Talk:Australia Day

Invasion Day?

It is rediculous including "Invasion Day" as one of the other names that Australia Day is referred as. This is only used by Indigenous Australians (Aboriginals), whom only make up 2.6% of the Australian population. 121.221.24.78 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many Anglo-Australians do not support Australia Day, preferring to recognise the rights of Indigenous Australians. Not only that, Invasion Day is a very notable part of Australia Day 'celebrations' and shouldn't be discounted as a view held by a small minority. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Aboriginals were here for about 40 000 years before the white people came and declared it "empty land" (terra nullius). They ignored the reality here and to the Aborigines the white people "invaded" their territory with inadequate discussion and negotiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.157.161 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As there still seems to be some disagreement, I have requested a WP:3O on the matter. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion Day should not appear in the first line as if it is an alternate, official name of the holiday - it is not. There is a section on "Invasion day" which should stay, and this section should be enough. We are describing the official holiday, the article is about the official holiday, so only official names should be listed in the opening line. (In an article about a film, only official titles would appear in the first line, not fan-invented nicknames for the film, whether they be complimentary or not.) Format (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove it. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

(Assuming Format's opinion was not an official 3O!) I think it can stay. Wikipedia prefers common names to official names so there is no requirement that only official names appear as alternative names. Thus, for example, the article Independence Day (United States) includes the Fourth of July as well as the Fourth, though neither of these is an official name. The only question, in my mind, is whether Invasion Day is a fringe concept. I've never heard of it but a google search pulls up quite a few references to protests, solidarity marches, etc. in the form of an Invasion Day alternative to Australia Day. There even appears to be a movement asking the Aussie PM to move Australia Day to a different date so that it doesn't clash with Invasion Day. Seems non-fringe enough to be included and I suggest it stay. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion Day is the name of the protest against European settlement of Australia. Calls to move Australia Day are not because it clashes with protests held on the same day that protest against Australia day - the protests would be held on whatever day the thing commemorating what they are protesting againt is held. Format (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of its inclusion for the reasons RegentsPark gave. Whether it is a fringe concept has to put into context. While Indigenous Australians are a small minority, they are the most notable and recognised minority in Australia, and nearly every Australia Day, Invasion Day protests are reported in the news. Certainly not a fringe concept, the rights of Indigenous Australians can be rather polarising in view that has always had a place in Australian politics. (Rudd's Apology is a good example of a recent event » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasons to keep Invasion Day as a name that Australia Day is referred to. Although the view of the Australian Aboriginal population should be recognised, the day celebrates not only the arrival of the first fleet but also "what is great" about Australia (hence, the motto of Australia Day - "Celebrate what's great!". It is the national day of Australia and politics should be kept out of it. I suggest that a secondary, separate article be created for "Invasion Day", or have a section within the article for the viewpoint of the Indigenous population, but remove it from the first line of the article. 121.215.153.186 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

THE UMP-TEENTH OPINION: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.213.170 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) CONGRATULATIONS WIKIPEDIA...for allowing some reflections on your international resource.

"INVASION DAY" SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO DEFINING "AUSTRALIA DAY".

1. The "officials" of King George 111, who landed and claimed title from 1788, of property in the Sydney Cove area, did so knowing full well, that humans beings, from a different culture, had already occupied that land. These officials, also knew they had superior military arms to enforce their wishes against any attempt by senior indigenous law makers to resist that occupation.

2. The Latin vocabulary ( terra nullius )came in handy to skirt that reality and redress that occupation with officialdom word labels, as a way to sanitize the conscience a little, and pronounce the new law on all human beings in the territory taken with the King's name and powers.

3. Two centuries later, the practical meaning of "terra nullius" is unfolding (eg community debate: from the Marbo case decided by the Australian High Court, or the relevance of human rights, or avoiding being an independent Republic ). Internet, Google and Wikipedia technology allow us as individuals to research any "official" word label/name or meanings to the forces in history. This is progress to deny the spin merchants sympathetic to King George 111's descendants, their glorious media monopoly on the way things from their "God" must go on.

4. Given that Sydney Cove in 1788 is near the beginning of "Australia Day", (on what ever day, latter day officials choose) spare a thought for King George 111, who was not a happy chappy at that very time, on account of difficulties in the Americas. The French military logistics had helped George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other founders of the U.S. of A. to deny his Royal Highness his priveleged, above the salt decrees. By force of arms, the officials of King George 111, were sent back home, and the Constitution of the U.S.of A. prohibited them from any future in that domain.

5. "George III, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith", is reported as the official Sovereign and Royal Title in whose military power and law "Australia Day" commenced.

The Latin version, supposed to give one that extra zing in royal primacy, as in the sterling moments of the Roman Empire, pre or post the "Holy" period, after Emperor Constantine 325 AD.

"GEORGIUS*TERTIUS*DEI*GRATIA* BRITANNIARUM*REX*FIDEI*DEFENSOR"

Reference to Royal titles: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Royal+titles+and+styles.-a0179456487

6. Hoity toity pompous defenders of the Royal Order on Australia Day will choose to sneer their predilections with carrot and stick, but DEMOCRACY is no champion of Sovereign rule. Australia Day should have more to do with "independence", and human civil-rights within a working democracy and less to do with the nostalgia of British colonial might. In so far as thinking and thought is part of the program for the future, the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson must rank as a necessary read for developing the future of Australia Day.

7. As an caucasian aussie, the freedom of speech entitles "Invasion Day" to be within the current definition of Australia Day, irrespective of self appointed official "historians" who are too keen to tell us what to think and censor people's rights to re-define where national loyalties are best served. Australia Day must be more than an appendage of the descendants of Royal Highnesses from King George 111.

Fourth opinion

In my view, presenting alternative (and largely negative) titles to national holidays as though they were viable, widely-used labels, creates a disturbing precedent. Any disaffected group who regards any national holiday as an anniversary to protest should be represented - it is purely arbitrary to accord this only to Indigeneous Australians. My opinion has always been that an article on national celebrations should deal with that subject matter first and foremost - its history, observance and practice - and give appropriate place to political disputation within a relevant section later in the article.

I point out that "Invasion Day" is not an official term; it is not widely used by Australians - hence cannot be described as "common usage"; it is not an accurate term (an invasion is primarily a military function not analogous to colonisation) and in any case, does not contribute to the meaning and understanding of this national holiday. The plight of Indigenous Australians and various historical controvesies are adequately addressed elsewhere.

Earlier in this discussion page, an effort was made to make a connection between the "Fourth of July" and "Fourth" as examples of common usage which differs from the official term. These examples cannot be used as analogous to the term "Invasion Day" for readily apparent reasons:

1. Making reference to the date on which a national holiday falls does not present a new political concept, as inherent in "Invasion Day". One may talk of "26 January" or the "25 December" in lieu of the official names, yet these still represent neutral terms for the national holiday falling on the nominated date.

2. They do not attempt to besmirch the national holiday. Although we must be impartial reporters, I do believe respect for national customs and sensitivity toward national institutions are important to consider in any reasonable effort to write an article. No one in their right mind would insert Neo-NAZI perspectives into articles describing commemorative holidays that surround the Holocaust; nobody insists on Turkish perspectives on ANZAC Day. Respect for cultural institutions should be inherent in any article addressing them - alternative and negative perspectives have their place, but not as presented in this manner.

For these reasons and others, I have removed the reference to "Invasion Day", unless compelling alternative arguments can be mounted to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.178.234 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the above opinion. The name "Invasion Day" is not used by the overall majority of the Australian population, and is not identified by a significant enough slice of the population for it to be included as an alternative term for the day. Certainly, the views of the Australian Indigenous population should and have been included on this page, under the separate heading "Other Uses". I disagree, however, with including "Invasion Day" in the first line of this article for the above reasons given. Kostanza (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with user:58.7.178.234. Invasion Day is a common enough term to merit 11,600,000 hits on a WP:GOOGLETEST. That quantity is higher than one half of the population of Australia and much higher than that of the most populous state, New South Wales. It stands to reason that most Australian adults would understand the meaning of the name, "Invasion Day". To clarify things, Australia Day only merits 182,000,000 hits, which is about only about nine times the AU population despite being our one national holiday. Even our [Australia Day National Conference 2009 http://www.australiaday.org.au/events/files/uf1hwh_Conference%20Program%20and%20session%20summaries.pdf] refers to Invasion Day. To ignore the National Government's interpretation of Australia Day would grossly disturb WP:NPOV. BTW, although I cherish Australia and Aboriginal culture, I find the name Invasion Day needlessly divisive compared to alternatives like Survival Day. The reality though is that any discussion of Australia Day would be negligent if it disregarded Invasion Day. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 12:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Placing Invasion Day next to Australia Day is misleading for the reader. It implies the term is commly used, like 4th of July. It is not. The media may be drawn to the name due to its dramatic quality, but it is rarely used by Australians to refer to Australia Day. If Invasion Day is there why not Survival Day? Aboriginal objection to the celebration is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article, but I reiterate, it is misleading to place Invasion Day next to Australia Day.--124.183.141.101 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is bigotry and/or ignorance on display in that last post. But it's to be expected.

Objection to Australia Day is not just from Aboriginal people. In my case it from a white Caucasian who wants our national day to be fully inclusive, rather than commemorating a day when we excluded a whole group of people. Australia has an acknowledged problem that many non-Aboriginal people never meet, socialise or work with Aboriginal people. This inevitably leads to ignorance of the real issues, along with a normal human fear of something they know little about, and hence feel threatened by. It leads to aggressive statements such as those on display in this Section. To reject a name because it is not used in the inevitably narrow world of many white Australians is actually not rational. It's just insular. Please take a broader view of the issue. Learn more about it. Understand it. Don't agree with a different view if you don't want to, but don't make that decision in ignorance. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Err... I was objecting to the placement of the term "Invasion Day", not the term itself. It's already covered in the info box under "also called" next to "Survival Day" which somehow doesn't deserve such prominence. But feel free to label me a bigot and proceed with your patronising post--Wikipedia is no place to assume good faith!--121.216.137.173 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My style was triggered by your words "Aboriginal objection to the celebration...." It looked like ignorance. I am white. I object. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that white people can object to the day, but objection is spearheaded by the Aboriginal community--as it should be (if it were otherwise it would be quite degrading and presumptuous). What I wrote didn't necessarily rule out white objection. I'm sorry if I appeared to show a "them vs us" mentailty.--121.216.137.173 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Australia Day

I respectfully disagree with the points that 58 and 127 have raised above, and have replaced the Invasion Day reference along with a citation to this morning's Age Newspaper. My reasons for doing so: 1. A title does not need to be an officially endorsed name to warrant inclusion, such was pointed out in the 'Fourth' example. However, 58 made a good point that the Fourth is neutral, while Invasion Day is negative. I agree. 2. Invasion Day is, to be honest, a minority view in mainstream Australian society. To most people, it smacks of irrelevance - just some uni students protesting for no good reason. Yet somehow, Invasion Day always gets airtime on the news, always gets mentioned in the paper. While some will dismiss the protests as rubbish, they are an annual, well-covered event that, for better or worse, have been and will be a part of Australia Day. 3. 58 raised the issue of Neo-Nazi perspectives on the Holocaust. Clearly this is an exaggerated comparison, but his other example is intriguing. In recent years there has been a growing push towards recognising the Turkish perspectives on ANZAC Day. I can't find the link, but I do remember there was a level of controversy regarding whether ex-Turk troops should be allowed to march alongside the ANZACs. It is not a matter of cultural respect, but a matter of impartiality. In Turkey, Gallipoli would be remembered completely differently - the article on the battle should not be written through Australian eyes only. Similarly, we cannot discount Invasion Day protests as something 'they' do. 4. The article, in the lead sentence, contains three positive names for the Day, two of which I have never heard used before. (doesn't mean they aren't, I just haven't heard them.) Only one is negative. In the interests of balance, I think even there is it put into perspective. Cheers. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree on some of your points. The first sentence of the article says it is about "the official national day of Australia", and it makes no sense to say "Invasion Day is is the official national day of Australia". 'Invasion Day' is a name invented by critics of the celebration, whereas the other three names given have all been official names for the celebration over the years. Placing the "Invasion Day" name in the lead therefore gives it undue weight, for what is clearly a very small minority viewpoint. Reference to the Independence Day lead section isn't particularly helpful, because in addition to being a case of other stuff exists, the "Fourth of July" name is widely used by a substantial number of Americans, in contrast to the minimal use of "Invasion Day" among Australians. So, in my opinion it's better off left out of the lead sentence. The section should stay, though, as should the existing reference lower down in the lead section about "Invasion Day" protests. - Mark 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't agree but it is not worth kicking and screaming about, especially since it appears I'm in the minority. I'm content with the sentence left out, as it is now. » \ / (⁂) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the date

AussieLegend has just reverted an edit where Rodney214 had mentioned another possible date for Australia Day, asking in the Edit Summary, "Has it ever been suggested as an alternate date?" Well, while Rodney124 probably went too far in his approach, the answer to that question is obviously Yes. Clearly Rodney124 has suggested it. Maybe others have too. The article mentions quite a few alternative dates. I could list several others. Wattle Day, 1st August, is a date occasionally proposed by snow sports enthusiasts since it would fall within the ski season. I could cite good references for that fact too. But it highlights a difficulty with this sort of entry in Wikipedia. How far do we go? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Find the references, then we can include it. The suggested changes only mention the most well known or popular suggestions, so if there is another evidently widespread suggestion feel free to include it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Australia was a colony in 1788, it was a self-governing colony in 1901(not an independent nation), it was still subject to a higher power in 1931 and 1942. We were both Australian citizens and British subjects up until 1983. A referendum on becoming a republic could not have been held prior to 1986 without asking for permission from the United Kingdom. Post 1986 we do not need permission from anybody we can do it when we please.

Compare the following clauses, the Australia Act 1986 should have been called the Australian Independence Act 1986.

Indian Independence Act 1947 4) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed... shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either or the new Dominions as part of the law of that dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion.

Australia Act 1986 (Cth) ((1) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed... shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.

Isn't wikipedia about educating and the sharing of ideas?

Fringe discussion debate: The way forward

I firmly believe the Australia Day debate fits the definition of a true fringe discussion.

Should we refer this issue to mediation and arbritration?

124.183.114.44 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Obviously, now that you have started this section we need to draw the attention of others to the conversation below under The overwhelming support for Australia Day. What you present there as facts I see as a blatantly POV purpose behind your change. I'd be happy for others to join the discussion too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If any of the facts and figures are wrong please feel free to correct me.

I had to fight quite a big battle just to get those assimilation stats into the wikipedia article on Indigenous Australians.

Victory is nothing without a struggle though.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

One of your "facts" that seems to be at the base of your argument is this - "Aborigines have dysgenic traits, which are those that deteriorate with intermarriage." In my humble opinion, based on considerable study of and working with Australian Aboriginal people, that is utter rubbish. Your statistics don't mean much to me either. I've already explained why. (I note that that poll you have turned into "scientific pollS" is actually almost six years old. That strengthens my view about its lack of relevance.) As I said, happy for others' opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - lack of relevance of the "debate". Why would the figures have changed? We've hardly heard a peep out of anyone about changing the day since then.

It's going back in. That same poll is cited in the wikipedia article on the Australian flag.

If you think that australian aborigines don't have dysgenic traits then I'll let you think that.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The only 'battle' that you had to fight to get those stats into Indigenous Australians - and it certainly looked like a big battle - was against your own inability to comprehend Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Your initial edits there were reverted because they weren't supported by sources; some misrepresented the source's figures, and IIRC others made interpretations that weren't contained in the source. Your later edit was accepted because it made more modest claims, supported by a cited source, and without personal interpretations. --GenericBob (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed 2004 Newspoll

The wikipedians who contributed to the article on the Australian flag didn't go on with irrational nonsense when the 2004 Newspoll was cited at the end of that article.

Australia Day has overwhemling majority support. Get over it.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasons have been given for concerns about the poll. Discuss those reasons please, rather than describing them as "irrational nonsense". That's not helpful to either the article or your case.

And please stop adding new sections in the ad hoc way you are. The convention is to add new material at the end so that it can be followed chronologically. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Get over it.

If it showed 79% support for change you would proffer no spurious reasons for its omission I bet.

When that same poll was added to the wikipedia article on the Australian flag none of those editors carried on as stupid.

The radical aboriginal rights activists might just have to accept defeat.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the newspoll results have been included in a form that can't be argued with.

Victory!, victory!, victory!

VICTORY!

124.183.114.44 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please act in a little more good faith and with a little more humility. I disagree that the poll results prove anything of the kind you claim, but I withdrew from the discussion for a while to allow others to observe and to make comment. I did this for the sake of Wikipedia, not to give you any kind of victory. I know there's no point trying to persuade you to see things differently, but I simply, humbly and politely record my views here. I personally believe a post like yours above has no place in Wikipedia, even on Talk pages. That's not because I disagree with what you say, but because I disagree very strongly with the way you say it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no point trying to pretend the "debate" over Australia Day is anything other than a fringe discussion.

I'm independently wealthy. Would you like me to sponsor another Newspoll on Australia Day? Yes or no. I could arrange it today.

The wikipedians on the Australia Flag page didn't go on stupid when I added the results to that page.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read this carefully. I've tried to say it before. Calling other contributors' behaviour stupid is not acceptable here. Nor is it constructive in any discussion.

The paragraph on the Newspoll in the Australian Flag page is very similar to the one now in this article. That's probably why is hasn't attracted criticism. It contains no subjective conclusions. That was my concern with your original wording here. As well as presenting the poll results, you drew the conclusion about it being a fringe discussion. That bit's your personal opinion, an interpretation, not a concrete fact, and bound to attract criticism. The Wikipedia approach is to present facts and let readers draw their own conclusions, such as whether the debate is fringe or not, or whether the poll was a reasonable one. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but none other than Geoffrey Blainey told me it is a fringe discussion. He'd know better than you or I.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just cause a motely collection of fringe dwelling academics and journalists and the odd member of the radical faction of the ALP or greens suggests moving the date, that dosen't mean it's a live issue that engages Joe Average from Mt Druitt.

A "minority preoccupation" and the current leader of the opposition would call it.

The poll results certainly attest to it.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming support for Australia Day

I have added this to the article:

"It remains a fringe discussion with polls showing a significant majority of Australians support January 26th celebrations. According to a 2004 NEWSPOLL that asked, "Do you think that Australia's national day should continue to be celebrated on the 26th of January, or should it be moved to a day that is not associated with European settlement?", 79 per cent favoured no change, 15 per cent favoured change and 6 per cent were uncommitted." Source: http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.5764.1.0102australia_day.pdf

The intermarrige rate for Australian Aborigines is 69% and it is estimated that there are only between 30,000-50,000 full bloods left in Australia.

This could be taken to mean that most modern aborigines are quite happy with the demographic changes that have taken place since British settlement.

124.183.252.83 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the change. The word "fringe" makes it clearly a POV addition. Your views on Aboriginal people, particularly using the term "full bloods" (archaic, and not in common use), shows an ignorance of that part of Australian society. What is the real purpose of your change? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that "fringe discussion" is probably an appropriate term. In the grand scheme of things, it's one of the less important discussions. It's not a central issue and only seems to appear in the lead-up to and around Australia Day. Even then, nobody really seems to take it seriously, except those involved in the discussion. I'm not sure what the intermarriage rate for Aborigines has to do with anything though. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue that's not going to be easily resolved with anything like a popular opinion poll from a media outlet. If the population were to be asked other questions surrounding those celebrations I would predict some less than helpful results. I suspect a significant proportion wouldn't know exactly what is being commemorated anyway, despite the hint in the initial question. Knowledge of the Aboriginal situation is also sadly very thin on the ground among a lot of Australians. That is borne out by the comments from our IP above which bear a startling resemblance to some of the arguments used at the time to justify the stolen generations. Most Australians would never have seriously contemplated the issues involved in the day being a sensitive one for Aboriginal people. When we have proper referendums in Australia, serious attempts are made to educate voters about the various issues involved. Obviously that wasn't the case here. I'm very uncomfortable with the results of such a shallow poll being placed in the article, clearly with the intent of suggesting that the case for a change in the day has little merit. The adjective fringe, in particular, demonstrates the loaded nature of the proposed addition. A non-POV contribution would not require such an adjective. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "Internet polls aren't worth the paper they're written on". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find Newspoll is a telephone poll, and a source worth quoting. The wikipedia article on the Australian flag cites a Newspoll. I've put the basic poll numbers back in there while we debate if it is in fact a fringe discussion. As it is referenced no one should have a problem with:

"Scientifically conducted opinion polls show a significant majority of Australians support January 26th celebrations. According to a 2004 NEWSPOLL that asked, "Do you think that Australia's national day should continue to be celebrated on the 26th of January, or should it be moved to a day that is not associated with European settlement?", 79 per cent favoured no change, 15 per cent favoured change and 6 per cent were uncommitted."

Feel free to make the passage more eloquent if you can.

I personally think it is getting a bit tired radical aboriginal rights activists marking January 26th as Invasion Day, and calling for the national holiday to be moved to another date. Next year on the 222nd anniversary of the foundation of Australia and British settlement it is an approprite time for decendants of the original inhabitants can look back on the arrival of the First Fleet as an important day in understanding who they are as a contemporary people.

According to the wikipedia article on Indigenous Australians, and the 2001 census, 69% of unions involving an aborigine involved a non aborigine (the equivalent figure for blacks in the US is <2%). Current estimates place the number of full bloods at maybe no more than 30,000 (the last accurate census was in 1961 when the figure was 37,000). Because that other civilisation came here for better, worse or indifferent in less than 200 years there was a modern western nation established here as a result of this fact, which three quarters of the aboriginal population enjoys by living an urban lifestyle alongside their fellow Australians in towns and cities.

The future for aboriginal people lies not in statements of separateness but as an ethnic minority with equal citizenship subject to one law as part of a united Australian Federation.

These are all reasons that I think it is a fringe discussion, besides the fact as has been said the debate such as it has been does not reasonate with Australians, and particpation in Australia Day has kept on increasing since 1988 regardless.

124.183.252.83 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I know we're asked to show good faith here, but your ignorance and bigotry on Aboriginal matters destroys much of your credibility. The number of full blood aboriginal people and their marriage plans is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's also quite offensive. The belief that full blooded aborigines were dying out was part of the official government justification for removing half caste (another archaic term) children from their parents over several generations. One can hardly argue that it was a successful approach. That it seems to be your main justification for adding this poll to the article bothers me. That you still even use the term full blood is very sad. And what blacks in the USA have to do with this article is beyond me.

Why say polls (multiple) when you cite only one? You added the word scientific. How scientific? Why ignore the other points I made about the ignorance of the surveyed population? Perhaps you don't see it because you don't know the reality of Aboriginal matters yourself. Can you find a poll asking people what Australia Day commemorates? (with no hints)

Your obvious political agenda is on full display in the also irrelevant sentence "The future for aboriginal people lies not in statements of separateness but as an ethnic minority with equal citizenship subject to one law as part of a united Australian Federation."

Why revert my revert with no obvious consensus in this discussion. I'm not at all happy with your attitude of using this article to forward an ignorance based political cause. I should remove your addition again, but I don't want a revert war and unlike you will await, pay attention to, and respond to ALL the comments of others. HiLo48 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Further thought has made me realise what could be the reason you mentioned blacks in the US. I couldn't see one before but, sadly, it must be skin colour. There's no other possible connection that I can think of.

Any valid comparison with the USA would be with native Americans. They don't have the same issue because America's national day commemorates independence from a foreign power, almost exactly the opposite of what Australia's national day commemorates when looked at from an Aboriginal perspective.

Furthermore, and back to the topic, the poll you have added was taken over five years ago, back in the days of the Howard government, one that many would argue (I certainly would) used racist policies to attract voters and has now been voted out. Since then the nation has moved on. It has apologised to the Aboriginal people over the stolen generations. It's now very different times. I humbly submit that, based on many factors, some outlined above, your poll does not belong in the article today. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

15% for. 79% against. That sounds about right. Support might even be higher now the baby boomers are dying off. Australia Day is GROWING year by year.

Back in the days of the Howard government? Back in the days of the Keating government, Australia Day was made a unified public holiday in all states for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.252.83 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When that same Newspoll was added to the wikipedia article on the Australia flag those wikipedians didn't carry on like this.

Those assimlation stats along with the fact only 20% of eligibles voted in ATSIC elections back in the days of separate elected representation suggests the artificial nature of "colective identity" and the aboriginal separatist agenda.

Aborigines have dysgenic traits, which are those that deteriorate with intermarriage. The Daily Telegraph published an article this year on the high intermarriage rate and the "potential loss of aboriginal bloodlines".

124.183.252.83 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

I really don't think we're having a discussion here.

HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed:

In 2004 a scientifically conducted Newspoll that asked, "Do you think that Australia's national day should continue to be celebrated on the 26th of January, or should it be moved to a day that is not associated with European settlement?", showed a significant majority of Australians support Australia Day celebrations with 79 percent for no change, 15 per cent for change and 6 per cent uncommitted.

From the article for further discussion. I have three concerns. The first is that the source doesn't particularly support "scientifically" - it may be, but there's nothing there to show this, and it would be better left out. The second is that it did not show that a significant majority of Australians support Australia Day, but that a significant majority of those polled do. Given that only 1200 were polled, it isn't really enough to draw major conclusions about Australia as a whole, although the random selection of participants is a good plus. I'm also generally concerned about the use of data from polls, as there are a lot of issues around them. If it is to be used I think it would be better as an aside, rather than given the prominence that it has been, but that's just me. :) Others may see things differently. - Bilby (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bilby - have you noticed our IP's later contributions further up the article? I have responded to some of it, but this discussion has become very messy. HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. :) The discussion of "full blooded" seems completely irrelevant and has no real bearing here, so it seems better to ignore it. My main concern is whether or not a Newspoll with a sample of 1200 can be taken to be sufficiently significant - I'm leaning towards it warranting a mention, but I continue to have doubts, especially given the age. - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting drunk tonight to celebrate the inclusion of the Newspoll.

It's like when I won the right to include aboriginal assimilation stats in the article on indigenous australians.

What a beautiful set of numbers as Paul Keating would say.

124.183.114.44 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The debate

Can't we compact the space taken up by the "debate" over Australia Day in this article?

It would be different if their was widespread support for change and major parties where committed to moving it to another date with the support of the Australian people.

Premierstate (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"...if their was widespread support for change and major parties were committed to moving it to another date with the support of the Australian people", there would be no debate.

I agree that those parts of the article are messy. However, it is a very real issue to those for whom the current date is the most hurtful, and to others who try to see it from their perspective. I'd like to tidy it up. I'm happy to try over the next little while. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care about the rights and wrongs of Australia Day anymore. As a fan of the written word I just see a messy article. Duplication.

Let's be BOLD and see what we can do.

I say we just mention the occasional suggestions the date be changed at the end of the article. Mention counter demonstrations from 1938 through to 1988 to the present.

Premierstate (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Describing opponents of Australia Day as a "small minority" is a significant concession to these people in itself.

I'm sure they will be quite grateful.

Premierstate (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're showing a clear POV in those recent edits, and even more bigotry in these posts here. Please stop it and give others some time and space to make comment. I know it's a difficult subject for a lot of Australians. My view is clearly different from yours, and it's not good Wikipedia behaviour to just shove yours down other peoples throats. I certainly won't do it as you have. Please give the issue some time. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I just think the "debate" occupies too many inches of this article for what it is.

Most people are out there getting stuck into it on Australia Day.

It is not truly divsive like, say, Orangeman's Day is in Northern Ireland. Go an experiece that on the lower Ormeau Road or Drumcree and you'll see what i mean.

The whole notion of aboriginal collective identity has a certain artificial flavour to it for all the statistical reasons I have aleady pointed out.

Premierstate (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You started a discussion here. All I ask is that you give that discussion time and allow others to comment. You should reverse the edits you have already made (while I was responding to the discussion you started!) and be patient. You should forget about comparing it to something anywhere else in the world. Give me time and I may be able to explain why, if you're willing to pay attention. It's not so important it must be changed right now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not truly divisive - when you have the Australian of the Year in 2009 calling for the date to be changed, then you have a significant issue, at least in terms of the event. And if we accept the poll that you wanted added, to have 15% of the population agreeing that it should be moved is a significant proportion of the population. A minority, true, but certainly not a fringe view. I'd agree that we're not talking about an issue as significant as Orangeman's Day, but it warrants some decent space in the article. That said, it isn't as well written as it might be, but the solution is not to drop a significant issue from the lede, nor to downplay the issue. - Bilby (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You can accept the poll gives one the general idea. Nothing significant has happened on the Australia Day front since 2004.

I submit that it is safe to say that when research shows Australians are 5:1 in favor of something then there is only a small minority against.

No major political grouping has as its objective securing a new date for Australia Day with the support of the Australian people.

Australia Day can go past from year to year and not a murmur is heard from even the usual suspects or even a staged burning of the Australian National Flag.

No vacant alternative date has generated anything like the groundswell of public opinion required to swap the day off or been accorded anywhere near the same staus, as Kevin Rudd will tell you if you write to him suggesting the date of Australia Day be reviewed.

And I know I'll get howled down here, but despite the false impression that has been created that there is such a thing as a "collective aboriginal indentity," the fact 80% of eligible voters did not avail themselves of seperate elected representations and stayed away from ATSIC elections during the self determination era suggests there is not. Modern urban aborigines (and that's 75% of them) continue to signal their approval of the demographic changes since 1788 by "marrying out" in large numbers. In 1986 the census reported that 46% of unions involving an aborigine involved a non aborigine. By the 2001 census the figure was 69%. The equivalent figure for black people in the US is < 2%.

I'm not saying we don't mention the counter demonstrations. But be sparing with the words. Just cover it once. Like newspapers cover it in a single article, if that. A compendious mention at the end.

I wonder for how many Australia "Invasion Day" actually comes into their frame on January 26th? Now the baby boomers - those who came of age around the time of the Vietnam War and where so traumatised by it - are DYING OFF I bet it's less and less and less.

58.164.10.23 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While those arguing to conceal the divisiveness of the day post such irrelevant and uninformed material here, we can make little progress. A genetic point. Black Americans are more closely related to Australians of European ancestry than to Australian Aboriginal people. (I know that's irrelevant too, but i couldn't help myself.) Just pause, think and learn a bit here please folks. Patience helps a lot in these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant.

You do hear a lot of the increasing number of aborigines of mixed descent say things like "I am half for Australia Day".

I can't say one doesn't and nor can you.

58.164.10.23 (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable Australians for/against Australia Day

This might be an interesting addition.

Bob Carr for one was radically in favour of January 26th.

He thought the debate was getting a bit tired.

58.164.10.23 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy: Arguments for/against Australia Day

This might be another section. Who has ever seen a high school debate on Australia Day?

Isn't it usual to look at both sides of an argument?

I also don't see anywhere in the article the view expressed in some parts of the Australian Federation that January 26th is "New South Wales' Day".

Of that it is at a time of the year where it can't be appreciated fully. Or why have one single National Day?

We'd have to pay for this space by being more efficient about what we already have to say about the radical aboriginal line on Australia Day.

I've got a good argument in favour of Australia Day: After two centuries of existance hasn't it earned its permanent place on the calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.10.23 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

58.164.10.23 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Main image

I've changed the main image back to one showing the celebrations, rather than the foundation of Australia, although I've used a different picture than what was there before. I think the new picture better shows the crowds at the events, which is useful, while still having two clearly identifiable Australian icons in the Sydney Opera House and a larger flag. While the foundation painting was a nice one, it seems to me that the article is about Australia Day as an event, so it made more sense to display an image showing the event itself, rather than the event it commemorates. - Bilby (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Federation Pavilion

I've substituted a image of Federation for the image of the concert.

One aboriginal related image is plenty.

Premierstate (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal sovereinty day declared

Is this really significant enough to mention? Some of the people mentioned in that piece are from this motely collection of political fringe dwellers called the aboriginal provisional goverment. 1000 members strong.

I only heard about "sovereinty day" from this wikipedia article.

If the proponents want to create more awareness they can take out paid avertising and create their own opportunities.

Premierstate (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that this means that it is serving its purpose of informing readers about aspects of the debate. Learning about an issue by reading about it in Wikipedia is likely to be a plus. - Bilby (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but I wanted to include Rodney Lidell's "Cape York: The Savage Frontier" as a source on the Indigenous Australians article and I was lectured to about "tiny minority views".

Aboriginal sovereinty day. It's just a passing proposal of radical rights activists.

124.176.119.43 (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Current state of the article

It's much better now. Much more Union Jacks and images of colony.

Only discussion of the aboriginal issue is about 2 inches too long don't you think?

You only really need to say things once.

124.176.119.43 (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying it now better matches your point of view on this subject?

HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the issue of the date is not just an "aboriginal issue". I've heard people object that the 26th of January is a Sydney-centric date, when the convict colony of NSW was established. It has no relevance to states such as Victoria, SA and WA. There settlement had nothing to do with Sydney and 26th January. Rather than shrinking the section on objections and alternatives, I think there is a lot more to be said about the campaign for a non-divisive date. Much better for a unified nation. But that's enough of my POV for now. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that too, but not from the common people. Academics, journalists, politicians. People from that strata are the ones suggesting that.

There have been attempts to involve the common people in the debate and the article will make that clear soon. The common people are the ones responsible for keeping Australia Day alive from century to century,

I've refered the matter for mediation.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason Australia Day will remain is that for better, worse or indifferent because that other civlisation came here in less than 200 years there was a modern, western nation established here because of that fact which spread to the north, south, east, west.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you'll find any support for referring to the general Australian populace as the "common people" - it is a loaded term, not typically used, and very much POV. - Bilby (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to find another way of saying, then, that the great silent majority aren't chattering about it (the date of Australia Day).

NOT AT ALL.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We did have a different way of referring to them - we referred to them as Australians. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The people who would like to see the date changed are also Australians. I also don't understand why it's a problem to bring an issue to the attention of the common people or silent majority. Surely only someone frightened that the common folk can't be trusted to make sensible decisions would be want them to remain uninformed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An IP address in the range routinely used by blocked User:Premier, presenting the same unsourced arguments and POV as that editor has consistently done on this and related talk pages for at least four years, including a very similar discussion about "Invasion Day" pursued by Premier in early 2005. Tagged IP as suspected sockpuppet. Also, given no one agrees with the "common people" insert, archiving this conversation as having reached a natural end. Euryalus (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article introduction: Common people amendment

I have reworked this passage to state the fact that there have been efforts made to involve the common people in the debate over the occasional suggestions by political and community leaders and radical aboriginal rights activists that the January 26th public holiday be ended.

I'll go to mediation and arbritration to keep the term "common people" in because it is the best descriptor.

And I submit that the last paragraph of the introduction could be incorporated into the section on "Controversy" to avoid unneccesary duplication and so as to not give "Invasion Day" a credibility and standing it does not enjoy.

124.176.119.43 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

What about "attempts have been made to engage the broader general public in the debate have been made".

Surely we don't want to convey the erroneous impression that ordinary everyday people are debating the date of Australia Day around the BBQ on 26 January?

124.183.245.186 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Engaging the broader general public in a debate on a public policy issue would be the normal and ethical thing to do in a democracy. No need to mention it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but let's acknowledge in the article that the broader general public have yet to be engaged in the debate, which hitherto has taken place amongst certain political and community leaders and radical aboriginal rights activists.

What would be the problem with acknowledging this fact?

I've referred the matter to mediation anyway.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with what you want to do is that it serves absolutely no purpose. As I said above, informing the broader general public of the issues in a debate on a public policy issue would be the normal and ethical thing to do in a democracy. That's what Wikipedia is for. Education. We do it for referendums. Might as well do our best to educate here too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The point it's a minority preoccupation in every sense of that term.

There have been calls for a national debate. Mick Dodson called for one if you read that article closely enough.

Changing the date of Australia Day: a theoretical political concept.

That's all.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Social change almost always happens through minorities raising issues. It's a normal process in a healthy democracy. No need for the detail you're proposing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just plain tired now. And old hat.

It's failed to ignite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.245.186 (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a contentious issue for the people at large.

They used to say socialism was inevitable.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately we just have to make Australia Day work.

The people decide their culture.

The common people.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus requires at least one or two more Wikipedians to comment on your proposed changes, and basically agree to them. I think your current edit is probably OK, but given that you were directed to gain consensus, and chose to ignore that and simply keep editing the article, I think it's important that we now follow the correct process.

And please stop posting those irrelevant "aboriginal intermarriage rate" comments. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many public holidays with a history going back two centuries have been just suddenly discontinued one year?

Radical aboriginal rights activists are demanding people.

124.183.245.186 (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article and talk page edits, IP range and the edit summary here offer strong evidence the anon IP is currently being used by User:Premier. Blocked for a couple of days for attempted block evasion. Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Resolution

1. Given we are able to establish "Australia Day" is the legal title for the holiday, I would suggest this title and other previous official titles be mentioned in the introduction.

2. It is also appropriate to mention the dispute over the holiday in the introduction as it is a significant dispute amoung Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, academics, and community groups.

3. "Invasion Day" protests and the dispute are mentioned in the article and provide and balanced account of the dispute

4. "Invasion Day" should redirect to this page, to assist those seeking information on the subject

I would therefore propose that this article represents the factual official title, the factual dispute over the cultural sensitivity and appropriateness of theholiday, and current public trends; thus NPOV is satisfied and te tag should be removed. Rotovia (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporters of Constitutional Monarchy have gotten about 90% of what they wanted so it's all good.

Federation1901 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ANA Day

Just to add to the complexity of the issue of the name of the day, I have recalled from my youth (quite a while ago) that the day used be known in some quarters as ANA Day. This evolved from the fact that celebrating nationhood on the 26th January had been heavily promoted by the Australian Natives' Association (hence ANA), particularly in Victoria. I've found a couple of very reputable references on this....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australia-day-in-question/2008/01/25/1201157665401.html?page=2

http://www.australiaday.com.au/studentresources/history.aspx

I plan to put together some words for the article on this aspect of the name. It should be less controversial than Invasion Day. ;-)

Anyone have any thoughts or concerns about this?

HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been pulling something similar togeather in relation to the 1888 celebrations and the ANA's push to get a national day established. My main delay has been with the difficulties of getting Inglis' paper - I generally have a lot of time of Inglis, and his paper seems significant, but is a tad tricky to grab. If you want to add what you have I'd have no objections at all. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Invasion Day. Do we have consensus?

An IP is removing Invasion Day from the lead claiming consensus. I see no such thing. I see some very bitter and nasty arguments. So far from consensus as to make that claim a joke.

I may be wrong. This page has become a mess. If consensus has been reached, please demonstrate it here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that having Invasion Day listed in the lead as an alternate name for Australia Day is misleading. I think that where Invasion Day is listed, it should be clarified why the name Invasion Day is used. Anyway the concept of Invasion Day is covered elsewhere in the article. I also think that the outdated names in the lead are also misleading. They also should go elsewhere. Format (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we've already moved off topic, I find it ironic that those who tend to want to emphasise the tradition of Australia Day, want to hide the complexity of the history of the day. You can't really just pick and choose which bits of history you remember.

But I was really seeking clarification or otherwise of this consensus claim. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article lists the official names (historic and current) and mentions that there is an ongoing dispute at least in some segments of society. Coupled with a mention later in the article of the details of this dispute, the current situation is sufficient to ensure the most information is available in the most neutral way. Rotovia (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With the now borderline undue weight given to the opposition to Australia Day in the main body of the text, having Invasion Day listed in the opening sentence is, in my opinion, unnecessary repetition. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure what this is supposed to mean: "I find it ironic that those who tend to want to emphasise the tradition of Australia Day, want to hide the complexity of the history of the day. You can't really just pick and choose which bits of history you remember.". I am not trying to "emphasise the tradition of Australia Day" and I do not even recall ever actually editing the main article in any significant way. There is an entire section in the article about Invasion Day. Having "Invasion Day" listed as an alternate name for "Australia Day" obscures the reality that "Invasion Day" activities are not the same as "Australia Day" activities. "Invasion Day" is a different event, devised to comment on "Australia Day" and on history, and as a protest to these and other things. I was only giving my opinion, yet it seems it is discounted because it was judged as "off topic". Consensus is mutable and evolving, and can change and evolve through talk page discussions, which I contributed to, so I'm not sure how my comment could be rejected as being "off topic". Format (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I was just concerned that at that stage I had only made one post to start this section. That post was in response to another editor suggesting and behaving as if we had reached consensus, and I was simply asking "Have we?" The answer is clearly no, and, even though your response wasn't answering my question (hence I saw it as off topic), it is a perfectly valid contribution to that ongoing discussion. So, lets get on with it. :-)

My response to your comment is that rather than being a different event, as you suggest, the name Invasion Day only exists because of the creation and increasing promotion of Australia Day by both those wanting fun, and those wanting to motivate the masses through nationalistic celebrations. It is the same day. It's a comment on the same original event, just from a different perspective. It's not as if it's commemorating something different, or happening on a different day. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have only ever said that I believe having Invasion Day listed in the lead as an alternate name for Australia Day is misleading. I do not see Invasion Day as being congruent with the concept of "an alternate name" for the official day, it is something different from that. Invasion Day is currently mentioned in the lead, has another mention later, and then its own section. It's not like it is under represented in the article. Format (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, I think that it is clear that there is now a significant consensus against the listing of Invasion Day in the lead, particularly among our IP contributors (many of whom only comment when something is wrong). Whether it is for better or for worse, I can only really see the consensus shifting, and have removed it accordingly. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus cannot come from unacceptable, unexplained and unjustified edits by IPs. Content isn't decided through popular votes by IPs. Consensus comes from mature discussion about usage and references, of which there has so far been very little in this section. Opinions are not the point. Please don't just change the document and then afterwards add a reason here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong preference on whether 'Invasion Day' is mentioned in the intro, but I'm against treating anonymous IP contributions as evidence of consensus. Some IPs are legitimate contributors who don't want to create an account for one reason or another, but others are cranks who are quite willing to use sockpuppets when it suits them. I have a fairly strong suspicion that one of the anons here is Premier, long since banned for disruptive editing. Hang around Indigenous Australians long enough and you'll see that some anon IPs start to sound very very familiar... --GenericBob (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, the rollback of my edit was unacceptably rude. I made my reason why the edit was made both in the summary and on this talk page (the fact I clicked save on one tab over the other does not make a difference), and you needed a reason to revert. Besides, it's not JUST the IP's that are against it, or that you think everyone is merely expressing a political opinion; Nearly everyone on this page has opposed it now for very good reasons, and your ownership of the article and ignorance of other peoples editorial judgment is the only reason why it is staying there. Please do not expect to have the most extensive and lively debate when judging consensus, the comments above are enough to constitute it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Backslash Forwardslash - Snce my earlier revert the only other post apart from yours was another editor agreeing with me about the unacceptability of IP comments in reaching a consensus. You have presented no new evidence. You have added nothing substantive to the discussion. Nothing has changed in support of your position.

When a matter is as divisive as this one, as is shown by the aggressive and unacceptable deletions done by so many, including you, in the past 24 hours, I see it as even more important that all perspectives on the matter be presented clearly. To want to bury something you obviously disagree with in the body of the article is taking a strong POV position.

I don't own the article. But I do like to see proper process followed here. Posting a reason and then immediately changing an article without waiting for feedback from others is not acceptable Wikipedia behaviour. Please discuss the matter, and wait, before changing the article again. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up. I'm not taking a POV on this, I was one of the few who wanted it there when I was getting it to GA status. (Up the top of the page!). I just strongly disagree with the undue weight we are giving Invasion Day now. When I suggested it in the lead, there was not so much emphasis placed on the opposition and changes to date. To say it is trying to be buried is a ludicrous statement, it's the entire focus of the third paragraph of the lead and is getting much exposure in the contents table. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and where was the discuss that led to the consensus for it to be added, ignoring the discussion at the top of the page, two weeks ago? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. What is the problem with removing the phrase until consensus is reached? The information is still in the article and it may calm things down to allow rational discussion to take place. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, your editing is very dishonest. There was no 'edit frenzy' which resulted in the removal of the Invasion Day reference at the beginning. It is absolutely pathetic for you to use this as an excuse to justify something which is clearly disputed by most people on this page. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Confused timeline re January 1788

We have a rather confused timeline in Arrival of the First Fleet. First, Philip in the Supply leaves Botany Bay on 26 January and sails to Port Jackson, where the flag is raised. Then, we have a description of the events of 25 January, where we’re told the colours were displayed on shore on the evening of that day. Then back to the afternoon of 25 January, when the remainder of the fleet arrived. What a hodge-podge. We have to fix it.

The timeline, as best I can make it, was:

• evening of 23 January: Philip gives orders to sail to Port Jackson; they would set out the next morning
• morning of 24 January: there was a huge gale blowing, making it impossible to leave Botany Bay, so they decided to wait till the next day (25 January)
• during 24 January: they spotted the French ships of La Pérouse, which were having as much trouble getting into Botany Bay as the British were getting out
• 25 January: gale was still blowing; the fleet tried to leave Botany Bay, but only the Supply got out, carrying Philip, King, some marines and about 40 convicts; they anchored in Sydney Cove in the afternoon
• 26 January, early in the morning; Philip along with a few dozen marines, officers and oarsmen, rowed ashore and took possession. The remainder of the ship’s company and the convicts watched from onboard ship.
• 26 January, later: against great difficulties, the remainder of the fleet managed to leave Botany Bay and sail to Sydney Cove. The last ship anchored there at about 3 pm.

My source for this is 1788: The Brutal Truth of the First Fleet by David Hill, pp. 147-150. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The most recent edits to dates in the article happened just last night and were similar to other date edits that have happened in that area of the article recently. They are by IPs who leave no edit summary and make no contribution to Discussion. I regard it as just a form of vandalism. Please put the right dates in. If an anon IP changes them again without edit summary or discussion, I think we can just automatically revert them. It's hard to communicate with someone who chooses not to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've rewritten that part of the section now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

Invasion Day

It is absolutely absurd to include Invasion Day in the opening as if it's on the same footing as Australia Day. Certainly some elements of the community may call it Invasion Day but to suggest it's an alternative name is completely ridiculous. "Eat Lamb on Australia Day" could equally be used as an alternative if we were to go down that path. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at the very recent and incomplete discussion above on this very topic. Feel free to add to it, with your own reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got an intense hatred of Invasion Day too.

But look here:

"Meanwhile, outgoing Australian of the Year Mick Dodson, a leading indigenous figure, appears to have softened his attitude on the date of Australia Day.

Immediately after accepting his award last year, he said the date was offensive to many indigenous people and Australia could do better, calling for a national dialogue.

He said yesterday: In the end the date to me doesn't seem that important. What to me is important is what does the day mean? … If we get the meaning right and the date doesn't become as relevant, well, perhaps we can live with January 26. I don't know.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-concedes-voters-inclined-to-back-republic-20100125-muhj.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.202.171 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As a white Australian, I consider it appropriate to include the native definition on what the day is called. I also find it offensive that some do not see what this day means to others. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Native definition? According to whom? Is it published in the gazette or something? The Lamb Council of Australia would like it to be Eat Lamb on Australia Day, should we put that in the title too? I don't have a problem with what's in the body of the article but to have it in the introduction in the way it's currently written is ridiculous. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Get it out of the introduction. GET IT OUT!

Federation1901 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is an editor here with a clear political bias who is dishonestly editing the page to keep it in, see the above discussion. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Inevitably we all have our biases and also inevitably they will be on show from time to time no matter how hard we try to avoid it. But we also all have rules and conventions to follow here on Wikipedia. Personally, I am very open to changing the form and content of the first paragraph. It is not well structured at present. I suggest that those unregistered users who want to contribute their thoughts register themselves on Wikipedia so they can log on. Then their comments will be attached to a name we can talk to, rather than an IP address which can easily change through factors beyond anyone's control, and more sensible and considered discussion can take place. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a convention for making up fraudulent reasons for edits? What happened to you wanting to discuss and arrive at a consensus or does this only apply when the consensus is on your side. What does a registration have to do with anything? Most sensible people will look at the arguments and not the signature. Sounds more like an excuse, you still haven't responded to what was written above either. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't spend all my life on here, and it's generally not wise to change articles quickly without proper discussion that lasts more than a couple of hours. That gives editors not online at that particular time the opportunity to comment. At least a day is considered normal. It's also difficult to now look for "what was written above" when there is no name attached, and it's buried in a long page of text. It's good that at least now we are following another Wikipedia convention and putting new comments at the bottom of the page. Please present your thoughts here and let others comment on them. We can seek a consensus and then update the article. Right now, I'm off to work. Will look later. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote in the area you previously asked me to write in.. The only person I can see breaking any conventions is you. Are you going to admit your editing of the article was completely dishonest? 121.45.213.16 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that talk page comments (that are part of reaching Wikipedia:Consensus) are being rejected because they do not follow the convention of being added to the bottom of the page. Well, most seem to have been added to the bottom of the previous comment being 'replied to', which is WP standard practice. So they do follow convention. Anyway I do not think it is reasonable to reject comments because you do not like their positioning or formatting. A comment was made, it counts towards whether we have consensus or not.

No one changed the article quickly without proper discussion that lasts more than a couple of hours - there are talk page comments here a year old objecting to the current situation of having Invasion Day as an alternate name. It seems there is a clear minority wanting to list Invasion Day as an alternate name, and a majority against the idea. So, clearly, we do not have consensus on the issue. This means it should not have been returned to the article. (Even ignoring the IPs, we still do not have consensus.)

Unless I am mistaken, there is no rule that says comments and edits do not count towards consensus because the editor hasn't logged on to an account. Wikipedia:Why create an account? doesn't list "counting towards consensus" as a reason.

(Previously one of my comments was rejected because it was "off topic"!) Format (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My confusion over this is that I don't know what would be required for something to constitute being an alternative name. "Invasion Day" certainly isn't an official alternative name, but, on the other hand, I suspect that the term "Invasion Day" would be recognised as January 26 by many Australians as an alternative name for Australia Day, (whether or not they agree with it), and it sees heavy use in the media. - Bilby (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it is correct that a large proportion of Australians would have heard it called Invasion Day. I don't think there is much of an argument that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. The way it is written in the introduction though I think gives undue weight to it as if it's something that is commonly accepted as an alternative name and has some official status. I think 'a day to get pissed and play backyard cricket' would probably have just as much support. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, the term "Invasion Day" is recognised by many people as meaning Australia Day. They may disagree strongly, but the fact that they connect the two terms suggests that it may be reasonable to see it as an alternative name. I'm not convinced that it needs to be in the first line yet, but "Invasion Day" and, to a lesser extent, "Survival Day" are both recognised alternatives - even Tony Abbott referred to it as Invasion Day in his address yesterday. Perhaps an alternative wording, such as: "...and more controversially referred to as Invasion Day or Survival Day" to highlight that this isn't a universally accepted view? My main concern is that the article should make it clear, early on, that Invasion Day refers to the same event and day as Australia Day does, whether or not people agree with the term. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, several major speakers on or just before Australia Day used the term and referred to the difficulties the day presents for parts of Australian society. It would be possible to reference those speeches, but shouldn't be necessary. I would like to see that introduction restructured. Perhaps Invasion Day could be introduced in a separate second sentence as the name used by those who see a problem with the "official" name for the day. I know it's described soon after, but since the first para is about names, it seems to fit there too. HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to balance the two main issues: the term is in use and is recognisable as Australia Day, so it is an alternative name and it is used by enough to require a clear statement, but it isn't on the same footing as the official "Australia Day", so I agree that listing is simply as an alternative name would give it too much weight, (per comments above), incorrectly suggesting that the names are interchangable. So yes, it seems to me as well that a separate sentence or a rewording of the current one to make that clear might be a way to fix this. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I propose we replace the first sentence with something like....

Australia Day (previously known as Anniversary Day, Foundation Day and ANA Day) is the official national day of Australia. The day is also referred to as Invasion Day by people who see the day from the perspective of it commemorating the beginning of the loss of the traditional way of life of Australia's Aboriginal people.

Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we probably need to place some context first. Generally people don't oppose a national day, so much as what it commemorates. Perhaps if we put the description first?

Australia Day (previously known as Anniversary Day, Foundation Day and ANA Day), is the official national day of Australia. Celebrated annually on 26 January, the day commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove in 1788, the hoisting of the British flag there, and the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia. The day is also referred to as Invasion Day by those who see the day as commemorating the beginning of the loss of the traditional way of life of Australia's indigenous people.

Bilby (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. How about we take that proposal to a new section at the bottom of this page to seek the thoughts of others who haven't noticed this conversation yet? HiLo48 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of this Invasion Day nonsense. I started the discussion on its inclusion this time last year. The overwhelming consensus on this issue is that it is NOT to be included, given that the proportion of the INDIGENOUS Australian population who refer to the day as "Invasion Day" is incredibly small. And that's not even considering the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Australians, who do not recognise it as an alternative name. And to protect the article AFTER "Invasion Day" has been included has only fuelled this issue. 121.45.224.241 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Invasion Day. Get it out. Get it out!

GET IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Federation1901 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Protected 2010-01-26

Ged UK protected the page on 26 January 2010 with the reason "Excessive vandalism". I do not think it was a good idea to protect the article while the contentious inclusion of "Invasion Day" as an alternate name was in the article. At that time this issue was being discussed, and we did not have consensus on its inclusion. I also disagree that there was any vandalism going on. Prior to protection, much of the "Invasion Day" content had been repeatedly deleted and then reinstated. However, as Wikipedia:Vandalism says: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). It is only Wikipedia that is suffering here. Format (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is only semi protected, and the vandalism being protected against wasn't just the Invasion Day issue (although there may be cause to do so on the basis of an edit war), but other edits which were more problematic. Any auto-confirmed editor can still make changes. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think protection is needed. The day has passed, interest from vandals faded. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably. It expires in two days, or could probably be lifted earlier if we ask. - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that as an established user I could edit the article if I chose to. However, I have no confidence that my edits will not be reverted out of hand, so I wont bother. I have given up trying to improve this article. That's pretty sad. Wikipedia suffers. Format (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially given that HiLo hasn't actually seemed to engage in any debate over the intro. There doesn't seem to be any support for the introduction, just arbitary reverts by HiLo. Surely there is a wikipedia mechanism to stop antics such as this. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already said that I would like to see the first paragraph changed. The issue yesterday was that at the start of the day Invasion Day was there, then a lot of editors, many unregistered, started to delete that mention without discussion, and make other unacceptable changes. (I think Beer Drinking Day was there at one stage.) It was pure POV behaviour, perhaps some of it by people not familiar with standard Wikipedia processes, but clearly not very collegiate behaviour. It wasn't good to just let those unjustified edits stand. I'm now happy to see sensible discussion, as has started to happen. It shouldn't just be about dropping Invasion Day. I think it should be about building a much better lead completely. (And to 121.45.213.16, do register. It makes you look much more like a person than just a number that could represent anybody depending on what your ISP does.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the Invasion Day remark was clearly from a different IP and mentioned on the talk page and in the edit summary. You just used the actions of a few clowns as an excuse to put it back - it is clear to anyone that looks... While we are looking at changing the first paragraph why not remove the controversial Invasion Day remark in the interim considering no one seems to support it anyway. It may make things easier in the future. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please show some good faith here and discuss this rationally. I didn't put the Invasion Day text there in the first place, so clearly someone else supports it, probably a lot more than me. I've seen others defend its presence there. Saying things like "no one seems to support it anyway" is therefore just plain wrong, and not helpful. This isn't school yard talk. Do try to be more honest, and more constructive.

Would you like to do anything else to the lead than just delete that one bit of text? HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that at one stage there was consensus on including it. Reading the talk page most recently though it is clear the consensus is the other way. I don't really see how you can argue with that. The lead could probably do with more work but considering it's obvious you will drag out any changes for ever and a day I think removing the most controversial part is a good start. The only bad faith I've seen here is from you which is clear to anyone looking at the revision history of the article and this talk page. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks will never help your credibility, especially while you continue to post as an anonymous IP user. Good night. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with credibility. People here are free to look at this page and the article history and make their own mind up. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, it was added by a user with a very clearly stated political viewpoint that may have influenced circumstances. (I linked the diff above, in my unresponded to comment). IP users have just as much rights to make comments as a registered user, and by ignoring validly contributing IP's you are not following Wikipedia policies. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring? What a strange comment, coming just after I just had a very long conversation with an IP user. Let's keep the personal stuff out of this. I tried very hard to above, but I was attacked pretty aggressively there. I don't like to do it myself, but that response of yours is just silly. Let's move on now. The article? HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You were "attacked" because you abused the editing system. It is there for all to see. What about the article? Explain to us why YOU are against the clear consensus on this page on the Invasion Day remark being removed. 121.45.213.16 (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do feel that comments are being ignored and rejected. Every few hours the entire duscussion seems to restart. It is implied that there is now a clean slate, and we are told, "oh, so let's start discussing this now then..." Problem is, we have already discussed it. Those discussions demonstrate consensus does not exist. Why do we need keep repeating the comments we have already made? They are here and they already stand. Format (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrival of the First Fleet

We should have the quote from Captain Phillip's journal that he had found the greatest harbour in the world with enough room for 1000 warships.

Federation1901 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision to lead

Up above there has been a little discussion between a couple of us about improving the first paragraph. We have come up with a draft proposal....

Australia Day (previously known as Anniversary Day, Foundation Day and ANA Day), is the official national day of Australia. Celebrated annually on 26 January, the day commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove in 1788, the hoisting of the British flag there, and the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia. The day is also referred to as Invasion Day by those who see the day as commemorating the beginning of the loss of the traditional way of life of Australia's indigenous people.

Thoughts?

HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Reads too awkwardly. The opposition is a separate issue than just being an 'alternative name', and by trying to qualify it separate to the main explaination you are interrupting the logical flow of ideas. The reader will be confused. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In which case, it would be great if you could propose an alternative wording. It seems to me that the name is used as an alternative to Australia Day, but its use is controversial. Thus it makes sense to mention the name in the lead, but it needs to be separated from the official names in order to make the distinction clearer, as while it is an alternative name, it isn't on an equal footing. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the lead; the entire third paragraph is devoted to it. I think bolding "Invasion Day" in that part and removing the mention in the opening sentence is the best option. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BF - I am truly concerned about your opposition to this suggestion. I have agreed right along that the existing wording of that first paragraph is clumsy. The proposed change is very much better. For you to now give as your only reason for rejecting it that it "Reads too awkwardly" doesn't really make sense and is hardly a fair response to those who worked on it. Personally I think it reads extremely well. (Ignoring the actual content.) I know you would probably prefer that Invasion Day wasn't mentioned at all in the article. Perhaps you need to be a little fairer to those trying to improve things. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the third paragraph doesn't make it clear that this is an alternative name, and alternative names normally go in the first paragraph. The issues as to why it is used as an alternative are important, which is what the third paragraph covers, but aren't quite the same. - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It reads well by itself, but once part of the larger introduction, it seems disjointed. I think that Bilby is right that the third paragraph doesn't cover the reason behind the name well enough though. Given the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, expanding that section to cover more detail and explaining why Invasion Day is used as a opposition banner. That way it gives correct weight yet still gives enough space for the Invasion Day viewpoint to be explained and incorporated. Explaining something in two places doesn't work. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK BF, your proposal please. Show us your preferred wording. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Australia Day (previously known as Anniversary Day, Foundation Day and ANA Day[1]), is the official national day of Australia. A public holiday in every state and territory of Australia, Australia Day is celebrated annually on 26 January, commemorating the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove in 1788 and the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia.

Although it was not known as Australia Day until over a century later, records of celebrations on 26 January date back to 1808, with Governor Lachlan Macquarie having held the first official celebration of the formation of New South Wales in 1818. In 2004, an estimated 7.5 million people attended Australia Day celebrations and functions across the country. Modern Australia Day celebrations are marked by the Order of Australia and Australian of the Year awards, along with an address from the Prime Minister.

The day is seen as controversial for many Australians, particularly Indigenous Australians, who see commemorating the arrival of the First Fleet as celebrating the destruction of the native Aboriginal culture by British colonists. Dating back to the 1938 Day of Mourning, there have been significant protests from and on behalf of the Indigenous Australian community, and the birth of the alternative name Invasion Day. In light of these concerns, proposals to change the date of Australia Day have been made, but have failed to gain widespread public support.

\ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)