Talk:Australia Day/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

Change the url for the citation titled "National Australia Day Council Annual Report 2010-11 p3" to be "http://ausdayold.siteinprod.com.au/storage/11280_NADC%20Annual%20Report%202011_Web%20Ready%20PDF.pdf". There is currently no link for this citation. Antcassidy (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Claim of 60,000 marched in Melbourne

The statement that 60,000 protesters marched in Melbourne on January 26 2018 is controversial as only one activist claims that figure. Most people say there was only 7,000 in Melbourne on the day.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/australia-day-2018-heavy-police-presence-around-melbourne-rallies/news-story/3cd02836c7e636edd2219b86bab3bb3d

I've updated the article to say "estimates ... ranged from 7,000 to 60,000", to reflect the sources. That's quite a range though - do we have any other reliable sources that might give us a more accurate estimate? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

ABC said 25,000 [1]. The Age said "tens of thousands"[2]. The Guardian said 40,000 to 60,000 [3]. The the Herald Sun says, "Others at the march suggested the crowd was closer to 7000." without specifying who "others" were. Adpete (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's best to delete the comment altogether. "Participation in protest marches on Invasion Day/Australia Day has been increasing; estimates for the 2018 protest in Melbourne ranged from 7,000 to 60,000 people" is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. What we need to do is find a Reliable Source supporting the statement that protest marches have increased, or delete the entire sentence. Adpete (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree and have amended to read: "Thousands of people participate in protest marches in capital cites on Invasion Day/Australia Day; estimates for the 2018 protest in Melbourne range into tens of thousands." I've added the ABC report, which is the most comprehensive; I guess it is citing police estimates. Wikiain (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me - stays away from having to decide upon conflicting reports. Stickee (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In some ways, I like it less now. Because, the real point is that this level of opposition and demonstrations is increasing, and has been noticeably increasing for a couple of years. But a WP:RS to support this has been hard to find, at least for me. Adpete (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I was sorry to take that out but did so because, as you say, it needs a source. I hope somebody can find one. Wikiain (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this wasn't a criticism of you. I agree it was the right thing to take it out. I just wish we could find a source and put it back in! Adpete (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that you were criticising me. All the best. Wikiain (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Juice Media and #Changethe date

Hi - I recently created the page The Juice Media which covered off the controversy of the Australia Day Piracy video parody - was wondering if this issue and the #Changethedate movement should be noted on here? Nestek (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So long as you have some independent sourcing about the movement's activities, something could be added to the Suggested changes to the date section. As someone quite technically literate, but who cannot get excited about Twitter, I would have to say that some indication of the size and notability of the movement would be needed. It's not just a couple of enthusiasts having a group think, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-order "Polling" section

Requested change: Move the final paragraph relating to the 2017 "essential polling" poll into the second paragraph with the other 2017 poll results. 23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)131.217.32.189 (talk)

Good call - I spotted that myself the other day and meant to come back to it. I've re-ordered the paragraph and added a few more details from existing sources and Wiki links. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this article be pending-changes protected?

This article is now quite comprehensive and doesn't appear to see much editing activity outside the time around January 26. But it does appear to attract a fair bit of vandalism at random times through the rest of the year. So wondering if we should make it pending-changes protected all year? I've never applied for a protection on a page before so am hesitant to apply for it on this one before soliciting views here on whether it would be a good idea. Oska (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how the protection criteria are applied, but this seems reasonable to me. Or Extended protected? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Indefinite protection: "As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption." Apart from vandalism every year around 26 January (on which there has been temporary protection), there has been "severe long-term disruption"—mainly in persistently removing from the infobox and elsewhere the nicknames "Survival Day" and "Invasion Day", despite a hidden remark for editors in the infobox that inclusion of those names has been settled by consensus. These racist removals have always been quickly reversed, but shouldn't be permitted. Wikiain (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink and Wikiain: Just letting you know I made the request for indefinite protection and it was approved. Oska (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink and Oska: Many thanks, Oska. Wikiain (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Oska and Wikiain:. Good work. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Flag flown at Sydney Cove in the morning or in the evening?

The article currently reads thus:

On 25 January the gale was still blowing; the fleet tried to leave Botany Bay, but only HMS Supply made it out, carrying Arthur Phillip, Philip Gidley King, some marines and about 40 convicts; they anchored in Sydney Cove in the afternoon. On 26 January, early in the morning, Phillip along with a few dozen marines, officers and oarsmen, rowed ashore and took possession of the land in the name of King George III. The remainder of the ship's company and the convicts watched from on board Supply.[citation needed]

So this says they rowed ashore in the morning and 'took possession of the land'. With no given source.

But this is what Phillip's journal says:

26 January 1788

In the evening of the 26th the colours were displayed on shore, and the Governor, with several of his principal officers and others, assembled round the flag-staff, drank the king's health, and success to the settlement, with all that display of form which on such occasions is esteemed propitious, because it enlivens the spirits, and fills the imagination with pleasing presages.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00101.txt

Evening, not morning. And no talk of 'taking possession of the land' just a raising of the flag and toasts to the king's health and the success of the settlement.

Oska (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00101.txt has two entries for 26 January:

First entry:

On the 26th, the transports and store ships, attended by the Sirius, finally evacuated Botany Bay; and in a very short time they were all assembled in Sydney Cove, the place now destined for their port, and for the reception of the new settlement. The French [...]

The debarkation was now made at Sydney Cove, and the work of clearing the ground for the encampment, as well as for the storehouses and other buildings, was begun without loss of time.

Second entry:

In the evening of the 26th the colours were displayed on shore, and the Governor, with several of his principal officers and others, assembled round the flag-staff, drank the king's health, and success to the settlement, ...

This could be consistent with landing (and "taking possession") in the morning. WP:OR (primary source) I know, but my point is that the journal does not necessarily contradict the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely taking possession formally could only happen once the flag was raised? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.rahs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/New-Evidence-Online-Version1.pdf says:

the Governor went on Shore to take Possession of the Land with a Company of Granadeers &

Some Convicts At three A Clock in the Afternoon he sent on board of the Supply Brigantine

for the Union Jack then orders was Gave fore the Soldiers to March down to the West Sid of

the Cove they Cut one of the Trees Down & fixt as flag Staf & H[o]istd the Jack and Fired

four Folleys of Small Arms which was Answered with three Cheers from the Brig then thay

But we really need secondary or tertiary sources... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1994

What exactly changed in 1994? I've found several sources stating that Australia Day on 26 January only became a nationwide public holiday in 1994, but none with any detail. Was there a particular state or territory that did not have it as a holiday, or was Australia Day celebrated on a different date, or something else? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't speak for the whole country, but up until then here in the state of Victoria, the Australia Day public holiday was always on a Monday, I think the first Monday on or after 26 January, automatically giving people an instance of that great Australian tradition, the long weekend. (I don't know how long back that arrangement went, but I am of mature years and can't recall a different, earlier system.) The memorable state premier, Jeff Kennett, I'm guessing siding with his Liberal Party colleague, prime minister John Howard, at federal level, somehow got things changed so that the holiday is always now on 26 January. So no guarantee of a long weekend. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Invasion / Survival Day

Are "Invasion Day" / "Survival Day" merely alternative names for Australia Day, as the article currently suggests, or are they separate events? I would argue there's enough material to separate the two along the lines of Columbus Day and Indigenous Peoples' Day. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Indigenous Peoples' Day, but now that I am, I would describe "Invasion Day" / "Survival Day" as potential versions of that, but with nowhere near as much official recognition. SO I'm not sure we're ready for two articles yet. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: "Australia Day", "Invasion Day" and "Survival Day" are all the same day. See Karina Marlow's piece in (currently) ref 8 at the end of the lede. Errantius (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

if one asked the average Australia (as indicated by the polling cited in the article) "invasion day" is certainly not an alternate name for "Australia day".

The phrase "invasion day" is generally used by a minority of australians who do not wish the date to be celebrated by anyone; "invasion day" gatherings are generally protest movements - not celebrations. By all means make reference to these views, but I would strongly avoid referring to the celebration and protests as a singular event. Willthewanderer (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think reading what Counter-celebration says adds a little perspective. To me they are innately tied together. Yes, used by a minority of Australians, but still clearly notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"Invasion Day and National Day of Mourning"?

This untitled edit [4] from March 2019 added the text: 'It has also been known as "Invasion Day" and "National Day of Mourning"'. This was uncited, so I added a "citation needed" tag. However, this also seems like a non-neutral POV to me. Should it remain at all? PatricKiwi (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the "citation needed" tag, since citations are given 2 paras later. Errantius (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please change information - the dates of landing for First Fleet. Current information is incorrect

"Observed annually on 26 January, it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and raising of the Union Flag by Arthur Phillip following days of exploration of Port Jackson in New South Wales"

This is incorrect. Colonists actually landed in Botany Bay somewhere between the 18th and 20th of January in 1788. That this is still one of the number one answers that appear when users search 'Australia Day' is adding to the divide, and is misinformation. Could you please change? UNKNOWN Editor

I found this reference --03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)OCrugbytragic (talk)

Hi OCrugbytragic. This section does say it arrived in Botany earlier, and goes on to detail their movements until 26th January, when they made landing at Sydney Cove. However it is all badly in need of proper citing (for which I don't have time now but might come back to at some point - I expect that there are adequate citations in the First Fleet article). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the logic of Australia Day celebrating British settlement rather than the day Australia become a nation?

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a "neutral viewpoint" with an aim of accuracy. Instead there are articles like this which ignore facts and pander to the PC crowd. (Unsigned comment by Autist4lyfe, 24 January 2022)

Moved this most recent comment to bottom. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Autist4lyfe, your question is not clear. Is there particular wording that you object to? Wikipedia reflects one of the common criticisms of Australia Day, often reported in the media - that the day is ill-chosen, because it is not on the day that Australia became a nation (1 May 1901), but rather the day that the British flag was erected at Sydney Cove. Please discuss here, and be careful about edit-warring. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I must have slept through that lesson. What's special about 1 May 1901 besides it being your birthday? --Pete (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think he meant 1 January 1901. But no historians regard that date as the one on which Australia became a nation (in the sense of a sovereign, independent nation). Six colonies merged to form one new colony. Sovereignty and independence came much later, but the precise date has been a matter of debate for many decades. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, the article goes into quite a lot of depth about why Australia Day is on 26 January. It also extensively covers the issue of changing the date. It's not the job of the article nor is this Talk page the place to debate changing the date. There are plenty of other forums for that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split

It looks to me as if there's more than enough content to put most of the Change the Date (and/or more general criticisms and suggestions, polls, etc.) into a new article, and it's not going to go away anytime soon. Thoughts? Any volunteers? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink I'm for it. Have a small section in this article then move the bulk of the content to a seperate one. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Proportional representation in citation of poll data

I have a concern that the final sentence of the first section does not include a suitable spread of citations.

Support for changing the date has remained a minority position, according to most polls.

There are seven cites, and while there appears to be a spread of journalism sources (News Corp, ABC and Nine Media) three of the remaining cites are from a right-wing think tank (IPA). The editorial policy of the IPA sources indicates a push away from the 'change the date' movement and as a result I suspect the poll data may not be wholly independent. When reviewing the remaining four sources:

• Ipsos indicates half of respondents believe the date will change within a decade,
• the Nine Media (SMH) article is a re-hash of the same Ipsos poll,
• the ABC indicates a clear trend over time towards a supporting position of changing the date,
• News Corp (news.com.au) state "more than half of Aussies now supporting changing Australia Day"

As a result, I'd push for a change to the sentence to a more moderate position, and I recommend removing all bar one of the IPA cites and/or additional cites for comparable liberal think-tanks.

Suggested sentence change:

Support for changing the date has historically been a minority position, however polls indicate an increasing trend of support for changing the date, particularly among Australians under age 30.

References

...^chat.edits 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Following no response I've made the changes, removed one of the IPA ref's that were from the same year same poll data, and I've added two current cites from new media outlets in 2022. ...^chat.edits 08:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ellipsis the News Corp article is itself referring to the ABC poll. While polls in general show a trend, the ABC poll is an exception to the rule. The language of the intro should acknowledge the reality that - at least according to the bulk of polls - the current date remains preferred. I will await your input before attempting to implement any further changes to this. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thorpewilliam, I don't think we can say 'the bulk of polls' say people don't support changing the date if this is entirely based on IPA polling. Unless there is significant polling from a range of sources, I think how Ellipsis has it is best. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow and tomorrow It's not just IPA polling. It's also Ipsos and YouGov, and the Guardian merely states of its poll that "57% of respondents would either support changing the day or keeping the traditional date with another day to better acknowledge and respect the continuous occupation of First Nations people". It's also worth nothing the IPA polls are not conducted by the IPA, but for the IPA by a polling agency (at least this is the case with the most recent one; I haven't checked with the others). Hence the ABC poll is the exception. The language mustn't be "the bulk of polls" but there ought to be a proper way of acknowledging that the 26th remains at present the preferred choice per the polling in general. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi both, acknowledge the points and also that the news.com.au article is referring to the same polling as the ABC (which I hadn’t picked up). I think the revised sentence still stands, sources such as the Latch support a statement that acknowledges a shifting trend (particular paras 4 and 8). The bottom line is I felt that the supporting citations of the original statement were disproportionately skewed to IPA, which I would suggest isn’t an independent or mainstream media source - I’d suggest that publication has a history of right wing editorial bias. I think the modified sentence still stands on its own and aligns with the current polling data. (Latch article: https://thelatch.com.au/change-the-date-statistics/) ...^chat.edits 11:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ellipsis Hi, thanks for responding. The sentence is certainly accurate. My only fear is that it may omit something which may not be inferable otherwise. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thorpewilliam I see your concern, but for now I think as is, is best. Currently there is broad sourcing for a historically minority position that is increasing but I don't think there are sources for more than that. As the future unfolds, who knows what polling will reveal.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow and tomorrow The thing is, as far as I can tell, that barring one poll all others indicate it remains at present a minority position as opposed to merely a historical one. Admittedly though, I can't think of a suitable phrasing for that in the lead that doesn't make a judgement in excluding the ABC poll as an exception to the others. I'm in the minority here, though, so I'll concede until (and if) someone proposes an alternate wording. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Recognising that Australia Day is controversial

Hi. Just following up on this edit, I think it's worth adding more prominently that Australia Day is a very controversial day. There are plenty of reliable sources that support calling it controversial. I'm finding that the lead is particularly ignorant to the significant and growing distain around the date, especially considering it has only two rather passive sentences at the very end that barely give any balance. I would particularly like to get some diverse voices in this discussion, to try and prevent there being a biased discussion here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dissent has been adequately addressed in the lead. thorpewilliam (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: I disagree. As I provided, there are a plethora of reliable sources that make reasonable note of the disagreement within Australia about January 26th. Two sentences at the bottom do not give due weight to several thousands of people in cities across Australia marching, over a quarter of Australians supporting a change, and almost 50% of Australians predicting a change of date in the next 10 years (source). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: It is, at the same time, widely celebrated and a quarter wanting change is still quite well a minority. Minority positions are indeed discussed, including in the lead (personally I'd argue for removing the mention of those who wish to abolish the day in the lead because it's such a small minority overall) and they are discussed at considerable length further on in the article. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Despite trying to boil this down into a simple minority-majority dialogue, you have to acknowledge that the minority still represents a forecast ~6.5 million Australians. There is a continuing upwards trend in the number of Australians supporting the change, and public opinion has grown significantly in recent years towards changing the date/other restorative measures. As you know, WP has very strong policies about the weight of article content in proportion to importance and impact - two sentences and a rather poorly written section (primarily, a lack of focus on the underlying culture and lived experience that forms the basis of the change the date movement) do not give due weight or respect to the opinion of over 6 million Australians. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: The significance of the 26th itself is only summarised in one, perhaps, two sentences. This is what leads do – they summarise information in brief. There's more about calls to change the date as well as the evolving focus of Australia Day celebrations in the body of the article. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: The historical significance of Australia Day as currently observed is detailed in about 2000 words throughout the article, and about 6 sentences in the lead. Regardless, the fundamental issue I'm highlighting here is that the weight upon the public conscious with respect to the change the date and affiliated movements isn't reflected appropriately in this article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I understand the point you're conveying, but again, I must disagree. Based on appearance it seems the "change the date" movement takes up over a third of the article, which in my opinion is more than sufficient. Furthermore, I was referring to what Australia Day actually represents in historical terms – "Observed annually on 26 January, it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and raising of the Union Flag by Arthur Phillip following days of exploration of Port Jackson in New South Wales" "The date of 26 January 1788 marked the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia (then known as New Holland)" – two sentences. Hence, it seems proportional to me. thorpewilliam (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: I mean, the entire section called "History" seems to be historical reference and the entire second paragraph in the lead is, so... anyways, that's a bit tangential. I still believe that the magnitude and sociocultural importance and impact of 'Change the Date' movements aren't fairly represented here, but I think it's best for us to just agree to disagree before this just becomes a circle. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Very well. At the very least our discussion here may serve to inform or interest other editors who stumble across it should they be wondering what the correct balance is. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Australia day is to celebrate Australia becoming a nation - "Observed annually on 26 January, it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and raising of the Union Flag by Arthur Phillip" isn't even close. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0910/AustCitizenship#_Toc224109062 Note the date when people could start calling themselves Australian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.253.129 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We give the Indigenous perspective in one of four paragraphs in the lede. There's certainly enough good sourcing to justify this - and more every year- but as we say "Support for changing the date has remained a minority position". I don't see any serious groundswell along the lines of the support for a republic which is another topic that gets a general flogging.

There's another minority position which surfaces at these sort of events and that is the use of Australian symbols to represent a White Anglo-Saxon perspective. "Australia, love it or leave it", that sort of thing. I like to think that we contain many different cultures within our nation, but still we get this trumpery each year. --Pete (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: @Thorpewilliam: @Skyring: I agree with ItsPugle. This page has clearly become outdated in its representation of the issue. It reads to me as roughly 10 years behind not just national and international papers and opinion polls, but also academic discussion, reference books, history books, and so on. The term 'invasion' is now the most widely used term by historians writing about Australia, regardless of their political persuasions. We need to find some way to sensibly update the page to reflect these changes. My proposed edit above about the lead sentence is one simple change. --Dnatime (talk) 12:00 26 February 2022

@Dnatime: A very significant proportion of the article is dedicated to proposals to change the date. In my opinion, that might be best dealt with by shrinking the size of that section and creating a new article for it out of the majority of the material presently there. Like others have said, it is discussed at length in the lead of the article, more so in fact than the reasons why the date is what it is. Australia Day is easily the standard term used in media and the public sphere. I do not know which proposed edit you’re referring to but if you’ll quote it I’ll be happy to comment on it. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Thanks for this. Creating a new article would certainly be an elegant solution. This would definitely dovetail nicely with my proposed solution above (it's in the Talk Page 'Mention in lead sentence / first paragraph'), which is to add a lead paragraph 'also known', then we could simply redirect to the new page, and reduce the amount of material here. -- Dnatime (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

DnatimeDone. I believe this was a good choice, and now both articles will be better suited to deal with their respective subjects. I have linked the the new article in the final paragraph of the lead as well as in the section, which I have renamed to what I believe is a more apt name. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Fantastic. Thanks so much for that. And another small thing, did you have any opinion on the above (in the Talk Page 'Mention in lead sentence / first paragraph')? I feel it would be more in line with the standard structure of wikipedia article.(talk) 9:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dnatime You’re welcome! Someone had to do it! I have to disagree about mentioning the name “Invasion Day” in the first paragraph. As far as I can see, Australia Day remains well the standard term for the day, and is the default in media and the public sphere. I think the total amount of space in the lead dedicated to calls to change the date proportionate to other content is acceptable if not slightly excessive (but I’m bound to my own biases in such judgements). Also, as the lead says, the protests are something of a “counter-observance” to Australia Day; a different event, just connected and taking place on the same date. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Thanks so much for weighing in on this! I think I agree with you here, but what I'm proposing is essentially to make it more in line with other articles where there are multiple names and alternatives. How about this as a solution. We add something in the lead paragraph with a link to the new article, which says it is 'also sometimes known by the name of the counter-observance' with a link to the new article you've created? I just feel the current page doesn't follow the standard format for wikipedia artices (I've offered a few examples above, but others are easy to find). Cheers! Dnatime (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Dnatime Hi, I certainly see your concern. A good equivalence in my view is the Columbus Day article. The first two paragraphs here deal with the day itself and its history, while the last paragraph deals with different names that exist for it (there's a few!). Compared to that article, ours even acknowledges differing names for Australia Day in bold and in the template (Anniversary/Foundation/Invasion/Survival Day). In terms of chronology, the general structural seems to make sense, and articles often introduce controversies or differing views in the last paragraph of the lead. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: That's a very useful and pertinent point of comparison. Thanks so much for this. Our page certainly does a better job presenting things in its current form and so I'm happy for it to stay as is. Cheers --Dnatime (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Dnatime No worries. Also, seeing that you're a new editor, congratulations on your participation and conduct. Keep it up! thorpewilliam (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Polls

The fourth para in the lede deals with counterviews to the national celebration. A sentence indicates polling support for changing the date with a large number of references to polls. For one thing, it is ridiculous to have so many references in the lede when it supposedly summarises the body, and secondly the polls are all over the place. IPA says 15% want to change the date, The Guardian says 65%! I suggest that this does not mean that the change-the-date brigade increased to a majority position in a short time so much as the numbers reflect the differing views of the publications. If we can find one poll conducted by a reliable polling body with published results over time, that would be good information for our readers. --Pete (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe you've misread that Guardian poll. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Celebration of the diverse society of the nation

@Thorpewilliam: First European contact in 1606 is not conjecture, and covering this significant event is hardly "extraneous" and "needless fluff", especially when discussed right next to a first landing in the context of a day that seeks to celebrate Australia and its diverse society. I am open to moving it further below, perhaps somewhere near the mention of Cook, but by stripping it of all that context the article becomes just about the second 1788 landing instead of the celebration of Australia. It doesn’t have to be stripped like that. Betterkeks (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Betterkeks The article is not about the first European landing nor first contact. Cook is only mentioned once in the article and that is to contextualise the landing of the First Fleet, for his expedition uncovered Botany Bay to which the First Fleet was initially headed based on his account of it. Janzsoon's expedition doesn't really factor, which is just to say it's not relevant to this article – not that it's not relevant to the historical exploration of Australia. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

National day of unity

@Thorpewilliam: Everyone finally being recognised with equal rights and obligations to vote is hardly "irrelevant/trivial" in any context about national unity. Furthermore, the fact that this happened just 10–11 years before a common date was finally adopted by all states and territories is significant, especially in a paragraph that sets out to be about the evolution of the meaning and significance of Australia Day which is meant to be a day of national unity and there cannot be unity until all are included. Betterkeks (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Betterkeks This is not an article about the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983, nor any similar piece of legislation. I must admit having no knowledge of the particular act, and a Google search doesn't show any signs of it having landmark significance. I'm afraid your inclusion of such information – and the expression of your own opinion without the backing of sources – is editorialising. This legislation is not relevant to the formation and development of Australia Day. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears this act established the Australian Electoral Commission. Once again, this is unrelated to the topic at hand. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Thorpewilliam on this - the deleted material is either unsourced or (particularly in the lead section) irrelevant. The number of years since Janszoon is not significant to the history of Australia Day. The number of years since a change to the electoral system (no matter how significant that change) is not significant. (Unless you have a reliable source that says it is, it's just your opinion.) Part of it - "all Australians could vote united by equal rights and obligations" - is incorrect. Not all (adult) Australians can vote, eg long term prisoners cannot.

If you can find some reliable sources that say those things are relevant to Australia Day, then a mention in the body of the article might be relevant, but they certainly don't belong in the lead section. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Polls and COVID

The poll numbers showing decline in celebration are bit deceptive, given that the two declining years given are from during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public gatherings were discouraged. This should at least be noted, to avoid appearing deceptive. A better approach would to be give numbers covering a wider timespan, if they exist. 2403:5808:3660:0:726D:C264:5E0E:C575 (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Australia Day - Rewriting of history

I have made many corrections to my initial statements, and I thank the people who took the time to send me feedback on where I was in error. I hope that this information below, now better reflects the truth. Captain Cook did not arrive in Australia on the 26th January. The landing of Captain Cook in Sydney happened on the 28th April 1770 – not on 26th January. The first ships of the first fleet arrived in Botany Bay on 18th January 1788. Phillip raised the Union Jack at Sydney Cove on the 26th Jan. The 26th of January is also the day Australians received their independence from British Rule. However, Captain Cook’s landing was included in Australian bi-centenary celebrations of 1988 when the NSW Government decided Captain Cook’s landing should become the focus of the Australia Day commemoration.

On 26th January 1949, the Australian nationality came into existence when the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was enacted. That was the day we were first called Australians (Aboriginals included) and allowed to travel with passports as Australians and NOT British subjects. In 1949 therefore, we all became Australian citizens under the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948.

There is sufficient actual evidence however, that a 26th day of January celebration was being celebrated by Australians well before the enactment of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. Apparently at some point in time, it became known as 'Australia Day'. Thus its quite possible that the enactment of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was timed to coincide with the already celebrated Australia Day date. Jason F2 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC).

A few straw men there. The First Fleet landed at Port Jackson on 26 January 1788. Doug butler (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I have checked my 1500 page 1974 'Illustrated History of Australia' by Paul Hamlyn (considered a bible) and here is a brief summary. The first fleet was headed by HMS Sirius, Apart from ships crew there were 1,044 people on board. On May 13, 1787 the First Fleet slipped anchor in Spithead, bound for Botany Bay. The ship (with Phillip aboard) Supply, arrived first (Jan 18th), three more ships (Scarborough, Alexander and Friendship) arrived Jan 19th and the rest of the fleet arrived on Jan 20 1788. Later, on the morning of Jan 21st Phillip including John Hunter rowed north to Port Jackson in three row boats. On the evening of 23rd Jan the party returned to Botany Bay, and he gave his orders for the transfer of the fleet. On Jan 25th Phillip returned to Port Jackson in the Supply and anchored that evening in Sydney Cove. Next morning (Jan 26th) Phillip and his officers went ashore and raised the Union Jack. Jason F2 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove invasion day

Referral of Australia day as: “Invasion day”; contradicts australian law as per statute τ 5.12.2 National Defamation Act. Therefore it should be removed. VAAW (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit odd, because there isn't a federal defamation Act. And who exactly would it be defaming? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be the British - there were no Australian citizens prior to 1949. That fact alone makes a mockery of this entire page Autist4lyfe (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@VAAW: a link to the specific law/Act, eg something on https://www.austlii.edu.au/ or https://www.legislation.gov.au/, would be helpful to this discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Too kind to VAAW: as Laterthanyouthink says and as can be checked in those sources, there is no such law. I've given VAAW a "disruption" warning—their third this year, following others—and propose remove this section. Errantius (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that it has to stay, as per WP:TPG - and it keeps a record of someone's apparent ignorance and/or attempt to deceive. VAAW might not last long as an editor if they continue the way they've started, by the sound of things! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

With your measured opinion I concur. Errantius (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention in lead sentence / first paragraph

This follows on from my discussion with Mitch Ames (talk). [5][6] ... I suggest we add 'Invasion Day' in the first paragraph because the term is now common parlance. Whether or not it is used in Australian law is irrelevant to the first paragraph of wikipedia articles. Consider articles with disputed narratives and multiple names, i.e., Eastern Front (World War II). They mention in the very first paragraph the contentious term which is only used in Soviet narratives 'Great Patriotic War'. The established practice on Wikipedia pages is to list contentious names as 'also called' in bold in the opening paragraph. Dnatime (talk) 24 February 2022

I've restored the original section heading, which Dnatime changed here, and inserted a separate subsection, to better reflect the history of the section. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Australia Day is the official name. Saying it's also known as Invasion Day implies that this is also an official name. Which it isn't. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skyring:You appear to have missed my point here. I am of course not saying that 'Invasion Day' is the 'official' name. It is an alternative name. Almost every Wikipedia page (here is a topical example: Revolution of Dignity) with alternate names includes such alternatives, even if not official, in the lead sentence or first paragraph as an 'also called' in bold. The current Australia Day page departs from the established custom of wikipedia articles, for reasons that seem essentially unjustified to me. -- Dnatime (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't missed your point. Perhaps you could look up what "implies" means in the dictionary? --Pete (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving on, would anyone else like to weigh in? @ItsPugle:? @Thorpewilliam:? @Mitch Ames:? -- Dnatime (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I maintain my original opinion that Invasion and Survival Day do not belong in the lead sentence, because they are not official names. Bear in mind that the lead sentence says (with my emphasis here) "Australia Day is the official national day of Australia.", so I agree with Pete in his statement that Saying it's also known as Invasion Day implies that this is also an official name. Which it isn't.. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Thank you for this. How would you feel about adding something to the end of the lead paragraph with a link to the new article on the Change the Date movement, which says something along the lines of it is 'also sometimes known by the name of the counter-observance' with a link to the new article there? I feel like the other information that follows the lead paragraph is less important than the final paragraph of the intro (after the material on foundation day, etc) and that would redirect people easily. -- Dnatime (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need a link to "change the date" from the first paragraph - the first paragraph should focus on the official aspects, as it currently does. I do think it appropriate to mention Invasion/Survival Day and the proposal to change the date in the lead section - as it already does. That being said, I think the lead section is currently too long, and the second and third paragraphs should be trimmed a bit, and possibly combined. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

We give enough coverage in the lede already. The "AKA" names are given in the infobox. If the Commonwealth adopts the names or if they otherwise become mainstream we can revisit this but they are a minority usage right now. I don't think our article on Australia Day should give undues prominence to a minority view. Is there not already an article on this subject? --Pete (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I am happy to trim the lead section then following Mitch Ames's suggestion. But I would still like to hear others first as to whether on what they think of my suggestion. To me, the introduction to this article may seem evasive by only mentioning a major issue in the last paragraph of the introduction (bear in mind that this issue is discussed prominently in national and international papers, and so on). There have been a number of proposals of how we can sensibly amend the lead. I am persuaded by the procedural amendment of adding alternative names more prominently, but more briefly, with links if people care to follow them (as I've said, this seems to me standard practice for names of various standing). Naturally I'm happy to concede this point, but we may also want to reconsider ItsPugle's suggestion below, and add the word 'controversial'. -- Dnatime (talk) 9:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: For the record, my suggestion would bring this article into line with the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. See 'First Sentence' in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: 'Bolding of title and alternative names'. It says alternative names should be in the first sentence in bold, not just offical names, giving a number of examples. -- Dnatime (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It says alternative names should be in the first sentence in bold — It says (with emphasis in original) "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names" - and we appear to have different opinions on whether the alternative names in question are significant. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Great. I'm glad we can agree on that. I would add, then, that if these alternative names are significant enough to go in the info box, then, according to the style guide, I would think they should go in the first sentence. Further, given much of the current article, even in its now reduced form, is devoted to this issue, I would take that as a sufficient indication 'significance'. It only has to be 'sufficiently' significant, I would think, given many articles simply list lots of alternative names in the first sentence, many of which are rarely used. -- Dnatime (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

if these alternative names are significant enough to go in the info box, then, according to the style guide, I would think they should go in the first sentence — No. In the infobox they are "nicknames", and Template:Infobox_holiday says nicknames are (with my emphasis) "any nicknames, alternatives..." - not "any significant alternatives". The threshold for a nickname in the infobox is lower than the threshold for bold format in the lead paragraph - the former does not required "significance", the latter does. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Good point. However, I am still persuaded that it is sufficently 'significant' based on my second point here: it is discussed at length in the article in a way that demonstrates its clear importance as an issue, whatever ones opinions of it. We could easily flag that this is contested in the manner I suggested above: something to the effect of '...also sometimes known by the name of the counter-observance...'. -- Dnatime (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

On further reflection, my reasoning is currently that the wikipedia community who collectively made this article may have already come to a decision that they are 'significant' alternative names simply by virtue of having them in all in bold in the lede already. Treating this as precedent might be the fairest way to decide what passes the test of sufficient significance. -- Dnatime (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article is pretty good as it stands in regard to wikipolicy. How about you read up some more on how Wikipedia works and if you have a problem, go through the established process for dispute resolution? Just because something has a reliable source or two doesn't mean that it is given special prominence. We have a neutral point of view policy which seems to have worked well for some time, and if you want to change it, here is not the place to argue your case. We have a para in the lede summarising the material in the body, our text is well-sourced and complies with policy and frankly I'm getting a little weary of people coming to this article and wanting to turn it upside down. Wikipedia doesn't set the national agenda; there's an election coming up, go vote for candidates who support your cause and if enough people care about it, we will happily reflect any change in official usage as per policy. But right now I'm not seeing much beyond a vocal minority. Definitely notable enough for a separate article, but we're not going to change the character of this article without some more real-world support. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up Pete. I agree that wikipedia doesn't set national agendas and my changes were good faith suggestions that I simply feel would make this a better article. We can see what others think. Cheers -- Dnatime (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment was not correct and was deleted by author Jason F2.

Excuse me, Jason F2: 1. The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was enacted, as it says, in 1948; it came into force on 26 January 1949. 2. Some would say that this did not establish Australian "nationality" but legally recognised its existence. 3. There is no agreed date of Australian "independence": for one thing, the UK could still legislate with effect in Australia up to the Australia Act 1986; for another, the UK still chooses the Australian monarch. But let's not debate these things here. Errantios (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't see why the "Day of mourning"/"invasion day" can't be listed in the content as the feeling or statement from some of the Aboriginal community. It should not be in the main heading as its a feeling/construct of the there mindset. WallyVS (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is now recognised as in fact an invasion by many descendants or compatriots (such as myself) of the invaders. Errantios (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Jan 26th 1949... The date we all became Australian

First fleet landing was Jan 17th 120.18.201.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

My copy of the 1500 page 1974 'Illustrated History of Australia' by Paul Hamlyn, states that the first three supply ships arrived on the 18th of January. 'On November 25, 12 days out from Cape Town, Phillip transferred to the Supply and with the three fastest transports - Scarborough, Alexander and Friendship - pressed on ahead, hoping (he wrote) "to gain sufficient time to examine the country around Botany Bay and fix on the most eligible situation for the colony". The Supply had been in Botany Bay only two days, and the three transports one day, when the rest of the fleet arrived on January 20 1788'. Thus: One reads from this that Supply (with Phillip on board) arrived on the 18th. I acknowledge that the 18th of Jan has little to do with the day the Union Jack was raised. Jason F2 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

An encyclopedia needs up-to-date scholarly sources. Errantios (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Be aware - Some fake news doing the rounds

I suspect the three previous topics above have been commenced by their authors on the basis of a misleading meme that's been doing the rounds, on Facebook and elsewhere, insisting that the current date for Australia Day was set AFTER the Citizenship Act of 1948. I suspect it's meant to be an argument against those who want the current date changed because of what it commemorates, on the basis that it "really" commemorates something else. Not true, of course. There is an article about it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've been sent that one by friends who should know better. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Seen it to doing the round on facebook etc... People doing there "research" on social media. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

False claims in this story

1948 Jan 26st Australia actually gained independence from Britian. Whilst 1901 was federation it has no bearing on independence. Your story isn't correct please amend. 2403:5804:3991:0:9DF1:FE7B:C6C3:C81A (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There have been many steps in Australia's path towards independence from the UK. The two you mention were both part of that process. Federation was probably the major one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48 is right. Federation was probably the "major" step, although definitely not sufficient. The most recent moment in this debate is the High Court's decision in Sue v Hill (1999) that, at least since the Australia Act 1986, the UK is a 'foreign power' within the meaning of Constitution section 44(i). That, however, produces the paradox(?) of an 'independent' country whose head of state is chosen by a foreign power. The question of when (if ever) Australia has become an independent country is discussed in detail in Blackshield & Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, 6th edn 2014, ch 3 - and presumably similarly in the 7th edn 2018 which I don't have (and an 8th edn is presumably on the way). Would users please so inform themselves rather than speculate from Square One? Errantios (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

This is incorrect.

The First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay January 18-20th January 1788. They then moved to Port Jackson and landed around 25th/26th January (as did the French expedition of La Perouse) Australia day is celebrated on January 26th because on January 26th the Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948 became law. It was the first time the term 'Australian citizen' had been used in any Australian legislation. 123.243.102.50 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you've been conned by a fake news meme designed to defuse the arguments to change the date of Australia Day. Australia Day was held on or near 26 January well before 1948. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is why the Act commenced on that day. Errantios (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)