Talk:Uluru/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between October 2002 and September 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Uluru/Archive02. Thank you. AYArktos 08:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The "extends into ground" figure came from the first external link. Ortolan88 16:07 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Hope you like the photos. They're from my 1998 Australian holiday. - Lee M 18:53, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nice photos, but are those attributions "by Lee M" really necessary? Article text isn't signed either. --Wik 19:01, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

No, but contributors are listed under Page History...

No, I guess you're right. They're not necessary. Lee M 19:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As a compromise I have removed my name from my images in articles, but have listed them on my User page. Lee M 23:24, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Photo creditation is okay AFAIK. Some people just rip photos off the net. So its good to tell them sources at every opportunity.--ZayZayEM 13:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever swapped the two bottom images around. I should have noticed that the 'skull' looked like it was facing away from the page. After all, it's not like I haven't complained about it when that happened in othr articles! Lee M 01:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Legitimacy of photos

Err. Anyone know the cultural sensitivity (with legal backing) issues surrounding Uluru and images of uluru in the media-space?--ZayZayEM 13:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Underground portions

Could someone create (or find) a diagram illustrating how far down into the ground Uluru extends in relation to the above-ground portion? --Plattopus 18:41, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

cost to climb

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

T0 climb ayres rock it costs $85 per person but family package is only 124 for 4 children 3 adults.

note I deleted this edit by 141.168.31.203 --Melaen 09:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When I was there, there was a fee to enter the surrounding national park, period. That applies whether you want to climb the rock or just walk around it - I have done both. Walking around it is underrated. There are guided tours. As Bill Bryson said - imaging if you could go to the cave paintings in france, and have them explained to you by the people who painted them. In Australia, you can do that. Pmurray bigpond.com 04:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"[aboriginals] are unable to expressly prohibit climbing,"

can someone elaborate on this ? I thought they did not *want* to expressly prohibit climbing. --FvdP 18:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Climbing

The Aboriginal People do not expressely prohibit climbing, however they ask to you respect their wishes and not climb.

Ayer's Rock

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this really widely known as Uluru in Australia? Most of the English speaking world still refers to it as Ayer's Rock, I think. --Golbez 08:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any assertion in the article that it is "widely known" as Uluru; the relevant sentence states:

"Uluru is the name in a local Aboriginal language (Arrente), and since the 1980s has been the officially preferred name, although many people, especially non-Australians, still call it Ayers Rock."

Admittedly, that implies that there are more Australians than non-Australians who call it that, but that seems reasonably likely to me given that they are more likely to be exposed to organisations using its "official" name. Still, maybe the "especially non-Australians" isn't necessary, I don't know. - IMSoP 11:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm going to catch hell for this but I'm pondering requesting a move. I was astonished when I came to the talk page and saw no mention of naming. "officially preferred name" is going to be the death of Wikipedia, I tell ya. :P sup Mumbai --Golbez 17:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since Ayer's Rock exists and redirects to this page, what difference does it make? People who go there will be sent here. - DavidWBrooks 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What difference does it make" does not sate the Mumbai/Bombay, Kolkata/Calcutta, gasoline/petrol, and Gdansk/Danzig warriors, why should it sate me? :P --Golbez 19:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The crucial difference here is that, AFAIK, no-one is really offended by the name "Uluru", whereas "Ayer's Rock" has connotations of colonialism, which are almost guaranteed to be negative. I know I'm just inviting trouble by saying this, but I can't really imagine anyone would find not calling it "Ayer's Rock" anything more than mildly confusing or inconvenient. What's more, unlike the other examples you cite, it is not open to interpretation which came first (the aboriginals were there long before Mr. Ayers was born), and it is not a problem of rival transliterations or translations. As such, I think the current situation is sensible. Are you really wedded to the name "Ayer's Rock" or are you just against the principle of renaming landmarks (etc) in this way? - IMSoP 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A little from column A, a little from column B. I'm American, I've heard of Ayer's Rock all my life, and this article was the first time I'd ever heard it referred to as Uluru. The article does make note of this, though, the renaming is not well-known outside of Australia. The naming standard on Wikipedia is that we use that name which is most common in the English-speaking world; somehow, Calcutta and Bombay lost that battle.

Uluru doesn't seem to come close to meeting that criteria, but then again, we also tend to go with the official name, even if it's not english (Côte d'Ivoire). Then again, our article is still at Japan, not Nihon, so it's obvious we don't respect ALL local names. Oh well. --Golbez 22:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

But just think how dull the world would be if it was logical ... - DavidWBrooks 23:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

←|

Well, the reason I started talking about people being offended, and asking whether you were "married to" the name [an odd expression, that] was that I think we have to be a bit pragmatic about such things. In this particular case, the factors seem to weigh as follows: "Ayer's Rock" is the more well-known term, but may be considered offensive or at least insensitive by a significant group of people; "Uluru", on the other hand, is the older name, has been "officially preferred" (according to ourselves) "since the 1980s", and is unlikely to upset anyone.

Also, with redirects in place, we are able to educate readers when they use the "wrong" name for something; while it's not generally our business to decide which is wrong in this kind of case, we can defer to an appropriate authority. In this case, it's not us deciding that "Ayer's Rock" be considered "wrong"/"out-dated", but the Australian authorities.

As a final point, more as an informational note than any kind of decisional influence, I note that of the 9 arabic-alphabet interwiki links, only sv (a stub) and lb use "Ayers Rock" as the title, though most mention it as an alternative (so I don't think it's just an "English-speaking" thing; besides, I doubt 19th Century Germans took any more notice of Aboriginal naming than 19th Century Englishmen).

I dunno, maybe I'm starting from a decision and trying to justify it, but it does seem to make sense to go with "Uluru" in this case. - IMSoP 23:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roman alphabet. :) Arabic numbers, though. --Golbez 02:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! - IMSoP 12:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm American, but I believe that if Uluru is the standard name for what many English-speaking people call Ayer's Rock, then that shall be the name for this article. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 23:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

In my experience in Australia, Australians call the rock Ayre's Rock. The only people calling it Uluru are those committed to PC speech. And yes, I am offended by Uluru, I'm offended by the notion that "the enlightened" can stuff around with English and "educate" us dumb hicks. Avalon 14:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the article should be called Uluru. Uluru was the original name, by the original inhabitants. Renaming things after European colonists is stupid. Towns are fine, because the Europeans built those towns. But the natural features which were discovered and revered hundreds of years before a European ever stepped foot on continent should retain their ancient names. If you are going to brand this "PC," Avalon, then I'm forced to brand your opinion just reactionary. Plus, Uluru is just a much "cooler" name. Ed Sanville 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

photos

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

All this deep discussion has made me do something I have long wanted to: rearrange the article a bit, particularly the photos. The lefthand shot at the bottom could, IMHO, be done away with - that photographer's shadow is incredibly distracting. - DavidWBrooks 01:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone more skilled at such things than me could probably clone that shadow out of the picture if it seemed a good idea. Meanwhile, I noticed while clicking interwiki links that de:Uluru has various details this article lacks, including a diagram of the geology of Uluru and Kata Tjuta which is rather intriguing... - IMSoP 12:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also that caption "climbers ignoring warning signs" is biased. For all we know, they read the sign thoroughly. ... Saaaay - those photographs look very much like two of the ones I took when I was there, which I posted on my website for a while. If so, they are not used with permission. Well, that's the world wide web for you. Pmurray bigpond.com 04:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

On the assumption from the context of the assertion within the paragraph above by user:Pmurray bigpond.com - s/he is is referring to Image:Uluruwarning.jpg, I have notified user:LeeM who upoaded the image asserting s/he took it. It is a very serious assertion that someone has breached copyright and lied about it.--AYArktos 09:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The warning sign photo was taken by me on a ~~1997~~ correction:1998 visit (as was the Skull Cave photo). Of course there's no reason why Pmurray bigpond could not have taken a *similar* photo, but the one posted here is quite definitely mine. Incidentally on the image description page you'll see that I've written "Contrast edited for clarity." In practical terms, that means I've seriously darkened the sign itself to make it readable - in the raw image, which I can supply if necessary, the sign would appear too bright to read; if I'd darkened the whole image the rest of the picture would look as if it was taken at dusk. Oh, and PS the phrase "climbers ignore warning signs at their peril" was not meant to imply that all climbers ignore it, but rather that they'd do well not to. Lee M 10:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have rummagd through some boxes here at home, and had a look through the photos that I took on my trip and the CD that I had them scanned to. Although I have some shots of the warning signs, none of them have that shadow in the front. And my shot of the skull formation has a different line between the top of the rock and the sky. So please accept my apologies. The reason the photos looked familiar, of course, is that they were photos of the same thing. Feel free to delete this exchange from this talk page. Cheers. Pmurray bigpond.com 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad this misunderstanding has been cleared up. Lee M 21:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Climbing Uluru

I went to Uluru a couple of years ago and asked a lot about the climbing issue, and there may be some errors in this article. First I was told that the tribe didn't want people to climb it because they believe it is sacred and no one climbs it, not even them. Second, I was told that some of them actually do climb it. Then I was told that it's not the *climbing* it itself that matters, but *dying* there--if a tourist dies on top, then they feel religiously reponsible, and don't want that responsibility--so if you don't die, it's OK. Finally I researched a little more and it appears that the tribe in question is actually not the original tribe from the area--the government found it easier to deal with another tribe from a little bit away, and declared Uluru *their* 'rightful' heritage, ignoring the tribe that actually lived there, so that in the end, the tribe expressing their preferences isn't even from there originally!

Now I'm American, not Australian, and don't know what to think. So in the end, I climbed it--when you're there, it's something so magnificent, part of Mother Earth, that it makes any tribe or government policy seem insignificant. The spiritual power of climbing it is something truly awesome. But if anyone knows more about the policy of climbing it (I'm not knowledgeable enough), please update it because I believe the "The local indigenous community request that visitors respect the sacred status of Uluru by not climbing the rock, with signs posted to this effect...The climb crosses an important dreaming track, which has been a cause of sadness and distress among traditional owners." is possibly quite biased. --Michael

This Australian Government website from the Federal Department of Environment and Heritage states that the traditional owners, the Anangu, "prefer that you choose not to climb Uluru." I have never heard the claims about the local tribe being ignored in favour of another one with which the Government preferred to deal with.

While I am not sure about the second part of the assertion - ie the crossing of an important dreaming track (I had thought the climb was along a dreaming track but there are certainly multiple dreaming tracks), I am quite happy to support the first part of the assertion having visited Uluru twice. The first time the request to climb was not put so strongly, or perhaps I was younger and more inclined to ignore the request (and so I climbed). The second time we respected the request and did not climb - our Uluru experience was still wonderful.--AYArktos 9 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

GoogleEarth labels

Actually the Ayers Rock label on GoogleEarth is ok... They're locating those near-but-not-on, so at certain elevations the graphic lable associates fine with the image: at higher elevations the labels disappear, and at lower they look too far away -- I was focussing in close.

"The climb crosses an important dreaming track"

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This needs either an explanation or a link to somewhere else that provides one; I doubt many people (including me) are likely to have more than a vague idea of what a "dreaming track" is. Loganberry (Talk) 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - added link to Dreamtime (mythology) Pmurray bigpond.com 03:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Latest comment: 18 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

It would have been nice if Hottentot had thought to discuss moving the page (from Uluru to Ayers Rock) here before he did it. I don't see any consensus either way. What opinions do people have on moving the page back? J.K. 00:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it back since Uluru is the offical gazetted name, and has been for some time.--nixie 00:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have protected this page from moves, until Hottentot explains what he is up to--nixie 01:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Seaching for the exact phrase on goolge (worldwide) gets 61,800 hits for Ayres rock and 357,000 for Uluru.--nixie 02:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

but 858,000 for Ayers Rock - I am surpised the typo came up with so many!--AYArktos 02:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I still think this article should be at Uluru, I've asked other people to comment too.--nixie 02:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The official name is "Uluru / Ayers Rock". I think we should use the official name. Snottygobble | Talk 02:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Geoscience Australia Gazetteer seems to support that the official name is Uluru / Ayers Rock and alternative names are Ayers Rock / Uluru (twice), Uluru (twice), Ayers Rock, and Oolooroo. It has similar alternatives for Kata Tjuta / Mount Olga. The website for the national park consistently uses the name Uluru (with the r underlined), and Kata Tjuta (last t underlined). I think the article titles should be either the Anangu names or the compound names. I don't know if there are proper underlined unicode characters we can use. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There are indeed --- I've already made a redirect at Uluṟu --- but they're in the Latin Extended Additional block, a collection of recent additions to Unicode which are so poorly supported even a pedant like me can't recommend using them. We can still <u>nderline the letters in the article texts without difficulty, of course. J.K. 07:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with compound names could be that there is some technical issue with / appearing in titles. I'll investigate and let everyone know.--nixie 05:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already created redirects at Uluru / Ayers Rock and Ayers Rock / Uluru, so there's no problem there. Snottygobble | Talk 05:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that at worst it can cause an odd heading in Talk pages; see, for example, Talk:/Xam language. Having said that, I think these double usages look like the unfortunate political compromises they are and as such are ugly, ungainly and generally to be avoided. J.K. 07:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone use the phrase "I went to Uluru/Ayers Rock." You either say one or the other. The opening sentence should read:"Uluru, also known as Ayers Rock, is a large...". The page title should remain as "Uluru".

Anyone disagree? --Commander Keane 08:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Regardless of the article title, the opening sentence should state the official name first. "Uluru / Ayers Rock" is the official name no matter how scarce its usage is. Snottygobble | Talk 11:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Is the Geoscience Australia Gazetteer your only source for the official name? --Commander Keane 13:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - NT Department of Planning and Infrastructure looks like a good reference, and it's also the example cited by the NSW Geographical Names Board. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "Uluru / Ayers Rock" just another way of writing/saying that it has two official names, ie, "Uluru, or Ayers Rock". The official name itself is not "Uluru / Ayers Rock": it is either name, singularly. I think the article should be found at Uluru, with the leading sentence clarifing the situation. We shouldn't need to follow that rather silly, bureaucratic short-hand 'slashed' phrase. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I know it sounds strange, but it is one name. From NT Department of Planning and Infrastructure: "The name can be in either order and is separated by a solidus (/) and is gazetted as one name". Snottygobble | Talk 23:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That seems self-contradictory. How can it be both "one name" and a "dual name"?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A dual carriageway highway is still only a single road. A double-barrelled shotgun is a single gun. The official name has two parts in a specific relation to each other, but in unofficial communication you need only use one part. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than fiction. Possibly I'm being a bit overfussy, but the official name is "Uluru / Ayers Rock" not "Uluṟu / Ayers Rock". Snottygobble | Talk 04:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like "Uluru, formally Uluru / Ayers Rock,..." would be more appropriate. Is this workable? --Commander Keane 12:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Snottygobble | Talk 04:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and remember that is used to be officially called Ayers Rock and it was only later that the government agreed to rename it to the traditional Aboriginal name Uluru when they gave the rock back. The latter name is the more formally accepted name and the Ayers Rock inclusion is in deference to its history. I think the article being titled Uluru is consistent with what foreigners are likely to search for based on what would be included in current travel brochures. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)