are not in the NT article is because they are in the Darwin article and their own separate articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Borders?

The NT has 3 straight land borders. How long are they? Tabletop (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As an extension of that question, does anyone know the rational for the location of the borders? One of the books on Stuarts explorations suggests they were drawn in London without reference to any topography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.227.115 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the borders were made for the Northern territory, but for NSW, SA and Qld. The Western border was the second western border of New South Wales. It was moved there to incorporate a proposed settlement on Melville Island. The Southern border was the northern border of South Australia. The eastern border was the second western border of Queensland (Queensland was originally smaller.) Alan Davidson (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy

The NT is not a constitutional monarchy - it is not a sovereign entity of any kind. It is a territory, and its government is conducted entirely under powers delegated by the Commonwealth. I would delete this line from tghe infobox but it seems to be concealed from editing for some reason. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

fomatting

the climate diagramm seems somewhat screwed up... should be reformatted somehow (IMO) JohnScarecrow (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Not a criticim of the article for me, it looks great. Though if someone could get around to arranging putting up the Coat of Arms for the NT that would be awesome mainly because the Flag and Coat of Arms ought to be included (if we are being pedants) in the "Dependant Territories" lists of Flags or Coats of Arms. Ithillion (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)