Talk:Australia Day

Peter Lalor image

That's the most conservative damn image of the Eureka leader around. In wig and gown.

That's why I put it there.

Supporters of Constitutional Monarchy are quite pleased.

Article improvement

This article should be titled 'January 26th,' and not 'Australia Day.' It is centered around the date, the 26th of January and not the phrase 'Australia Day.' One of the first suggested dates for an Australia Day celebration was the opening of Federal Parliament, this was made by the Australian Natives Association in February 1908. Rodney214 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney214 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why it should remain Australia Day, and not be tied to any specific date. It's about the celebration, no matter what date may be chosen as the date for the celebration. Alternative dates have been suggested, and if one of them is ever accepted, it will no longer be held on 26 January. But it will always be Australia Day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase 'Australia Day' should only ever be used as a national day of celebration on January 1st. It is written (like the 10 commandments) in our founding documents,'January 1st is the date' that we were born as a nation. If people want to celebrate the 26th of January they need to call it by its rightful name, 'Foundation Day.' It is this incongruous mixture of two very very separate periods in our history that has caused so much confusion, so much debate, so much nonsense. Stamping 'Australia Day' on Governor Phillip's forehead never made sense and it never will. It's time this nonsense ended! Rodney214 (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article title is correct: 'Australia Day' is what the holiday's called by an overwhelming majority. Perhaps it shouldn't be, per your argument, but questions of 'should' aren't part of Wikipedia's remit. --GenericBob (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not the place to discuss whether or not things should be as they are; there are plenty of more appropriate places to have such discussions. Here is the place for (a) accepting that there is such a thing as Australia Day, (b) accepting that there is such a thing as a Wikipedia article on Australia Day, and (c) having discussions aimed at continuously improving that article. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, my apologises, you are correct this is not the place for discussions like this. But, the accuracy of this page is something that concerns me.

Firstly, there is a picture of a supposed Australia Day picnic being held in 1908 in Qld, this is simply untrue. Obviously, a librarian at the Oxley library in qld has seen the date and made a silly assumption that it must have been an Australia Day celebration. This photograph needs to be removed. You also cannot rename it an Anniversary Day celebration unless there is definitive proof, ie, that the original owner of the photograph in 1908 has written Anniversary Day picnic on the back of it. If the date is out by only several days this could actually be a picnic in Qld to celebrate German Empire day.

Secondly, I cite an article from the Mercury (Hobart) dated Monday 10th of September 1900 where the South Australian government was proposing a national day of celebration be held on October 1st, ["Of the making of holidays, like the making of books, there is no end...it would be more in accordance with the general fitness of things to celebrate the anniversary of the date on which Australia actually starts its new career. "Commencing the new century with public rejoicing at the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth will plainly and irrefutably mark it for all time in the history of the world. The two events will be so closely interwoven that there can hardly arise any future confusion of dates. Hence the reason why any suggestions or what may be termed half-and-half demonstrations to suit mere local circumstances are worse than foolish. New Years Day is a holiday throughout the world. Especially it is a colonial holiday, and especially will it be a fitting time to mark commencement of the Australian era, from which mighty results are anticipated."] Yet, in this 'Australia Day' article it states as early as 1957(?) 1 January was suggested as a possible alternative day? What about 1900! Rodney214 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE MISLEADING PHOTOGRAPH I have just received confirmation from the State Library of Queensland that image no. 66719: 'Australia Day picnic on the riverbank at St. Lucia, Brisbane, 1908,' is indeed incorrect. The inscription on the back of the photograph states, ""St. Lucia 26/1/08. To Roy. In rememberance of Rocky." Obviously a get together for a friend who had passed away, this is not an Australia day picnic in 1908. The library will be updating the image with the correct information tomorrow. Rodney214 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm removing it for now. - Bilby (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

BILBY SOMEONE HAS REINSTATED THIS MISLEADING PHOTOGRAPH - THE STATE LIBRARY of QUEENSLAND HAVE REMOVED ANY REFERENCE TO AUSTRALIA DAY - PLEASE SEE LINK BELOW: http://bishop.slq.qld.gov.au/view/action/singleViewer.do?dvs=1293325485841~29&locale=en_AU&metadata_object_ratio=4&show_metadata=true&VIEWER_URL=/view/action/singleViewer.do?&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=10&search_terms=st%20lucia%20picnic&frameId=1&usePid1=true&usePid2=true Rodney214 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

War Day

It seems as if edit-warring has broken out - as it does every year - over whether an alternate name for Australia day should be included, with objections to "some Australians" or "many Australians" see it this way.

My thoughts are that it is currently given undue prominence in the lead, and as the lead is a summary of the article, it should not contain sourced material, rather the material should be elsewhere in the article and the lead contain a short reference. Do we have a source giving the number of people calling Australia Day "Invasion Day"? Amongst the near twenty million of the Australian population, how great a number is it? A hundred, a thousand? Anybody done a count? It seems to be the sort of thing a few people say in furtherance of a political position, and I suggest that the vast majority of Aboriginal Australians would not use it in everyday talk. It is a divisive term, after all.

Using blogs as sources for our encyclopaedia is generally not a good idea. I notice the ABC is used as a source and that should be good enough.

Please, can we have discussion and agreement rather than edit-warring? --Pete (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little offended to see the issue described as an Edit war. I have reverted twice, on both occasions doing exactly as you have just done - asked the editors wanting to change the POV of the article to discuss it. They haven't. That's not a war. It's an ignorant, non-responsive, one-sided, pre-emptive attack on the article. Right. Having got that out of my system - I don't really care about "many" vs "some". It makes little difference to the point being made there. (Although those wanting it changed to "some" presumably think it does, in favour of their preferred position.) I couldn't see the link to a blog, even looking back at older versions, but I agree that in't normally appropriate. Almost every year the issue of the date (which is related to the name issue) gets raised in mainstream media and by some politicians. It IS an issue to a lot of people I know. (Don't worry, I know that's OR, but that's my view.) My perspective now is that those who want it hidden away from the lead are somehow afraid of the proposal to change the date being successful, and for the life of me I can't see why. You can love Australia just as much as the next person, and want a more inclusive event. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple changes and reversions in quick succession tend to attract attention and sanctions. It is disruptive. The lead is not the main article. It is a summary, a tempter, an invitation to explore. For that reason we don't tell the whole story, complete with references. We summarise. This is all part of accepted Wikipractice, in consensus developed over the years. It works.

There is certainly enough linking of the terms Australia Day and Invasion Day to warrant a mention here. Indeed we would be doing our readers a disservice if we neglected it. But there is such a thing as giving a subject undue prominence, and devoting one paragraph out of the lead's four seems excessive to me. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have been the one who stuck a reference or two in the lead. It would have been around a year ago (for obvious reasons) and I've done most of my Wikipedia editing since then. I wouldn't do that now. Happy to see them moved out of the lead. As for prominence of the issue, I see it as a biggie. However, while I'm an Australian of European background, I've had a bit to do with Aboriginal people (education mostly) over the years, so my perspective isn't "average". My concern is that there are two reasons for wanting to move this material out of the lead. There is the one you gave - "undue prominence" - which is fine but obviously debatable, and that which was obvious in this discussion last time round - "I don't like it". I know some people feel that way, even though I can't understand it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When the main article only has a paragraph on the subject - out of quite a long article - putting the same material at the same length in the four paragraph lead is undue. A sentence should be sufficient. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Pleasingly, it seems we as a country are maturing and reaching a point where this can be sensibly and officially discussed. The National Australia Day Council website is actually encouraging discussion on the matter of the date here. I will try to work on some wording about this for the article. (Probably not the lead ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, please do not characterise my edits as ignorant etc. Your comments are offensive and unnecessarily personal. I have not started an edit war. I have merely clarified the lead paragraph. Simply you cannot say 'many' Australians with out providing some corroboration as to how that word came to be used. In any case, later in the article the same sentence is repeated almost in entirety and 'some' is used (this is not an edit I have made). I also feel it entirely appropriate to remove a citation from an opinion article on a blog like website. There are many more reliable references than the one I took away. Just for the record, I'm one of a number of Australians who see Australia Day as a divisive day of celebration which should be changed to a much more fitting and inclusive date, not one that celebrates the dispossession of this continent's earliest inhabitants. Ozdaren (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would actually read and respond to what I wrote here and in Edit summaries, none of this would have happened. My concern was not so much the actual change you made, but the fact that you (and an IP editor) were making significant changes to the tone of the article without any discussion at all. Repeated requests of mine to bring the matter here were ignored. THAT'S what got me cranky. My thoughts on "many" vs "some" are above. Again, hence my comment about reading what I've already said. So do please have a look. I don't really want to have to repeat myself again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We're talking edits over a one day period. I've made no significant changes to the article, I was actually about to revert the IP editor's changes when you got in before me (their edits were major and totally unnecessary). Ozdaren (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the thoughts of the chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia notable enough for inclusion?

Pino Migliorino has an article in today's Age (and I would guess the SMH) all about inclusiveness on Australia Day. Not sure if there's anything there worth adding to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Invasion Day part of lead

Miesianiacal has done some good tidying up in the lead, but there's one sentence there that's troubling me still. It's the last one - "Proposals have been made to change the date of Australia Day, but these have failed to gain widespread public support."

The sentence is in the past tense, as if the debate is over, which is inaccurate. Suggestions for change appear to be ongoing, and appear unlikely to stop any time soon. (I've read and heard a few already today!) The last bit seems clumsy - "...but these have failed to gain widespread public support." It's a negative, almost gloating statement. Again, it's all about the past. The word "widespread" feels a bit weaselish. I'd say with a fair degree of confidence that it was written by an opponent of change. My personal opinion is different, but I'm trying hard to keep it out of all this. It just reads POVish to me.

So, I'm trying hard to come up with better, NPOV wording. I suggest leaving out any judgement on how the debate it going, and just saying -

"Several alternative dates for Australia Day have been proposed." HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, but I guess we could add something like "although, to date they have not gained the required support". Or something. :) "Required support" I like a bit, as it doesn't make mention of the extent of the support, and to be honest it may well be as much about who supports the changes as how many. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right about it being more about who supports a change rather than a number. My first thought about pointing out that proposals have so far been unsuccessful was, isn't that bloody obvious? The date hasn't changed! Hence my choice of not even mentioning that it has so far been unsuccessful. If we do say something there, "required support" is good. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is already a large, multi-point section about various proposals to change the date. Therefore I do not see too much to be concerned about in the tense of the opening summary of what is to follow. The what is to follow is the important bit. I see nothing wrong in changing the tense to past tense plus present tense either, but I just do not see this one line as all that important. I do not agree with "required support" wording as it implies there is an existing, agreed-upon benchmark of support, and that once that "required support" is reached, voila, the date will change. Even if, say, some vote showed 90% of Aust citizens supported the change, that alone does not automatically guarantee that the date will change. We shouldn't speculate that the date will inevitably change once the "required support" is reached, because we can't know that, and we do not even know what that "required support" might be. We could say that "There have been various proposals to change the date" and perhaps describe with references the levels of support and commentary such proposals have attracted, but that is all. Format (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I agree with HiLo48 that "widespread public support" is incorrect, as we don't know if there is widespread support (although I think we can safely assume that there isn't), and, even if there was such support, there is no reason to assume that the date would be changed. "Required support" I preferred as it left the issue ambiguous - it doesn't speak of a number or particular people, just that whatever support may be required, it hasn't been met. But it isn't that important to me - I'm quite happy with HiLo48's original suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think HiLo48's original suggestion ("Several alternative dates for Australia Day have been proposed.") is good. The subsequent sections describing different points of view on the subject make it clear there are contrasting views and that some people want it to change, and others wants to keep 26 January. "Required support" to me seems to expect that there will be a change some time, which to me seems to suggest a POV. Format (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Back after a long absence from the page. I'd like to correct an nomenclature error in the lead section. 'Inductaions' are not made on Australia Day - rather the 'Honours List is announced'. The 'investitures' do not occur until April (or thereabouts). I will also add an external link to the rigorous and well referenced history of Australia Day on the National Australia Day Council website. Longer-term I'll also hunt around for some images to further enhance the page. Galah66 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   --Galah66 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also added a few words about public festivals, concerts and citizenship ceremonies to the list of the more formal evnets.Galah66 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just capitalised Governor-General and Prime Minister int he lead. I'd like to suggest that I look in Wikimedia Commons for three images to add to the article: 1) an image of an event some time between 1788 and 1988 as there is nothing at the moment, 2) a citizenship ceremony photo as these ceremonies are central to the formality of the day, and 3) a photo from the Australian of the Year Awards also central to the official celebrations. Comments?Galah66 (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Have just added three photos as per above. Still looking for one for the sesqui-centenary section.Galah66 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Couln't find and royalty free photographs. As ist getting close to Australia Day I have been researching updates to some of the statistics and will bring them up-to-date where possible. I might tidy a few bits up here and there too. Galah66 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)