Talk:Port Jackson

Since it's the world's greatest natural harbour, wouldn't it be sensible to attach a harbour chart for those of us less fortunate, but no less nautically inclined to oogle with envy? Heck, I thought Boston Harbor (Sorry Brits) was large. Jan 26, 2005 fabartus@comcast.net

RE: Port Jackson is the natural harbour of Sydney, Australia, also known as Sydney Harbour and is the largest natural harbour in the world. Its best known features are the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Features of a harbor might be creeks, rivers, penninsulas, fiords, tides, et al. but never ever artifacts. Try correct and proper 'Landmarks' or 'Structures'. Jan 26, 2005 fabartus@comcast.net

body of water x is y times the size of the Sydney Harbour

• The addition of Boston Bay in SA is completely irrelevant to this article. It has been deleted. --J L C Leung 08:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note many bodies of water in Australia are referenced back to the size of Sydney Harbour. I don't disagree with the removal of the reference to Boston Bay and I assume the editor was being facetious. The joke being a body of water x is y times the size of the Sydney Harbour - whatever that might mean. For example: Lake Argyle (which is the Ord River Dam) .... "total storage capacity is 18 times that of Sydney Harbour" [1]! or perhaps "8-13 times the size the volume of Sydney Harbour." [2] or yet perhaps "nine times the size of Sydney Harbour" [3] - greeat statisitc - doesn't actually mean anything and we can't agree either. Not confined to the Ord River system. Warragamba dam is "4 times the size of Sydney Harbour" [4] - seems to be a generally agreed statistic :-). To continue Lake Eucumbene in the Snowy Mountain Scheme "holds nine times the volume of Sydney Harbour". [5] or perhaps thirteen times [6]. Not to drag on about the subject ...but Jervis Bay is at least 6 times bigger in volume (and 4 times bigger in area) than Sydney Harbour.[7]. It seems a point worth making. How "they" estimate the volume of the harbour - ie, what is included in the harbour for this statistic would be interesting.--AYArktos 09:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Well what you have is a lot better than a one-liner that made zero sense. --J L C Leung 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • can't we get rid of that whole section??? What value does it provide? --Merbabu 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The comparison of bodies of water to Sydney Harbour is common in Australia and is worthwhile keeping. The term 'sydharbs' is not commonly used however, as this is an encyclopedia it should be noted. This is from a government website : 'If you thought that it might be the amount of water held in Sydney Harbour you would be right. This unit first became popular during the construction of the Snowy River Hydro-electric scheme during the 1950s and 60s. During this time many new dams were being built in remote locations in the Snowy Mountains, and were so big that it was easier to relate their size to a familiar body of water (Sydney Harbour) than to quote a very large number of cubic feet or gigalitres. The volume of a Sydharb (at high tide) has been calculated at 562,000 megalitres.[8]' - Ctbolt 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also changed the comment of Lake Argyle being 'Australia's largest lake' to 'second largest artificial lake' in respect to Lake Eyre and Lake Pedder. - Ctbolt 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fort Denison totally reclaimed from undersea rocks?

This article makes the following assertion, without any reference to sources:

Several other islands have been linked to the shore by land reclamation, while one island has been completely reclaimed from undersea rocks, Fort Denison.

Yet the actual article Fort Denison says:

Fort Denison is a defensive facility occupying a small island located north of the Royal Botanical Gardens in Sydney Harbour. Originally named Pinchgut (possibly owing to the poor quality and quantity of food given to imprisoned convicts), the island was used as a place of confinement for recalcitrant convicts during the early period of British settlement. The fortress, which features a distinctive martello tower, was built in the mid 19th century as a defence against a feared Russian invasion during the period of the Crimean War, and occupies the entire island.

This makes it clear the island predates the fort. And it seems vanishingly unlikely that anybody in the early days of settlement would have gone to the trouble of creating an artificial island, just so as to imprison convicts on it.

Can somebody explain this apparant contradiction, please. -- Chris j wood 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is wrong. - Randwicked 02:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was that some of Fort Denison is reclaimed land. I've never heard that it was totally undersea though. --Alexxx1 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have done quite a major overhaul of the article using a couple of very credible sources. The island can be traced back to pre-European settlement when it was a 15 meter high rock. The Aboriginal names for the island are now in the article. Post-settlement, the rock was quarried for the building of Circular Quay and the island flattened to the current level. When the fortifications were built, the rock was sourced from nearby Neutral Bay. According to the sources I found, the island had been used as a penal site since settlers arrived. amitch 23:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusion on largest natural harbour

This article states:

Port Jackson is the natural harbour of Sydney, Australia, also known as Sydney Harbour and is the largest working natural harbour in the world.

and:

Jervis Bay in New South Wales is "at least 6 times bigger in volume (and 4 times bigger in area) than Sydney Harbour"

whilst the article on Jervis Bay says:

Jervis Bay is a natural harbour 16km north-south and 10km east-west, opening to the east onto the Pacific Ocean.

So if Jervis Bay is a natural harbour, and Jervis Bay is 4-6 times bigger than Sydney Harbour, then Sydney Harbour cannot be the largest natural harbour in the world. That just leaves the little word 'working'. But Jervis Bay is a naval base, so presumably it is also 'working'.

Can somebody please explain this discrepancy. -- Chris j wood 20:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Harbor article states "There is no dispute that Sydney Harbour is the world's largest natural harbor, but the identity of the second largest is a matter of controversy: several towns and cities across the world claim to possess the second largest."

California facts and trivia states "San Francisco Bay is considered the world's largest landlocked harbor."

Comparisons should probably be done in relation to area. [9] states the following statistics: "The 240 kilometres of shoreline encompass approximately 54 square kilometres of water". [10] states "Officially called Port Jackson, Sydney Harbour stretches from the headlands, 20km inland to join the mouth of the Parramatta River. It covers an area of 55 square kilometres around a shoreline of 240 kilometres and has a volume of 503,786 megalitres."

However, this SMH article of 11 December 2004 states "A five-year effort by the NSW Maritime Authority to measure the exact dimension of greater Sydney Harbour has revealed the estuary has nearly 80 kilometres more shoreline than anyone thought, 62,000 megalitres more water and is, on average, 1.6metres deeper." ... "The best estimate of the estuary's volume at high tide had been about 500,000 megalitres, but the authority now knows it is 562,000 megalitres. The perimeter of the estuary was thought to be 240 kilometres. Now it is known to be 317 kilometres".

Incidentally, the article comments "The commonly stated claim that Warragamba Dam, with a capacity of 2 million megalitres, holds four times the volume of Sydney Harbour now looks a bit rough."

I couldn't create a google search to help establish whether Port Jackson is or is not the "largest working natural harbour in the world". Like many other "well-known facts", I suspect it is wrong or needs to be qualified:-)--AYArktos 01:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't actually need to establish which is the largest natural harbour in order to disprove the claim that it is Port Jackson. According to its Wikipedia article, San Francisco Bay has a surface area of 1040 to 4160 square kilometres, depending on exactly how you count it. According to this article, Port Jackson has a surface area of 55 square kilometers. No contest on size then. I can see no reason that would exclude SFB from being a natural harbour whilst not excluding PJ; both are largely surrounded by land; both have relatively narrow entrances; both are used as places of shelter by commercial and naval shipping; both contain major port areas.

So I think I've proven that the claim that Port Jackson is the world's largest working natural harbour is wrong; I shall remove it from the article. -- Chris j wood 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've got a vague memory the the correct claim was "world's finest harbour", not largest. From memory the claim was made by one of the early mariners (Cook?) in the context of how the harbour provided protection from the weather, was navigable and such. "Finest harbour" is a subjective statement, so the article cannot say "Port Jackson is the worlds finest harbour". What it can say is "Captain Cook claimed that Port Jackson is the world's finest harbour{cite}." (substitute Cook with whoever did say it) Such a statement requires an iron clad reference to {Cook's??} words.John Dalton 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Scratch that suggestion. I just realised the article already includes Cook's words complete with source. John Dalton 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• ...and Arthur Philip's words too, which give the finest harbour assertion. Bigger isn't always better but I agree the largest harbour claim was a probably confusion with the finest harbour.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Port Jackson vs Port Jackson Bay

The latest edit to the article was to change every Port Jackson to Port Jackson Bay.

Is it really necessary for the article to says 'Port Jackson Bay', every time the subject is mentioned. It's very repetitive. And if so, shouldn't the article itself be renamed Port Jackson Bay?

It is certainly known colloquially as Port Jackson, so I think a better approach would be to explain in the article that 'Port Jackson Bay' is the official name but almost nobody actually says 'Bay'.

I should have signed this. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the official name is 'Port Jackson' - so there's absolutely no reason to call it 'Port Jackson Bay'

If Port Phillip (in Victoria) is Port Phillip, not Port Phillip Bay, why isn't Port Jackson just Port Jackson, not Port Jackson Bay? MulgaBill 10:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (a confused Victorian!)

I don't think it's ever been called "Port Jackson Bay" by anyone. I'm reverting this. Randwicked 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Port Jackson Bay? ha ha. where is that?

Tourism section

Apart from the problems with unsourced comments, does this article actually gain anything by having a tourism section? JPD (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing! And we can all guess who added it. No tourist ever visits Port Jackson, so I've removed the section --Steve 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

When saying "no tourist ever visits Port Jackson", you must mean something different from how I read it, but I'm glad the section is gone, anyway. JPD (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant that no tourist ever visits their travel agent to book a holiday in "Port Jackson", they know it as "Sydney". My meaning was indeed unclear. --Steve 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour != Port Jackson

The authors of this article might want to read this discussion. Why is Sydney Harbour redirected to Port Jackson? They are not the same thing. John Dalton 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A redirect does not necessarily mean that they are the same thing, simply that the topic is covered fully in the article the redirect points to. I don't think there is a need for separate articles here, although the difference should be spelt out. JPD (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category

Should there be a Sydney Harbour Category for articles related to Sydney Harbour or areas on the shores of Sydney Harbour and so on. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Midnight Oil image

Should we include this image?

I was wondering if an image of Red Sails in the Sunset, the 1984 album by Midnight Oil, should be included on this page. It's certainly a striking image, and it shows a large portion of the area. But then I thought: maybe the nature of the image would detract from the overall article, or if not, there should be some other artistic depictions of the harbour/port to represent other aspects...what do you all think? Egpetersen (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I love the band and agree that the pic was at the time a big talking point, I don't see any need for it here. There is no relevance. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were an appropriate illustration, it would be very hard to justify its use under the non-free content policy. It's definitely not allowed on this talk page. JPD (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Convicts

In the Fortifications section, it mentions 'convict uprisings'. Convicts? What Convicts? To read this pretty piece one would be led to believe that convicts played no part in the history of Port Jackson. I am neither an historian nor an Australian; it would be great if someone who is both would fix this. James Galloway (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing topics

Def. there should be some information in this article on recreational fishing, and also pollution (historically, by union carbide at homebush for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is quite a bit of environmental history to add. According to this piece, there was an abattoir at Blackwattle Bay which was moved to Glebe Island, lots of dredging, silt buildups, reclaimed mudflats and invading mangrove colonies, none of which is mentioned in the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Joke Section?

Is a 'Sydharb' really an Australian unit of measurement? I've lived in Sydney for 17 years and I never heard of such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

SF Bay is larger

and Wikipedia clearly states that SF Bay is a "harbor", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.33.158 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sydneycityscape.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cook's secret overland visit

Hello all

I have changed the title of this section and removed some highly speculative material which I don't think is in accordance with Wikipedia's "just the facts" approach. There is no documentary evidence that Cook walked overland to Port Jackson from Botany Bay. And if Cook wanted to keep Port Jackson a secret he wouldn't have mentioned it in his journals and commented favourably on its potential for safe anchorage. Happy to discuss.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I haven't looked into the whole story, but it looks to me as if you have removed some purely factual content along with the last paragraph, which could be described as speculative (although I'm not aware of a specific rule which prohibits a reasonably-argued piece of speculation amongst historians or academics, provided it's cited?). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)