Talk:Uluru/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First person to climb Uluru

Depending on which website one reads, either Gosse or Giles was the first non-indigenous person to climb the rock. This seems to have occurred on the April 1873 visit in which Gosse named it Ayers Rock. If it was Giles, this must mean that Giles was a member of Gosse's party. Does anybody know the truth? And does anybody know of any evidence that any indigenous person climbed it before Gosse/Giles did so? JackofOz 08:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Giles led a separate party and was not a member of Gosse's party. I didn't think that Gosse climbed the rock although he got close to it. Can you provide links to the websites? Although this website claims Gosse did climb, I do not regard it as an authoratative source. This website and also this Commonwealth Government (DEH) fact sheet claims Giles was the first European to climb - they seem a little more authoratative though probably both from the same source. It states Giles climbed on a return journey - ie not when he first sighted the rock at a distance. It seems it was a separate expedition to the Giles expedition - Gosse beat Giles to the rock.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of the name

According to this article:

"This word has no special meaning in the local Pitjantjatjara language, rather, it is a local family name."

However, according to the German article:

"Uluru bedeutet Sitz des Ahnen." ('Uluru' means 'seat of the ancestor')

Which article needs to be changed? — Ливай 01:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick search on google on "Uluru means" ([1]) gives alternative meanings such as "shady place" and "great pebble".Mackan 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately searching for "Uluru monolith" would make you think it is a monolith even though it is now known otherwise. The "great pebble" reference seems to refer to a quote from Ernest Giles who said it looked like a "remarkable pebble". I can't imagine where "shady place" comes from as there isn't much of that around. I believe the current definition came from a local reference which would be preferred over a German one. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Uluru

What's the siginficance of the underline diacritics in Uluru and Kata-Tjuta? Do they affect pronunciation? 143.252.80.110 17:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you're a Pitjantjatjara speaker. They indicate retroflex consonants: so the t in Kata Tjuta is pronounced with the tongue curled back a bit compared to English, and the r in Uluru is a retroflex approximant like in a strong American-accented English speaker. (R without underline would be a tapped or a trilled r like in Spanish). To make things more confusing, there are hardly any cases in Pitjantjatjara where an underline is the only difference between one word and another, so native speakers themselves often don't bother with them.

What this boils down to for English speakers is: don't worry about the underlines too much. Just remember it's not "Yu"luru!～J.K. 05:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a monolith?

Personally, I don't understand the debate about Uluru not being a monolith, but maybe someone can explain it to me. As far as I understood it, a monolith is any rock that consists of a single piece of stone. And appearently Uluru is not a monolith, because it is part of a bigger rock layer that extends underground. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a single piece of stone does it? And aren't all monoliths part of a bigger rock layer? I mean, it's not as if Mount Augustus was planted in the Australian landscape by aliens, it's part of the earth crust as much as any other mountain or piece of rock, right? If someone could explain this, thanks. :) Greetings (RagingR2 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Uluru, Mount Olga and co are multiple tips of an iceberg, so to speak, whereas Mt Augustus and others are a single chunks of rock sticking out of the ground. I'm sure a geologist could explain it better. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all monoliths are the visible portions of continuous bodies of rock which extend beneath the surrounding land surface. The term monolith, and whether Mount Augustus is the largest in the world, are the sorts of terms and facts that are more loved by locals and tour guides than by geologists or other natural historians who study the rocks in question!! The earth's crust is largely composed of solid rock (except for the uppermost sediment layers, or deeper down where it has melted to form magma), and every mountain range that we see could be viewed as a monolith, in the sense that the rocks forming the range are continuous with rocks below the land surface. What distinguishes any ordinary mountain from a "monolith" is that the monolith is composed of one distinctive type of rock, AND, more importantly, there are no major discontinuities within the visible part of that rock. To be a monolith it would seem that the rock visible above the surface needs to be distinctly different from the rock below, to which is is, nonetheless, firmly attached! I wonder how many supposed monoliths ARE composed of rock quite different from that immediately below the visible part. In the case of Uluru the evidence is quite strong that the visible part of the rock is simply the tip of the iceberg - that there is much more arkose beneath the surrounding land surface than we see above. To be a monolith the important characteristic seems to be that the rock-type is remarkably uniform throughout. Uluru and Mount Augustus both fulfill this criterion, but let's avoid saddling large and spectacular masses of rock as monoliths! You'll note that in the booklet on Uluru and Kata Tjuta, the authors (of whom I'm one - IPS), avoid reference to monolith - we tried to stick to meaningful geological information. (Sweet IP, and Crick IH, 1992. Uluru and Kata Tjuta: a geological history, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra.)--Cangeo 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right that it's not a batholith. The problem is, I don;t believe it's an inselberg either. In fact I remember reading about twenty years ago that Uluru (formerly known as "ayer's rock" is one of the world's largest batholiths.

I notice there's no reference for the assertion that it's an inselberg; as well as that even a cursory examination of the area shows absolutely no evidence of any other eroded ranges at all leading once again to the conclusion that it's more likely to be a batholith. ----Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.248.154.196 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

For background to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12#Renaming of Uluru article and Talk:Uluru/Archive01#Page move.

'Uluru, more commonly known as Ayers Rock'

If that is the case, then I put it to the editors that we reverse the redirect and have Uluru direct to Ayers Rock and name it according to the name it carries by populus. I will attempt to do so when I return home from work if there are no major objections to the matter. The fact the opening line clearly states it's name by populus and common law further suggests that the use of the Aboriginal name (which is most likely a Commonwealth Tourism based ploy and not in any way recognition of aboriginal sovreignty) is point-of-view oriented. Jachin 05:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please read the previous archive, and leave the article where it is.--nixie 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have clarified that I read the archive in my initial post. I believe that whilst a lot of obiter was made there was no principal reason or cause given in the discussion. If you extracted or read more into it than I, feel free to clarify the reason why we are sticking with a name that only tourism related industries and foreigners refer to Ayers Rock as? Jachin 08:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually support the page being re-titled Uluru/Ayers Rock, and have redirects from both Uluru and Ayers Rock. This would:

• recognise its official name (since 6.11.2002), and
• acknowledge both of the individual names by which it has been known.

The nomenclature history would fill in the gaps. The bit about "Uluru, commonly known as Ayers Rock" would go, because in my opinion it's not correct. In my experience, people these days just call it "Uluru". The former name "Ayers Rock" is extremely well-known, but I can't remember the last time I heard anybody call it that. However, I live in Melbourne, a little bit of a distance from the pebble in question, so maybe my experience is not representative. JackofOz 09:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayer's Rock is still by far the most common name used in the U.S. - DavidWBrooks 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope y'all don't spell it that way, though. It was named after Sir Henry Ayers. If there were an apostrophe (which there isn't 'cos it's a geographical name), it would go after the s.  :--) JackofOz 10:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposal to move the article to Uluru / Ayers Rock was proposed and rejected last year; see Talk:Uluru/Archive01#Page move. Hesperian 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayer's Rock is the only name it is known by also in the United Kingdom, except tourism establishments with Australian Tourist Authority material. From my take on things, having lived abroad and in Australia for many years, it appears that the attempted name change for something more 'indigenous and trendy' failed misrebly. To even cowtow to the fact that the name change was out of respect to the Aboriginal people is farcical and insulting; it was an attempt to cash in on aboriginality.

The question best raised to illustrate this point is simple; can anyone provide documentary evidence that prior to the site being named Ayer's Rock that it was called by any uniformed name by the nomadic inhabitants who, in my opinion, do own the land yet still lack any sovereignty in the eyes of the Commonwealth? I'd further put it to you that we are deluding ourselves if we think that a nomenclature change is illustrative of any social change, which is the primary means by which people cling to this 1990's invented taxonomy for Ayers Rock.

Another illustration I would cite is that of Rose Hill / Parramatta, whilst the name was changed in an attempt to appeal to aboriginality, the location is still refered to by a name it was only called for two years after settlement by Government and citizenry alike.

Further to my argument, I would like to cite Colour/Color as setting precedence in this matter, the matter was resolved by the fact that 'color' brought up far more search results therefore illustrating higher popularity defeating a very strong argument that most 'dictionary files' are by default US-English and thus tainted the results. There are presently four hundred thousand more references to "Ayers Rock", two hundred more to "Ayer's Rock" and open-quotation style searching yields even more, where as there is a significantly smaller illustration of Uluru in common usage. Jachin 10:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good choice in colour where the version of English used in a country where the UK version of English is used then spelling of colour is that where the US version is use the spelling of color is color. The same should apply for naming, the name in Australia is Uluru. The article should stay at Uluru with redirects from Ayres rock and Uluru/Ayres rock. The article shoud read be Uluru formaly known as Ayres Rock.. Gnangarra

can anyone provide documentary evidence that prior to the site being named Ayer's Rock prior to Mr Giles naming the site there are no written records only the verbal history. Gnangarra

From my take on things, having lived abroad and in Australia for many years, it appears that the attempted name change for something more 'indigenous and trendy' failed misrebly. To even cowtow to the fact that the name change was out of respect to the Aboriginal people is farcical and insulting; it was an attempt to cash in on aboriginality.[[User:Jachin|Jachin] This comment is an insult, Uluru was the name used by the local people, when prior to the land being returned(though it the other way round, people being returned to the land) the name was officially acknowledged the site changed to Uluru/Ayres rock on all maps, twenty years later Ayres rock was formally removed from the name. There was no attempt to cash in on aboriginality, if there had been the name would have been changed sooner. As an aboriginal I find your remarks insulting and request you appologise. Aboriginal people have the right to have their history before invasion recognised whether it's written or oral. Gnangarra 12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to come off as cynical Gnangarra, but I disagree. I will address your issues as raised. The instance of the use of Colour / Color is apt, I do not know an Australian who calls the site Uluru, furthermore I am actively involved with multiple aboriginal communities through pro-bono legal work and indigenous customs and traditions have always been a very great interest to me; not one aboriginal I know agrees with the matter and claim that it's 'white man cashing in for tourism', which I can understand. If you were to read the Mabo case closely you'll notice that in all these 'handovers' that are going on aboriginal sovreignty isn't granted nor respected, so it is merely an instance of the items being handed over 'in name' alone. This, is insulting.

The area was subequently named after an aboriginal family name in the area per the Anangu, who claim to have inhabited the area since Tjukurpa. There is no evidence of the site being called Uluru post-1990, that's 110 years of invas.. uh colonialism during which someone could have stuck their hand up and said, "Hey, you know, you guys are kind of dumb, this place already has a name."

Furthermore Ayers Rock is still the populus name for the site by the majority of people who reside in an area and by common law if a name change is imposed and rejected the populus rule still presides.

I hope I have addressed the concerns you have raised, but furthermore that still does not address the issue I have raised as no one has yet. There was no principal that was held in the last decision that was made, if anyone can see a ratio decidendi that I cannot, please illustrate it here otherwise I believe the matter is still yet to be concluded. Jachin 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Populus? Obiter? Ratio decidendi? Maybe we should call it "Petrus Ayersii" (!!). C'mon mate, this is not Latin Wikipedia. A bit of plain English would not go astray. JackofOz 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And on the grounds that you do not understand the concept of rhetoric, discussion or debate, my argument is therefore moot? I think not. Jachin 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made no comment on the quality of your argument. My comment was on the language (Latin) of some of the words you use to make your argument, and a request to stick to English. That I do not understand what on earth you're talking about when you choose to use Latin words, does not mean that I "do not understand the concept of rhetoric, discussion or debate". But it does mean that there has been a failure to communicate. JackofOz 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Most people I know would now use the name "Uluru", but know what you are talking about if you said "Ayers Rock". Whether it's "right" or not, that is now the official name, and seems to have been generally well-accepted. I think "commonly" should be replaced by "also" or "formerly" (not "formally") in the opening paragraph, with a bit more of the detial brought up. Renaming to Uluru/Ayers Rock would be OK too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That is another of my principal arguments you would have read above, Uluru is NOT it's gazetted official name. It's gazetted official name is 'Uluru / Ayers Rock', however as I have argued (and rather well I believe, most disagreements thusfar have not been on fact but on emotional / political belief only) by populus the name used is Ayers Rock. Jachin 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's been only 20 years since the name was officially changed from Ayers Rock to Uluru, it's not surprising that Google would still record more hits for the former name. How long did it take for Peking to become fully transformed into Beijing, or Burma to Myanmar, or Ceylon to Sri Lanka? Certainly not overnight as far as western public consciousness was concerned, but that had no bearing on the new official names. The fact that Ayers Rock has ever had its name changed is obviously far less known outside Australia than any of these 3 examples. Keeping Uluru as at least part of the name of the article will go a long way to educating the world about the name change. Anyone who searches Wikipedia for Ayers Rock will quickly discover it's now known as something else, since when, and why. Not to have such a redirect would be a denial of everything we stand for. JackofOz 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the first time anyone has had any sensible claim; that we are doing justice to the social impetus of acceptance of name change. However, no one has outlined the ratio I requested to begin with. That is what this debate is really about; looking at the poll summary alone, from an evidentiary point of view it stands to reason that this question be raised as there is two reasons for it to be called Uluru and both are unsubstantiated. I believe that not enough discussion is being entered into on this subject and it's being dealt with merely by a vote to 'get it out of the way' with as little thought of discussion as possible. Quite dissapointing considering Wiki is theoretically a forum for coffee house intellectuals and bored academics (myself being a proud member of the latter and far too many being of the former). Jachin 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still awaiting some discussion on the matter raised, being the lack of reasoning behind the decision. I have placed the NPOV boilerplate on the main page until this matter is adequately addressed through illustration of the required ratio of the past 'debate' which had no resolve other than petering out. Jachin 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume the only "bias" (opposite of a neutral point of view) you are concerned about is the name of the article, and how the object is referred to within the article? You said above "Ayer's Rock is the only name it is known by also in the United Kingdom...". A reference to dispute that might be Flight Centre UK which has "Uluru (Ayers Rock)". [2] I'm not sure how to find a better reference to what it is called in the UK.

The policy says all significant points of view should be represented. All four names are in the text— the two single forms in the lead and both double forms further down, with an explanantion. Would you want the official name ("Uluru / Ayers Rock") to be used throughout the article? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're after arguments in favour of calling the page Uluru, here's one I raised last time: searching Australian government sites for "Uluru" gets nearly 63,000 hits, whereas searching Australian government sites for "Uluru / Ayers Rock" gets about 89 hits. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming round to "Uluru / Ayers Rock", if the technical issues can be resolved, and accepting that virtually all links will be via a redirect. The biggest issue may be what the talk page gets called(Talk:Uluru / Ayers Rock works from Uluru / Ayers Rock), and whether there should be spaces round the '/'. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The name should stay at Uluru, thats what it's referred to as in Australia. With respect to people from the UK, US and elsewhere that may know it by the name Ayers Rock, Uluru is in Australia and the naming should respect that. The article should acknowledge the name Ayers Rock as well as the name Uluru / Ayers Rock and it usage Gnangarra 05:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the main article on Great Britain should be renamed Pommieland. Wikipedia should never be bound by the fashionable political correctness of using the name Great Britain whose only supports are British law, tradition and the irrelevant usage of the populatio vulgaris Britannica. Almost all cives Britannici use Pommieland or do not care. Most .uk government websites use Pommieland.Alan 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Alan, no British citizens call the place Pommieland, even if it were named such it would not be accepted by the local populace because they see no reasonability or tie to it. Furthermore, the name Pomieland is contemporary and has a derived meaning, that being it is taken from modernised vulgar slang for Brits of 'pom', being 'prisoner of mother-england', further I move that instead you should push for England to be renamed to Smithville. I believe a person by the surname of Smith lived in the region at some time according to my cultural folklore and therefore to not do so would be to ignore my sovreign rights as a Brit over my own home country. Further, I believe in doing so you will be reinstating those rights and shall forego looking into any statutory or legislative obligations I have as a freeholder of those parts and instead shall bury my head in the sand in relation to the constitutional rape your regime will have on my people. Jachin 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your soverign rights, interesting statement. Yet the rights of the legal, historical, traditional landowners are exactly what your requesting we deny here, Do they not have the right to their name?

Jachin initially comment If that is the case, then I put it to the editors that we reverse the redirect and have Uluru direct to Ayers Rock and name it according to the name it carries by populus. by this I understand that you mean that all Australian call the site Ayers Rock, and if so can you please cite your references. Gnangarra 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rhetoric does not seem to be your strong point. The name is NOT an Aboriginal tribal or custodial name of the area, it was designated by a small body of local aboriginies who were consulted with (and we all know the Cth consultation process is second to none .. (that was sarcasm, for those who need it pointed out)) on the subject. A minor group of local aboriginies who were potentially not even the tribal inhabitants of that region prior to white settlement.

Just because the Commonwealth decide that a fast way to dodge an apology or any reconcilitation is to randomly gather 'tribal council' (ie: which ever group of locals are willing to enter into a paid 'consultation process' who claim origin from the tribal faction in the region) then rename things with names that are not even of cultural significance (especially in question here where it is a surname, which could be argued to have NO difference whether it's Uluru's Rock or Ayers Rock as both are randoms who just happened to dawdle through the area), does not mean that the thinking person, nor the common Australian should tolerate it.

I believe it stands to reason that the ongoing use of Ayers Rock may be an affront to aboriginies who do not comprehend the outcome of the Mabo or subsequent cases; yet also the average middle to upper class white uni bred type who believes that in using a name that is obviously not English, regardless of it's meaning or the manner in which the naming was derived, is a means to be trendy and apologetic without having to act further to reconcile with the aboriginal people. So the solution is, people of aboriginal descent should look further into the faux-rights allocated by dual-naming with a cynical and skepticaleye and the want-to-apologise-but-don't-want-to-make-an-effort folks, well, it would be unwikipedian for me to continue ...

Furthermore, to your second question, I cite yahoo.com.au as a means of interpreting literary intertextuality of the names in question; 646,000 Uluru, 1,500,000+ Ayers Rock. To use the common maxim; the average Australian on the bondi tram would still to this day refer to it as Ayers Rock. Jachin 08:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true only in the sense that when Bondi trams were still running, the only name it had was Ayers Rock. However Sydney trams ceased to exist in the 1960s. My equally unverifiable assertion is that most ordinary Australians these days (including those on Melbourne trams, which are alive and well) would call it Uluru. JackofOz 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• ... which could be argued to have NO difference whether it's Uluru's Rock or Ayers Rock as both are randoms who just happened to dawdle through the area), does not mean that the thinking person, nor the common Australian should tolerate it. ...middle to upper class white uni bred type who believes that in using a name that is obviously not English, regardless of it's meaning or the manner in which the naming was derived quote User:Jachin

So you have requested to renamed this article because you believe the use of Aboriginal names should not be tolerated as they are obviously not English. Gnangarra 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think that's spurious. It's entirely possible for words from other languages to enter the English language, or if not the language generally, the local dialect (Australian English). --bainer (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

as for citing the number of hits by a search engine any page that has the Name Ayers and the word rock within will get a hit. That also applies to the word Uluru, how does Roy Ayers the rock musician's 895,000 hits affect your 1,500,000 hits. Does that make it 605,000 hits opposed to Uluru's 694,000 hits. Gnangarra 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

there's also Sarah Ayers - Musician(824,000), Gay Ayers - Photographer(318,000), Dr Greg Ayers - CSIRO(429,000), Kevin Ayers - Musician(797,000) in brackets the number of hits when you add the word rock. Each of theses name were repeated in the first 10 pages of a google search on ayres rock from there i did a specific search on each. With Uluru there was only one referrence that wasnt to the rock in the first 10 pages and that was to Uluru New York City(record #84,page 8) its a clothing store in NY USA. Gnangarra 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Put quotes around Ayers Rock and you won't get those weird hits, only places with "Ayers Rock" together - which, however, could include a sentence like "I watched Sarah Ayers rock out". A Google search today gets 1.9 million for "Ayers Rock" and 1.7 million for "Uluru" which seems pretty much a wash. Face it, there is no absolute answer to this one, it's a judgment call - and judgment calls are not something that group consensus like wikipedia does very well. - DavidWBrooks 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should call it the tower of babel!. This discussion is such a sad commentary on this site. I came here looking for the coordinates for Ayers rock so I can find it on Google maps, and instead I find this thing called Uluru with an additional statement about erections!! I have to come to the talk page to find out if this is the right freakin rock. I'm thinking the page was vandalized, but right now I can't tell the vandalism form the content. Well done mates. Makes you want to subscribe to encarta. jcp 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Always startling when preconceived notions are challenged, isn't it? (Check Encarta, why don't you: You'll find they call it Uluru, "former name Ayers Rock") - DavidWBrooks 10:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see where the difficulty was...The opening line says quite clearly "Uluṟu, also known as Ayers Rock", not to mention that the page is well cited with the references also calling it Uluṟu. The vandalism regarding erections should be pretty obvious; if you look at the page history (which everyone should do, regardless), you'll see that a particular anonymous vandal hit the page in rapid succession, however, each malicious edit was reverted very quickly. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also live in US and ALWAYS heard and seen it spelled as Ayers Rock. Also, most people still call Myanmar Burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.103.20 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good...I live in the United States as well. However, the official spelling and the one used by all official sources (government and otherwise, as shown in the article citations) is Uluru. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll

I propose we settle this debate once and for all. I have created two subsections below: Summary and Vote. Feel free to add and/or refactor the summary to more accurately describe the arguments for and against each position. The summary section is for summarising the debate, not actually carrying on the debate. Any attempts to use the summary section to debate the issue will be summarily (pardon the pun) removed. By all means continue the debate in the sections/threads above. Hesperian 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• what time frame for the vote, suggest either 14 days or until EOM (31st May). Gnangarra 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Until it peters out. 14 days sounds reasonable to me. Hesperian 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some grievous errors in the poll summary which I chose not to edit but merely addendum / dispute tag to illustrate how terribly out of context this matter is being taken. On the facts, this vote has been improperly carried out as no discussion was entered into the summary content before applying the vote section, a fourty eight hour window for correction would have been more apt but votes have already been laid for improper and unfactual summary depictions. Jachin 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

These aren't my arguments or opinion. They are my best attempt at characterising the arguments that I have heard. Where I have mis-represented the arguments for and against, kindly fix my mistakes instead of complaining about them. Where I have characterised the arguments correctly but you personally disagree with them, kindly conduct the discussion outside of the summary section as I requested above.

I have edited the summary section again in an attempt to represent your position accurately. Please, I'm not a mind-reader. This bears repeating: if the summary doesn't capture your position accurately, kindly fix it so it does. Just remember the summary section is for listing the various arguments, not for debating their merits. Hesperian 12:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I getting pretty sick of saying this. Jachin, edit the summary section to make it a more accurate summary of what the arguments are. Do not impose your own personal view of which arguments are valid and which are not. That is not the purpose of the summy section. I'm not editing out your "faux-apology" argument, because I accept that such an argument exists even if though I think it is silly. Kindly pay the other editors the same courtesy they pay you. Hesperian 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read my edits, as I have restored them, in an effort to reflect NPOV. The wording of the initial summary was POV heavy. Yes, some of my edits may have been inclined in one direction or another, I will ammend them such, however the reason I had cause to edit it in the first place was due to the fact the wording was clearly POV. Jachin 08:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're frigging well POV. That's the whole point. We're trying to summary the various points of view. What do you think POV stands for?

Furthermore you're being grossly inconsistent. Evidently you think "Uluru" is the more common name in Australia. is POV, but "Many indigenous Australians... have no interest in the faux-apology of renaming sites for political means. is NPOV. That's just laughable. Hesperian 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding "citation required" to the claim that "many government sites don't use it" (Uluru). To me it is patently obvious that Uluru is the official name (see NT government sites). I've also changed the time the name was first used from "1990" to "19??". Oops, my 1980s cite was wrong. I've changed it back to 1990, since I can't prove 1990 is wrong, even though I suspect it is. Rocksong 11:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. In the statement "many government sites don't use it", "it" is "Uluru / Ayers Rock" not "Uluru". Hesperian 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops again, you're right. In that case, I think that "citation required" is superfluous so I'm removing it.

Summary

(Feel free to refactor this section until everyone can agree with it)

Ayers Rock

Arguments for:

• This was the gazetted, common name until about 1992.
• It remains by far the most common name in the US, the UK, and probably most other places outside Australia.
• In Australia the "common person" still refers to the rock as "Ayers Rock".
• "Ayers Rock" is the name most often used by people who live in the area.
• Many indigenous Australian's still refer to the site as Ayers Rock and have no interest in the faux-apology of renaming sites for political means.
• 2.7 million(895,000 ghits are for Roy Ayres, rock musician) ghits versus 2.1 million for "Uluru".

Arguments against:

• In Australia "Ayers Rock" is considered by some to be the "old" name for the rock. Use of the title "Ayers Rock" will make the article seem dated.
• The name "Ayers Rock" is offensive to some indigenous Australians, who associate the name with the invasion of their country by white colonists.
• "Ayers Rock" versus "Uluru" is part of a wider argument over colonial and indigenous geographic names. Adoption of the title "Ayers Rock" would constitute taking sides in that debate.

Uluru

Arguments for:

• "Uluru" is allegedly the more common name in Australia.
• "Uluru" is the name used by some indigenous people, who are the traditional owners and legal caretakers of the rock, and for whom the rock has special cultural significance.

Arguments against:

• The name "Uluru" is not commonly known outside Australia.
• It is a modern indigenous name that was not used before 1990.
• The change of name from "Ayers Rock" to "Uluru" was an attempt to kowtow to / cash in on indigenous Australian culture, and so is offensive to some people.
• The change of name from "Ayers Rock" to "Uluru" is insulting to indigenous Australians because it is a worthless concession that gives the false impression that their legitimacy as a people is recognised by the Australian government
• "Ayers Rock" versus "Uluru" is part of a wider argument over colonial and indigenous geographic names. Use of the title "Uluru" would be taking sides in that debate.
• 2.1 million ghits versus 2.6 million for "Ayers Rock".

Uluru / Ayers Rock

Arguments for:

• This is the official gazetted name [3][4].
• Using the gazetted name would avoid taking a side in the wider debate on colonial versus indigenous geographic names.

Arguments against:

• This name is virtually never used other than in official contexts (e.g. street signs). Even many government websites don't use it.
• Virtually all access to the article would be via redirects.
• Only 54,000 ghits.

Votes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the renaming proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep page at current title. --bainer (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayers Rock

1. oppose Gnangarra 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose--nixie 01:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose JackofOz 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hesperian 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ~ Rumour 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose –cj | talk 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Strongly Support Jachin 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose --bainer (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral ～J.K. 12:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Strongly Oppose Rocksong 07:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Strongly Oppose Alan 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Garglebutt / (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Uluru

1. Support (2nd preference) Hesperian 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Gnangarra 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --nixie 01:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support (2nd preference) JackofOz 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support ～J.K. 03:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support ~ Rumour 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support –cj | talk 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Strongly Oppose Jachin 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --bainer (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Rocksong 07:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Alan 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Garglebutt / (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Uluru / Ayers Rock

1. Support (1st preference) Hesperian 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gnangarra 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose--nixie 01:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Strongly support JackofOz 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose ～J.K. 03:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose ~ Rumour 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral –cj | talk 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Strongly Support Jachin 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose --bainer (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support -- I@n ≡ talk 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
12. 2nd preference Rocksong 07:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support (Second preference)Alan 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Garglebutt / (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1. Support. --bainer (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. I'd vote support, but wouldn't that mean I was supporting evil? ～J.K. 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

   Burn the evildoers at the stake!--cj | talk 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result

It's been about 14 days now and this has well and truly petered out. In the end, opinion was equally divided over the use of "Uluru / Ayers Rock". Only Jachin favoured a change to "Ayers Rock", and only Jachin did not support keeping it at "Uluru". Therefore the proposal to move fails, and the page stays at "Uluru". --bainer (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The means in which the vote was carried out was not per the standard Wiki policies for such a method arbitration; furthermore I now contest the validity of the result as it was neither listed in RfV as per voting policy; the 'reasons' I requested for the prior abitration have yet to be addressed and this matter was merely put to a vote to 'push it aside', when you examine closely the 'arguments' both for and against, to deny that there is a valid reason for me to question the prior decision would be illogical. Jachin 09:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell do we want to go to arbitration? We have a nice simple informal consensus which makes it clear what the name won't be. We don't need formal process when the majority intent is clear. Enough time wasted already. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jachin, for someone who was arguing that the article title should change to what you think is the rock's name "by populus", you don't seem at all keen to recognise what seems obvious to me: the mob has spoken. Hesperian 11:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This was about as clear-cut a vote as I've seen on wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks 11:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the mob has spoken. Clearly the use of Uluru is an issue, I suspect we will again revisit. The use of aboriginal names will for a long time have implied commercial and token gesture reasons for the usage. Whether these reason are truely valid or not is a political discussion within the Australian community. All sides in these issues should be included in the article though Wikipedia should remain neutral, and all of us should act in good faith to the intentions of others. Jachin you have brought to the discussion valid points and concerns, please respect that the name should stand. As is the case with Bombay/Mumbia because people outside the country(and in) continue to use and recognised Bombay doesn't invalidate Mumbai as the article page name. I suspect that if you posted the same type of intention on that page all the reasons you use here would be valid there as well, yet the end result would be the same as it is here. Gnangarra 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Uluru / Ayers Rock in Popular Culture

I was surpised not to see a reference to it's appearance in various films and references to it in literature. I'll try and create a list with links this week. add some here for me if interested. Lisapollison 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... Uluru is the name of a rock monster in the tv series Heroes. It's depicted in a painting made by the character Isaac in that show and has made subsequent appearances on that show in the form of a comic book cover (Micah) and screensaver (Hiro). -- ZachsMind 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please no. Those sections are the bane of Wikipedia. Rocksong 12:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article

Just so you know {{GAnominee}} completely broke this talk page for unknown reasons. Anyways, comments:

• What's with the underlined "r" in "The local Pitjantjatjara people call the landmark Uluru."?
• Removed incorrect useage of italics in "Name" section. See Italic type. In this article, it's really only need for foreign words. Some cases of your use of italics should really use quotation marks instead.
• Try getting a picture of this "banned" zone. Perhaps a really old one that has entered public domain.

None of this things are enough to warrent a turning down of a GA though, so congratulations and thanks for the interesting read.

P.S. Pitjantjatjara is now offically the oddest looking word I've ever seen.--SeizureDog 04:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo of "banned" zone

I think it would be extremely insensitive to put a photo of a sacred site right next to an explanation of why such photos should not be taken or displayed! There are no interior photos at Temple (Mormonism) for a similar example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Uluru is different from the Mormon temples though, as while the Mormons don't want anyone to know what goes on, the Anangu just don't want their own people to see. So seeing how the ban is only in place so that Anangu don't accidently see sites for the opposite gender, I believe it would be ok if it was in a linked format. For example: Click here for a picture of the forbidden site. That way, any Anangu who happen to find this page can't accidently see the image as they have to click a link, but non-Anangu can be be informed. Also, I might add that I was watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? today and I was able to answer a question because of this article :) --SeizureDog 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1. don't use "click here".
2. Are you sure it's OK for non-Anangu to view those pictures? There's a difference between "we can't stop them" and "it's OK", and especially "ignorant people have been there before". The web page referenced talks about areas fenced off and photography restricted. Not sure if you prevent all other ways of stumbling on a picture, such as Special:random.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Please don't use pictures of restricted areas! The restrictions don't just apply to Anangu people, they apply to everyone. In the areas I've worked in, there was a strong concern by senior members that people could get hurt by seeing restricted images. For example, if I as a woman see men in some parts of an initiation ceremony in this area, there's a spirit that would come and rip my throat out. And they as my adopted elder sisters, obviously didn't want that to happen to me. Now whether you believe that this would happen or not, publishing such knowledge is deliberately promoting an idea that western inquiry is more important that Indigenous religion, and I don't think that's valid in a case where non-restricted photos could be used just as well. Claire 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Western inquiry isn't more important than indigenous religion? Then why even mention that location in Wikipedia? This example of censorship is obviously more important than anyone's endeavour to report on it. (that was sarcasm in case ya didn't notice. just show the darn pic) -- ZachsMind 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

--Good article, but as previously noted it is quite disturbing that discussion of sacred sites is preceeeded by an inappropriate photograph. Please see http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/uluru/vis-info/pubs/guidelines.pdf for information regarding appropriate use of culturally sensitive images, in particular the references to Map One at the end of the PDF. The photograph of the "skull" (location marked with the "S" above "KUNIYA PITI" furthest to the right on the PDF Map) which has been uploaded is in breach of these guidelines. From memory the story behind this site is so sacred that it can only be passed down through oral tradition, which is why there is no specific discussion of it in the Uluru National Park guidelines, though it and other sites are indirectly referred to under the heading of "Working in the Park" in the PDF above. As Claire has noted, the restrictions don't just apply to Anangu, they apply to everyone. The photograph should be removed and replaced with one of the numerous non-offensive images available.

Glasshutch 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)glasshutch

I've removed the contentious photo for now, but I must say I find the rules unclear. It says "do not photograph spot X", but there's nothing there to determine whether or not a pre-existing photo contains images of spot X. I guess that's partly impossible (they can't include a photo of what you're not allowed to photograph!). Anyway, I've read elsewhere that "the brain" formation should not be photographed. I'm not certain, but I've removed it as a precaution. Rocksong 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Wikipedia is not censored! There are plenty of pictures on Wikipedia that lots of photos which certain people would rather not see being there, but that does not mean it gets removed because it is "sacred" or "inappropriate".

This political correctness argument is ridiculous. --Sumple (Talk) 01:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rocksong. I'm new to all this and couldn't figure out how to do it myself. I have just checked with a park employee and I was correct in my previous post: details of the photograph of the site in question can't even be written down let alone illustrated. I know it makes it difficult for people to understand if they can't be told the reasoning behind it, and there really is no easy solution to that problem other than visitors experiencing the place themselves and taking the memory away rather than a photograph.

Sumple: Wikipedia is not censored? Come off it, if Wikipedia wasn't constantly examined and fine-tuned through it wouldn't be the excellent resource it is today. Although perhaps objection to the picture as political correctness gone mad is a fair in a roundabout way, the National Parks guidelines above are a far better justification for removal than that old chestnut.Glasshutch 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)glasshutch

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, or to uphold good taste, or to avoid any other morally objectionable conduct. However content that is subject to local laws still must comply with those laws - here there is a scheme which requires permits for commercial photography and places restrictions on all other photography, such as where photographs can be taken. I am unsure exactly what the legal force of some of those rules actually is, but it is clear that rules can be imposed as a condition of entry to the park.

Is anyone aware of when these rules came into effect? Images taken before then may not be subject to the rules. --bainer (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bainer - they were definitely in effect when the photograph was taken in 1998. However, for the reasons discussed above most people wouldn't know specifics as the guidelines would usually be accessed by commercial photographers who need permits regardless of what they're shooting, rather than your average tourist. I'm not sure what the deal is with regards to amateur photographaphy on the internet, but commercial enterprises caught using inappropriate images do get hit with big fines for breaching the guidelines.Glasshutch 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)glasshutch

I think Wikipedia should include some sort of verbal description of the banned zone, with a "spoiler warning". Not only because of anti-censorship reasons, but because it would actually help people who wish to do the right thing and not post insensitive photos, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. It should be preceded by some sort of warning. Heck, Wikipedia has a "spoiler warning" template for movies, so we should be able do a "spoiler warning" for the much more serious issue of people's cultural beliefs. Rocksong 02:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey that sounds like a great idea. Its like those "the following program contains disturbing images/images of deceased persons" tags on tv. --Sumple (Talk) 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, excellent idea. A verbal description limited to a physical description of the site and a simple explanation of its cultural significance to the Anangu people (without breaching any codes of 'secret business') would be a great way around the problem. Glasshutch 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)glasshutch

Glasshutch, the rules under the "working in the park" section, the ones which say that certain sites should not be photographed, seem to apply to all photography. It should also be noted that while a permit is not needed for personal photography, a permit is needed to use those photos for commercial purposes, which means that they would not be able to be freely licenced for Wikipedia's purposes (NC licences are not free enough, we would have to claim fair use). Also, the rules under the "using images and footage" section require approval before publication of any image of the northeast face. As I said, the legal force of these rules may have to be checked, but it seems likely that they do have force, since the national park is not public land. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bainer - It's correct that they apply to all photography and if breached can be pursued legally. I was just trying to make the point that the person who took the photograph probably meant no harm by posting the image, let alone taking the photograph in the first place, due to their own ignorance of the guidelines. Not an excuse, but perhaps an explanation. Glasshutch 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)glasshutch

It seems to me that Wikipedia use of non-sensitive photographs is permitted under this clause (end of page 8): "Editorial use (newspaper and travel articles, magazines, books) about or with a connection to the Park." McKay 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It probably would be, but unless something is as free as GFDL of freer (such as any non-commercial licence, or a Wikipedia-only licence) we can only potentially use it under fair use. --bainer (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is a concept applying to copyright issues, but there is no copyright issue involved in a photograph taken of a geographical feature, except for the copyright that belongs to the photographer. I mean, the feature itself is not copyrighted by anyone so the act of taking a photograph is not a potential copyright infringement. The fair use question would only arise here in relation to photos taken by other people (eg copied from park brochures). The park rules being discussed here are not copyright rules. If we use our own photos and release them under the proper licence, then the clause I quoted from the park rules indicates that the park authorities have no problem with that. (Whether they could restrict it anyway is legally dubious unless there is specific legislation giving them that right). --McKay 04:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are actually photography bans enforced on those sacred areas. Its not just the Anangu who are against it, it is actually cared about by the park rangers. Anyway, there are plenty of just as spectacular non sacred and non-photography banned sites on Uluru Evildoctorcow 07:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we use GFDL

<--I have seperated this section of the discussion as it has implications for all photographers of Uluru who have loaded images into the various wikimedia projects, and for the project themselves inculding wikipedia 0.5 version and 1.0 versions. Gnangarra 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds confusing, I know, but I'll have a go at explaining it again. The park rules impose (or at least purport to impose) conditions about when and how people can take photos in the park, but they also impose conditions about how photos can be licenced. So I could go there and take a photo for commercial use, which would be fine. However I would not be able to publish it licenced under the GFDL, because the GFDL allows commercial use, which is prohibited by the park rules (commercial use is allowed with a permit, the GFDL allows unlimited commercial use). So I would have to licence it under a non-commercial licence (CC-NC for example). However Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial images; we only allow GFDL or equivalent, and anything else can only be used where we can make a fair use claim.

You raise the point about whether the park rules can actually operate to restrict licencing of photos, I think they probably do but I'll check that out. --bainer (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For all I know, we only care about copyright restrictions. When "house rules" restrict photography, etc, we just ignore it, because they are not contractally trying to assume copyright over any photograph taken by anyone there. ViperSnake151 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is anyone competent to put the IPA codes for how to pronounce Uluru and Ulu<r>u into the article? I have copied the description from further up this talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's most probably ['ʊlʌɻʊ] in Pitjantjatjara, but it's usually [ʊlə'ɹu] in Australian English

Geology

There is a rather obvious gap in this article. There is a complete absence of any discussion of the geology of Uluru. This provides a pretty basic summary, and high school or university level earth science text book should fill in the gaps.--Peta 04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was actually looking for an explanation of the formation of the feature in the article. -- Beland 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Typography

Is there a converntion concerning the use of <u> tags as opposed to the proper unicode ṟ? I notice that the Anangu article has the unicode form in the first sentence, but then uses underlining for the rest of the article. JPD (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but I'm inclined to avoid the Unicode like the plague, since it's so poorly supported and the <u> tags do a fine job of replacing it. ～J.K. 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Antiquity of the name "Uluru"

It is claimed above that the name "Uluru" has only been known since 1990. Quite wrong. It first appeared in the writings of Europeans on the map that H. Basedow compiled during the Wells expedition of 1903 (published by the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia in 1914). McKay 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

can you add with a cite to the article Gnangarra 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of 360 Uluru film

It is illegal in Australia to capture commerical, or public photos and film of the sacred southern womens side of Uluru. The traditional owners and joint caretakers of Uluru ask that people respect this law. The 360 degree Quicktime movie needs to be taken down immediately. It denotes a general disregard for the law. Uluru is a CULTURALLY world heritage listed site. If people want to see it, they should visit Uluru so they can understand the cultural signifcance of this place. i have watched this film and it is actually just a photo and does not show the sacred area, but the inclusion of a link titled "360 view" of Uluru is disrespectful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbyk (talk • contribs)

If it doesn't show the sacred area, then it does not need to be removed. If you feel that the descrition in the link is wrong or misleading, then please change the link title. Either way, please try to avoid deleting other material. JPD (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules and regulations photography are at http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/uluru/vis-info/pubs/guidelines.pdf . From a quick read, I'm having trouble working out whether photographing these sites is illegal, or just that they request people not to do it. Perhaps someone else can look closer. Rocksong 00:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The regulations have legal force. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 says:

---

::::12.24:

(1) A person must not capture an image or record a sound in or of a Commonwealth reserve in contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by the Director under subregulation (3).

...

(3) For subregulation (1), the Director may prohibit or restrict the capturing of images or recording of sounds:

(a) generally or to a class of persons; and

(b) at all times, at specified times or for a specified period; and

(c) in all or part of the reserve.

---

Note, however, that the regulations only prohibit the taking of commercial photography without a permit; this is very different to what Cubbyk is saying above. Hesperian 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can Guarantee that a commercial 360 degree film would not be granted permission, it is in direct violation with what Anangu have requested, particularly if it is put on the internet. I have been living at Uluru, i have a direct, first hand understanding. In any case, i brought this up because the title of the film in incorrect and inappropriate, and i dont know how to change its name, so if anyone else can agree that this is something that needs changing, please edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbyk (talk • contribs)

As the image isnt part of the page its an external link saying 360 deg view and therefore implying that sacred sites may be visable, a link to it is not unreasonable. If the site that hosts/created the image has done so without legal permission then you should be bringing the matter to the attention of the site and Anangu people. The inclusion of material that may cause offense to religiuos or cultural groups isnt sufficient reason to censor wikipedia articles. Where such a situation is possible the article should also clearly state these views, this article does. Gnangarra 07:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't say 360 degrees of Uluru - in fact it is a 360 degree image filmed from a point near Uluru. --Sumple (Talk) 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There isn't any suggestion that any sacred sites are shown in the image, although I would be happy for the wording to be changed if anyone has a clearer suggestion. However, this link and some of the other photo links are questionable in terms of the external links policy. JPD (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

sigh......The title is sensationalist. "360° panoramic video of sunset over Uluru - requires Quicktime" gives the wrong impression, many people who read this will assume they'll see many sides of Uluru as the sun sets. The actual film is over the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. I understand the film doesnt show the sacred side, i know that. But the FACT is that taking commercial photos or film of any side of Uluru other then the designated area is illegal, I think that Wikipedia should not promote breaking the law or blatent cultural disrespect.

(In particular, the idea that if it is not actually on the site, if we just put up a link to an illegal act, then its not our problem). Misrepresenting this film link as something that does this is almost as bad. I really dont know why this is such a big deal, someone just needs to change to title of the link!!! how about "Panoramic Video of Sunset over Uluru National Park" ???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cubbyk (talk • contribs) .

Obviously if it were actually illegal we shouldn't link to it. I didn't think that the 360° comment implied that there were views of all of the rock, but your suggestion is a better description, if we keep the link. You can change it easily enough by editing that section and changing the words. I am still inclined to think that as a commercial site, we shouldn't link to it anyway. The whole section is questionable, given that we are not meant to be a link directory. JPD (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, most of the photo links are for photographers selling pictures etc etc.

and Gnangarra, in terms of me alerting Anangu to illegal photos of Uluru on the internet etc etc, i think you have grossly underestimated the situation. It is a high priority to the Australian GOvernment to censor the illegal photographs, the new laws are incredibly strict and all souvineer businesses/commercial media have been warned of severe fines. Please dont make the assumption that the images are just the problem of Anangu. It is a bigger problem for the police. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CubbyK (talk • contribs) .

Anangu people are the correct first contact as they issue the permits for taking commercial images, and therefore can assertain whether there are any illegalities. Gnangarra 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If by Anangu, you mean the federal government appointed Mutitjulu Administrator, Mutitjulu Incorperated and the Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park Authority....

This 360-degree film is actually pretty useless and I don't know why we need it. It looks more like an advertisement for that web site than anything that contributes to this page. HOWEVER, I want to take issue with the claim that the film is illegal. It is clearly taken from the "Sunset Viewing Area" that is specifically established for viewing the rock at sunset. Photography from there is encouraged. Every day there are hundreds of people there with cameras, as well as park rangers. (I was there a few weeks ago.) All the sensitive sites around the rock have signs prohibiting photography, but this site does not. I'm sure that its location and distance were deliberately chosen so that photography from there would be ok. McKay 05:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CubbyK has not claimed that the film is illegal. He has claimed that the inaccurate link description gives the impression that we are linking to illegal and culturally insensitive material. Hesperian 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So I changed the description. I agree that the "film" is pretty uninteresting. - DavidWBrooks 12:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

thankyou davidWbrooks, and everyone else. far out, there would probably be a lot less time wasted arguing if everyone would just read what other people have said properly.haha --cubbyk 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also a pretty poor film (comprised of about 180 degrees of carpark), so I don't see the need to link to it at all. --bainer (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous size

Uluru is 346 metres high, 8 km (5 miles) around . Um, what type of unit is "around"? Does this mean 8 km in circumference, or 8 km in length? A circumference isn't really helpful as it doesn't really describe the size of the rock. If it's a length, it needs to be written as such. -71.49.163.77 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think "around" is quite clear: if you walked around it, you would walk 8 km. That gives a very good idea of how "big" Uluru is. Circumference would be a funny term to use for such an irregular shape.

Maybe it would be clearer if it said "8 km (5 miles) around at its base"? - DavidWBrooks 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Biggest monolith

Apparently (Acording to NGC) Uluru is not be biggest monolith, it is second biggest, with the biggest being Mount Augustus in Western Australia.

Tabletop 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what NGC refers to, but they're wrong. Uluru is not even the second biggest monolith. It is not a monolith at all. See the thread "Not a Monolith" above. JackofOz 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

I've cleaned up your article after finding numerous mistakes, for some reason the word Ulura has a box where the "r" should be. I hope you don't mind. Nice work. JUICEBOXERvErvE 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's reverted it - the "box" is your browser not reading a special character. - DavidWBrooks 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Uluru / Uluṟu

I don't know if this has been discussed already, so I won't make any changes before seeking comment. Uluru is the standard English spelling of the rock, while Uluṟu is a transliteration of the Pitjantjatjara name for it. Since this is an English language encyclopedia we should be using the standard English spelling. The Pitjantjatjara name should be mentioned, but the standard English used throughout. This is akin to insisting that München be used in the article on the German city of Munich. Ashmoo 03:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend to use the "correct" accents on Wikipedia, e.g. the Hungarian chess players Judit Polgár and Péter Lékó. So while personally I agree with your argument (this is an English encyclopedia, so use the English alphabet), it may pay to check what, if anything, is the official Wikipedia policy. Rocksong 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As a group the editors of this article have been thru the naming issue a number of times both on this page and on the Northern Territory article, the one thing that has remained consistant is the official name is Uluru / Ayres Rock. The most commonly used name is Uluru neither of these have the accents, the article itself does use the accent in the opening paragraph. Gnangarra 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions may be of interest. I agree, Gnangarra. But the opening paragraph currently does use accents, and some editors seem to be reverting any removal of them. (And I assume you meant 'Ayers Rock') Ashmoo 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia's geographic naming conventions people (I mean in the real world government, not here on Wikipedia) have long ago agreed that place names will be gazetted without accents or punctuation. Hence place names like "Ayers Rock" rather than "Ayers' Rock". Why we would follow this convention with respect to "Ayers Rock", then ignore it with respect to "Uluru", is beyond me. Hesperian 04:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Uluṟu is not a transliteration, it is the spelling of the name in the most common Pitjantjatjara orthographic system. I would rather use the Uluru as the common name in English (although calling it the English name is debatable). However, I don't think it is as simple as Hesperian suggests. The convention of leaving out punctuation in names is just about always followed with Ayers Rock, but while Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park is gazetted that way, its own publications usually say Uluṟu - Kata Tjuṯa National Park, and signage within the park uses Pitjantjatjara orthography. JPD (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There’s been a few incidents of vandalism a user by the name of "Kohlhardt" has been doing in the past few minutes that I've been correcting.

JayPetey 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Category Sacred Mountain

It's drawing rather a long bow to classify Uluru as a mountain but the category does put it in esteamed(sp) company. Gnangarra 15:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I think the first photo is a bit rubbish. I've got some reasonable ones that I took myself a couple of weeks ago here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pfordham1979/tags/uluru/

If some wants to pick one they like and tell me about any open source image stuff that I need to do then let me know. You can contact me via my flickr account.

Pete 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer Pete. Another editor or I will take a look and see if any of them might be a more suitable replacement to the current image. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the first photo is very ordinary. I think what has happened is that the page originally linked to an image in Wikimedia Commons titled Uluru2.jpg (which is quite a decent picture) and that someone has uploaded a different image with the same name directly to Wikipedia, so the link has switched over. Pete, if you put the best of your pics to Commons then an editor can take their pic(k) and change the link. BrisbanePom 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

reverted article, not sure if I got the right date; sorry about that folks. It's been edited so much back/fourth and the bot restored a bad edit twice too so I tried to do the right one. Sorry again if I got the wrong revision. ZBrannigan 06:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did just fine, thanks for that :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

good, I fixed it like two/three times and the little bugger kept putting his version back, to make matters worse the bot was correcting a slightly vulgar version of it too so wanted to make sure I got as far back from that mess as possible - figured someone would sort it out later ZBrannigan 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently added images

It seems that a large number of freely licensed images were uploaded by User:Nttc and others as part of the recently reverted edits. They seem very high quality, especially the aerial photo of Uluru. Would it be reasonable to incorporate some/all of these images into the current article, or is it felt there are enough as-is? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I'm going to put this up for WP:GA/R soon due to WP:WIAGA criteria 2a and 5 - that is, some parts are insufficiently referenced, and there's been a bit of instability recently with clearing up the copyvios from User:Nttc. Please assume good faith and work on making this article even better. -Malkinann 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears unnecessary, as the issue with Nttc has been cleared as perfectly appropriate. Thus, the material he has submitted is essentially already vouched for (coming from the Austrialian DEWR site and official gov't tourism site), and in the process of revamping the article today (ouch, cost me more than six hours) I was able to deal with the rest of the material. At this time, I don't immediately see any issues with the article, unless you can point out specific examples of problems. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow - well done! If the issue with stability (criterion 5) is solved, then there is still the issue of insufficient referencing (criteria 2a). It appears to contradict itself here: "Although commonly described as a monolith (a single stone unconnected to any substrate), Uluṟu is in fact an inselberg, connected to Kata Tjuṯa and Mount Conner." and here "A common mistake is to include Kata Tjuṯa as part of the Uluṟu formation, but it is in fact made of a different material (conglomerate)." Of the new parts of the page, the Fauna and flora section looks entirely unreferenced, as does the Climate & seasons section. The History section needs more references, as does the Naming and Tourism sections. (Naming could also deal with why the rock was dualnamed in 1993, but that's a different kettle of fish.)-Malkinann 05:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to dealing with the major sections of text that Nttc submitted in terms of references (including most of those you listed above, heh). They are so widespread that I'm afraid it would be reduced to placing the same reference tag in every paragraph to properly handle the situation. I also paused at the Uluru/Kata Tjuta connection issue, but in the end couldn't come up with a better way of presenting it. I take it to mean that, yes, they are part of the same general subterranian geologic structure, but they are very separate entities. I just don't think those words make much sense outside my own head :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Great improvements! I originally wrote the geology section, which I'm happy to see has largely survived. With regard to the stuff mentioned above under 'Description' that started "Although commonly described as a monolith"...etc, I fully agree its a problem, and I've been intending to do something about it for a while. Such discussion belongs under the 'Geology' section, but what was written there contained some major misconceptions. So I've deleted all geology bits from 'Description' and added them, with extensive modifications, to 'Geology'. In the process I've done some rearranging and a bit of rewriting of the Geology section to clarify a few points. The reference to Karl Kruszelnicki @ ABC didn't survive; with all due respect to Karl K, this web page does contain some misleading information. --Zamphuor 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) The geology sections looks fantastic now, as does the improved description section. I really would like to get my hands on a copy of that map that is cited in the article...cannot find any copy online. Would also like to find a decent infobox for the article to be able to summarize some of the pertinant facts, but I'm not happy with any of the Landmark templates (World Heritage and IUCN). Guess I'll keep looking. What else about the article needs improvement beyond citations? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can accept that Dr Karl could have a few mistakes. As you're working on the citations, I can accept that hopefully they'll be fixed in the near future. The lead could use expanding per WP:LEAD - each largish section of the article should be represented in a paragraph or sentence in the lead. There are a few WP:MOS issues - for example, we don't use =See Also=. Two equals signs on either side or bust. Linking of technical terms may be helpful, such as strata. Some phrases are 'puff pieces' that skirt the boundaries of WP:POV - "the area remains a world-class destination for both its cultural and natural heritage." I'd be interested, for further development of the article, in further explanation of the politics that led up to the dual naming of the park and discussion of the World Heritage listing. -Malkinann 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is now at Good Article Review for lack of citations. -Malkinann 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

photos

With the very large photo re-added to the bottom, this article has 14 photos and a map - *way* too many, I think. Several are redundant shots of the rock in various hues - that doesn't add anything to people's knowledge. Wikipedia isn't an art gallery or a photo show; lots of photo galleries of Uluru exist online. We also need to have pity on people with slow Internet connections. I suggest we dump several of them, including that monster at the bottom which currently is wider than an entire page. - DavidWBrooks 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but please name a guideline that states how many free images we can use on an article. Now, I do agree that perhaps there are a few too many, but I also believe that the proper arranging of their placement can fix the visual clutter. Another possibility, given that we have so many good free use images at our disposal, is to pick a few for the article and gallery-ize the rest at the bottom of the page (since HTML loads first, then images from top to bottom, helping those with slow connections, of which I'm one :). I'll work on this latter arrangement, and see if there aren't other Commons images that can also be collected here. I admit I hadn't noticed that the panoramic image was 850 px, which is too large (I'm on a 1280x1024 monitor, so I sometimes fail to notice size issues), so thanks for reducing it to 600 px. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, it's almost the same photo as in the infobox. And very similar to the one with the trees, and the other one with the sunset. Three of those four should go; they don't add *information* to the article, unlike, say, the aerial shot. We don't want a gallery of similar pictures, no matter how arresting they are; that's not the point. Imagine what the Grand Canyon article would be like in that case! - DavidWBrooks 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try again - specifically I would like to get rid of four TourismNT shots:

• Uluru_sunset1141.jpg, the silhouetted trees currently in the Description category - because it's redundant
• Desert_Oaks3484.jpg‎., showing desert oaks - because it's a crummy photo
• Uluru_sunset1133.jpg - the pretty but uninformative verticle shot showing the sunset clouds, because it's a shot of the clouds not of Uluru - lots of places have pretty sunsets
• Mala Walk at Uluru - because it doesn't provide any information not given by the not-very-photographically-good but interesting shot below, showing the warning sign

This would still leave 10 photos (including the wide one at the bottom) and a map, which is a lot - Grand Canyon has nine pictures, albeit one is enormous. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after considering this for a while, I'm going to do a 180° and agree with you on this point. Uluru_sunset1133 is definitely fine to get rid of from the article. Same for Desert_Oaks3484 (we only need one tree shot). Regarding Uluru_sunset1141, I'm torn between getting rid of that one or Uluru_Australia(1), because I cannot stand the latter's photographic quality (blur, colour warp, etc). I'd actually rather see Uluru_sunset1141 replace it, just because it offers a different view from the panoramic image at the bottom of the page (which you should notice is of much higher quality than Uluru_Australia(1), even though both images are the same width). Mala_walk1178...ambivilant. I like it because it offers an example of "tourist facilities" at the formation, and fits nicely alongside the Lassiter Highway image. And remember, even deleted from the article, they will still be available in the Commons page for Uluru, so no real loss.

Alternatively, I would suggest removing the Perentie lizard image...the fauna/flora section is somewhat crowded. As for other images, I believe I'd like to crop the Climbing photo to get rid of the shadow, which also has the benefit of narrowing the image and reducing its footprint. Also, what image would you suggest to replace Uluru_sunset1133? Would be a shame to leave such a wide open space, but the only really neutral image would be the aerial shot. Perhaps something from commons:Category:Uluru. Once we determine which images to remove, I'd like to go in and reorganize them, unless you or another objects. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cropping that shadow out would be great; the sign is interesting, though. I agree with removing the lizard shot; we have too many animals. And I bow to your opinion as to which sunset looks better. As for moving them around for layout reasons, I would need to dump pix and see what we've got left before I could really have any opinion - but if you have ideas, please go ahead and re-arrange things. Why not kill the ones we agree on, and see what's left? - DavidWBrooks 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, prelim images removed, and nothing has been relocated. I'm actually thinking of finding a completely different full photo of Uluru from the Commons archive (perhaps commons:Image:Uluru2.jpg, cropped a bit to focus on the formation?), and replacing the sunset image as you suggested (given that the formation is rather distant there. Here's another idea: modify the warning sign image to be *just* the sign, and then crop down commons:Image:Australie_3_034.jpg a bit and stick it in there. Both illustrate important aspects discussed in the article, but I'll leave that as your call. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a "classic" photo of Uluru at the start of the article - replacing the aerial, I think. My suggestion: Move your panoramic up there (shrinking it, though) and move the aerial shot down to fill in a gray area. - DavidWBrooks 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at the page now. I doubt this is quite what you meant, but this preserves several aspects and minimizes whitespace. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - the panoramic is too big for that high in the article, I think; it's confusing. Maybe move it down to a lower section break and move the "uluru at sunset" pic with the trees up? - DavidWBrooks 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review results

The GA status of this article has been delisted by a vote of 5-0 due to failure to meet GA criteria. The review can been seen here. Once issues have been addressed and the article is brought up to standards, it can be renominated. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with future edits. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anunu?

The PBS documentary film about Uluru that is airing now describes a people who live in the area, called the "Anunu" (not sure of the spelling). This name doesn't appear in the article; should it be added? Badagnani 01:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, the correct spelling is Anangu. They're discussed throughout the documentary but aren't mentioned in this article at all. Badagnani 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, aṉangu is a term that used to describe humans in general, but has come to describe speakers of the Western Desert Language. As such, aṉangu isn't "a people" such as the Pitjantjatjara are a people, but simply a descriptive term. Because of this, and because the actual local clans are mentioned, there isn't much need to use the term in the article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TOC and indentation

For reasons I don't understand, the placement of the TOC (Table of Contents) causes the section header "Name" to be indented on the following line, although there's no indentation when the page is edited. Anybody understand why? (perhaps that's why somebody else removed it; it has been replaced) - DavidWBrooks 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, indented how, specifically? Also, what browser are you using, as it may be specific to that one (though I notice no such problems on IE6, 7, Opera, or Firefox). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is or isn't indented will vary greatly with screen resolution/width of the browser window, with the browser being used much less relevant. WP:TOC suggests floating the contents when it is beneficial to the article, and not when it adversely affects it. In this case, it makes the article look particularly ugly (including forcing text between two floating elements - explicitly discouraged by the MOS) in many standard situations. It really isn't a good idea. JPD (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good arguements, and I have no problem with it being removed if a case is made and supported by evidence. My only problem was it was being removed without any explanation. Let me ask this: were the map image moved elsewhere, would your argument still stand? The TOC is fairly narrow, and having tested it at various resolutions (from 640×480 to 1280×1024, with and without the image in place at that location; and 640 is only used by a tiny minority at this point in time) it seems to remain quite acceptable. Yes, there is a narrow gap between TOC and paragraph, but nothing significant. I'm simply of the mindset that significant whitespace makes the top of the article look...poorly designed? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is more to it than resolution - I don't like what I see using a full screen Firefox window with 1280x1024 resolution. (I also think it is not relevant to talk about how many people have lower resolution, as many deliberately with higher resolution choose to use narrower windows for the sake of readability.) It might be better without the map, but I generally don't like having the text indented by a TOC anyway. There is such a thing as too much whitespace, but I don't think crowding everything together is better. JPD (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Uluru, another word for goodbye?

I recently was watching the Australian series of Big Brother and one of the housemates used the term "Uluru" in place of goodbye/seeya/etc, dunno if this is worth anything tho. --211.28.215.112 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the word used was hooroo or ooroo, rather than Uluru. JPD (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. Hooroo is paticularly common in Queensland where BB is filmed. Robert Brockway 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology & Creationism

The creationism paragraph in the geology section seems to me to violate Undue weight policy. That is, there have been hundreds of papers written about the geology of Uluru and the surrounding area and one (non peer reviewed) paper written by A A Snelling about Uluru from a creationist perspective. This sentence from the policy seems most appropriate: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Ashmoo 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way, but it seems like a valid argument on the other side, since the rest of the article is presented from a largely evolutionary view. I see it as an interesting arguement, even if I disagree with it. Either way, I don't think the current version is POV in its form; it simply makes a statement about what an arguably large group of people believe and presents a reasoning based on known facts that, if the source is to be believed, even modern science isn't quite able to explain. Any other opinions out there? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is baloney and nonsense, but I think the discussion of this bogus argument is a reasonable addition - it's not overplayed, it describes the argument succinctly. - DavidWBrooks 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think creationism has any merit in this article, it generally isn't peer reviewed and has only a small belief in all religious communities. If you put this in then the view of other religions MUST be included, or it will be selective inclusion. The native culture of the area, in the case the Indigenous Australians custodians of the land. Enlil Ninlil 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since creationism is very much a minority viewpoint, it should not normally be included. There are places where it might deserve a mention, but I don't think Uluru is one of them. I think a good rule would be that the Creationism viewpoint should only be included if it has been a significant creationist "battleground", but this has not been the case for Uluru. Otherwise you'd have the creationist viewpoint in every single geological article, and that would be giving WP:Undue Weight. Peter Ballard 00:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree, but in my opinion I think this section raises an interesting point, namely that scientists cannot explain why there is so little weathering apparent in the arkose and sandstone. If someone would like to write this observation in a form that removes the creationism aspect (but while still citing a decent source...while presenting an alternate POV, Creation is still a quite reliable and well researched source), then feel free. I just don't see a problem at this moment, truth be told. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand so wont do anything to the article, but will try to find a better article on the geology of the rock formation. Enlil Ninlil 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hunster: you then should be able to produce WP:Reliable Sources (i.e. not Creation Scienists) confirming that "scientists cannot explain why there is so little weathering apparent in the arkose and sandstone". I'm sympathetic to some elements of Creationism, but as it stands the paragraph juts out like a sore thumb and doesn't belong. Peter Ballard 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't care one way or another, and frankly don't care to search for addition materials on this subject. The article was fine before and I feel it is fine now, which was the whole point of making the edits I did to that paragraph, else I would have removed the material myself. No offense, but your statement is fairly POV in itself...saying Creation scientists are inherently unreliable is the same as saying Evolution scientists (or any other) are inherently unreliable. As I said on User talk:Goo2you, regardless of which side one supports, both beliefs are just theories...neither is truly proven nor disproven. One of the tenants of Wikipedia is the idea that we don't go for known "truths" but for what can be verified. I honestly feel this particular source satisfies this ideal. Do whatever the majority wants, I've said my piece and will continue to try and improve the article in what ways I can. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but it seems no-one has addressed the 'Undue weight' problems with the inclusion of Snelling's article. A convincing case needs to be put forward as to why Undue weight isn't violated for the paragraph to avoid removal. Ashmoo 10:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed per undue weight and lack of reliable source. The ...both beliefs are just theories... comment above shows a distinct lack of understanding of science as does the proven nor disproven bit. The coarseness and lack of sorting are typical of an alluvial fan arkose deposit around a rapidly eroding as it was being uplifted granite bearing mountain range. Vsmith 11:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence offered that Creation is not a reliable source, and to have a single paragraph from a creation science position out of a whole article is far from giving that position undue weight, especially as the paragraph was re-written for NPOV. Goo2you 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have peer reviewed sources in front of me (most already cited in the article) that give more details of the arkose composition and origin than are presently mentioned; I'll try to put sourced statements up when I get a spare moment. Basically, its a pretty typical arkose, angular to sub-rounded grains, biased towards more stable minerals like K-feldspar and quartz, less stable plagioclase is rarer and mostly highly altered, no mention of biotite (common granite component but a relatively unstable mineral). As Vsmith says, its what we expect from alluvial fan deposition off a granitic mountain front, as can be demonstrated in the modern environment. --Zamphuor 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zamphuor for filling in some referenced details. I didn't have ready access to refs and insufficient time this morning to expand further. Good job. Vsmith 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Goo2you, please address this quote from WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not. To me the Creation/AA Snelling article seems to be a minority of 1. Ashmoo 13:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking into the source [5] this site wouldnt be considered a WP:RS for information as it states "AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted" as well as "The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on". I recommend that caution be exercised and that information be support by a source that is a recognised geological peer reviewed publication. Gnangarra 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally WP:REDFLAG says Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Gnangarra 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg

Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Superstitions?

Surely it is a violation of NPOV, as well as offensive to an ethnic group to refer to their beliefs as "superstitions," as a section of this article does. I am changing it forthwith to "Legends and Traditions," altough there may be a better title (almost anything would be better than "superstitions."Pelegius (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The location map is completely wrong

'nough said. Hesperian 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. At least on my screen, it compares almost perfectly with Google Maps and Yahoo Maps. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks okay now; not sure what happened before. Hesperian 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked recently, but I think either the Geobox or the mapping folk have been playing around with one of their templates after some complaints about bad mapping elsewhere. I recall other map I saw that was completely fubar, but I cannot remember whether it used Geobox or the NRHP template. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that alot of maps have the location of Ularu at alice springs, which is why there is often confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.133.22 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition of gallery?

I would like some input regarding the feasibility of a gallery section in this article.--24.65.85.21 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we have more than enough photos already. Uluru is gorgeous, but photos here need to provided information, not just visual interest. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember properly, but I think this article used to have a gallery, which was removed as unnecessary given the significant number of images already present. Either way, a gallery and category of images already exists over on Commons, which is conveniently liked at the bottom of the article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New images

I've just uploaded Image:Uluru Surface.jpg and Image:Uluru_Sunset.jpg to Commons. Since there already is a large number of good images, I'll leave it to others to include the if they are useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

Was this revert[6] too harsh? My opinion is that Uluru is so significant in its own right (arguably Australia's greatest national icon), that documenting references to it in US TV series detracts from the article. But a separate article called something like "Uluru in popular culture might be warranted, like e.g. Statue of Liberty in popular culture. Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that seemed like a fine revert; for a major cultural and geographical thing, such additions are just trivia. If a significant number of pop culture references can be identified, then a spin-off article might be warranted. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3