Talk:Australia Day/Archive 1

Criticism

Removed the uncitedsection claim Western Australians didnt support Australia Day, seemed a bit of a joke to have that comment next to a picture of the Perth fireworks which HALF A MILLION people attended220.239.6.72 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ANZAC Day

Im going to be honest and say I cant see how on earth Australia day is related to ANZAC day, they are Australia's too most important national celebration days, however, they bear no directi relation to the other 220.239.6.72 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The last three paragraphs bother me. They read more like a discussion of Australia Day than a NPOV statement. Should they come out? Arno 06:52, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as an Australian, it's a point that does need to be made. But it does take up entirely too much of the article. - David Gerard 09:19, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's too much - in effect the entire article is a "Australia Day shopuld be changed" essay. That's what bothers me. Arno 05:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've done sections for 'Celebration', 'Criticism', 'Suggested changes to the date'. The third is actually an issue I've never heard much discussed. I'm really not sure it deserves that much of the article, though expanding the other sections would be preferable to just cutting it. A picture of the fireworks would be nice! Anyone get any this year, in any city? - David Gerard 12:15, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Pretty good, it does seem more NPOV now. Arno 07:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This whole article seems to be a an anti Australia day piece. I suggest that the criticism section be removed or moved to a new page. This article is not representative of the feelings of most Australians towards Australia Day. Tmothyh 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, the critisism section is not referenced nearly enough. It needs to be redone, or removed as it damages the quality standards of the page (there are about 5 *citation needed* comments within the one paragraph). As Tmothyh stated, the critisim section is not representative of the feelins of most Australians. --Brynic 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some references really are needed for the last two paragraphs of the section if they are to stay, and the weasel words should be removed/replaced as discussed below. (This section, referring to the article as it was 3 years ago, is hardly the sensible place to talk about it.) And for the millionth time, it doesn't matter whether one section is representative of the feelings of "most Australians" if it isn't claiming to be! JPD (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Link suggestion

This article is quite comprehensive but neglects the history of the day, as it was celebrated on january 26 from the early days of the colony. A good external link would be http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/austday.html

ooh, nice one! - David Gerard 10:32, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Misc

I've added links to the federal and State Australia Day pages. (Note that the States and Territories are listed in the conventional order, rather than alphabetically.)

I looked for some decent critical links. The one I've put here could be better (it's from Indymedia so it's just a little strident), but does address most of the usual criticisms. Might also be material for expanding the critical section. - David Gerard 10:30, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

There still doesn't seem to be enough history of Australia Day in the article. There is a lot more history regarding the change of date, the reason for January 26, and the recent changes to make all states and territories celebrate it on the same day. I also disagree with the 'Criticisms' section - I think that more and more Australians are realizing the importance of Australia Day and this can be seen in the number of celebrations held around the country. I think the important part of Australia Day is that Australians celebrate being Australian by doing Australian things - what they believe is Australian, and celebrating the Australian way of life. I think we can make this article more informative if there are more facts and truths about the day.

---

I agree that the history of Australia Day could be expanded upon. It is the oldest public holiday in Australia, even if it wasn't celebrated in every state on the one day until 1994. The article dosen't even mention the fact the holiday used to be called 'foundation' day.

I must say this - the debate about changing the date of Australia Day does seem to be a minority preoccupation. I've seen more than one opinion poll on this subject - one a few years ago showed fully 77% of people preferred no change.

It is probably fair to say that the Australian public dosen't embrace their 'national' day like the people of other nations do theirs. However I don't think the date or the time of year has much to do with that. True patriotism is just in shorter supply in Australia. Compare the behaviour of the crowds attending the last Davis Cup finals in Spain and Australia and you will discover what I mean. (The central chair umpire had to tell the Spanish crowd to shut up after nearly every point their country won.)

Be that as it may, since the massive bicentenary celebrations in 1988 (which included a reenactment of the voyage from England to Australia by the First Fleet) public particpiation in Australia Day events has grown in each succesive year. Six million Australians turn out on Australia Day annually.

It should also be noted that it is most unlikely agreement will be ever be reached on a alternative date.

My "Amazing But True Golf Facts" daily desk calendar marks Jan 28, 2008 as Austrailia Day in Australia-except NSW. More specific but less accurate than Wiki?

I'm not sure why you chose the middle of an old section to post this question, but Jan 26 is Australia Day, 28th is the public holiday for 2008 because the 26th falls on a weekend. -- Chuq (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If we are going to have that shit about invasion day on this page why don't we include an image of some tall ships from the massive Australia Day celebration in 1988? Why exactly is it that we can have an Australia Day page that discusses a walk over Sydney Harbour Bridge yet I can't even learn about the reenactmment of the First Fleet's voyage in '87-'88.

This article is well below wikipedia's standard. Australia Day has a past as well as a present - Australia Day is criticised by somme at the mmoment but these elites will move on to another topic in time. Australia's oldest public holiday will weather the storm. If you read this page as it is you might get the misleading idea that Australia Day is in immentent danger of being moved from January 26th.

In fact what is stated above is true - six million Australians do turn up to Australia Day celebrations annually. A tiny number go to aboriginal demostrations and this apparently makes them feel better so good luck to them, but really, this dissent gets more air time then it is worth.

p.s. I've heard the NSW police estimated that only 100,000 people walked over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. We might want to check that figure out. But what does it really matter anyway?

Not long ago in Australia a governmment agency - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Comisssion (ATSIC) - was abolished. Separate elected representation for 'Indigenous' people also went down the gurgler with it and it is very difficult to see a future Prime Minister wanting to bring it back. Some radical black activists used to call ATSIC 'our governmment' and had the idea in their heads that it was the first step towards a separate black parliamment and and an aboriginal state like native Canadians have. How wrong these radical activists were!

Political correctness is clearly comming to a thudding halt in Australia. Aboriginies are just going to have to accept the fact that they are just an ethnic minority within the Australian state. Those people who walked over the bridge are just going to have to accept this fact too.

Six out of ten aboriginies are in a relationship with a non-aboriginie so an awful lot of blacks are signalling their approval of the arrival of Europeans into Australia. That's an extraordinary rate of 'marrying out'.

---

Note for non Australians reading the above; Australia is probably the world's only country where elite is a term of abuse - it implies that the target hold's opinions at variance with the prime minister. Shame.

That said, I do agree with the above author in one respect - the history wars/black armband/white blindfold/invasion day discussion is not the central theme of Australia day for most Australians.

Perhaps it deserves its own page, referenced from this one?

---

"Australian day is the best, and everyone should love it!" I think this comment is non-neutral, highly opinionated, and should be removed. It probably does not follow Wikipedia's standards either.

I would also like to respond to the comments posted two posts before mine (as of the time I am posting). I think it is silly to presume that just because an aboriginal marries/cohabits with a white person that it means that he is willing to accept historical oppression.

You said: "Political correctness is clearly comming [stet] to a thudding halt in Australia. Aboriginies [stet] are just going to have to accept the fact that they are just an ethnic minority within the Australian state."

Sounds eerily similar to the attitude of many white Americans prior to the Civil Rights Era here in the States (and still today, though usually through more covert measures). By your reasoning, your group should have more rights simply because your group is bigger. Anybody who does not like it should just shut up. Then you brush off the opposing view by saying they are trying to be "politically correct." Let's not forget that various totalitarian regimes have used this same kind of thinking to manipulate millions of otherwise clear-headed people into slaughtering many innocents. Thank God for freedom of speech.

Ideally, "politically correct" should have a positive meaning, as it reflects a society that keeps altruism and respect of fellow man high on the list of its priorities. Case in point: I'll take a politically correct Australia or America of today over a politically correct Nazi Germany of a few decades ago.

--Raphael 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add my name as an Australian who is vaguely embarrassed at most of the views above. While yes, most Australian don't care about Australia Day one way or another, except as a public holiday, there are a sizeable portion of Australians who understand that we as a nation should be ashamed of the way we destroyed a culture and took their land. I would ask the editors who frequent this page to keep an eye out for those who want to remove all statements about the awareness that some Australians at least have for the harm we inflicted. Sad mouse 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The point that some people often seem to overlook is that when they say things like "we as a nation did bad things to the indigenous population", they exclude the indigenous people from the nation. The indigenous people are just as much part of the nation as everybody else. If they're talking about the British colonists and their descendants who did the bad stuff, that's no better since they're really saying the nation is what the British made it and the indigenous people were just bystanders and victims. It's time to stop this guilt-laden and divisive "we did this to them" stuff, and start using language that includes ALL Australians in "the Australian nation". There is no "us" and them" in a unified nation. We're all "US". JackofOz 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Day

The mention of the walk across the harbour bridge would definitely better in a seperate article about 26th May, which for a while was called "Sorry Day". It relates to reconciliation, but not directly to Australia day.

Australia Pwnz Day

For me, as an Australian, the name "Australia Day" doesn't have any impact, and I don't really care about it. I propose changing the name to Australia Pwnz Day. It would have more emotional impact. :-) --Jibjibjib 05:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait until we've got the 219 runs to win --Paul 06:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(offensive and racist comment removed) JackofOz (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections

Would it be a good idea to have some sections that outline the main events that take place in each state/major city? e.g. in Sydney they always have the tall ships, fireworks etc while i think in Perth they have some annual swim/triathlon type thing (i'm not too sure)

info box

Mm... can't say I'm a fan of that infobox. Surely not every single article on WP requires an infobox. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

History section

I've added a start on a history section. Please expand and modify! Nloth 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

Does the "Australia Day Eve celebraton" image REALLY need to be in this article? I mean, it doesn't really show anything apart from the fact that Aussies go a lil bit wild on Australia Day, and will use any excuse (Australia Day Eve?) for a drink and a party. Perhaps a more appropriate photo? ABVS1936 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• At the expense of upsetting the original editor who posted this photograph I agree with the point being made here - this photograph does not enhance the article at all - it could be a photo after the cricket, football or anything quite frankly. I am for removal. --VS ^{talk...images} 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I have removed this image - it is not of a type that enhances this particular article. It is non-specific, not specifically informative and looks more like a personal shot of three mates. --VS ^{talk...images} 10:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed some crap

"Australia Day barbecues and pool parties are the norm , and the day usually creates a great outpouring of nationalist sentiment.

This has often been regarded by some critics as racist towards the many different cultures that coexist within the country's borders ."

That part is rubbish. Nationalistic sentiment =/= racism. Moreover, the supporting ref links to nowhere. So it's been cut.

Weebs 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not just "some crap", or "rubbish". Reverted revision and fixed link.

Daniel Zimirk 12:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst not quite an edit war there is a lot of to and fro on this part of the article. I put up a suggestion for citations earlier today and whilst I can see both points of view the fact is that if these points can not be verified by good and meaningful citations (given the broadness of the comments) then all of this part or the parts not references should be removed. I suggest give it a day or three at the most and then removal (if necessary) is fair and Zimirk should allow Weebs or whomever to remove without the edits being reverted. After all fellow editors - these items can be returned at any time if the points are verified - and quite frankly they should not be included if they are not so verified. --VS ^{talk...images} 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • PS The current reference to an Aboriginal Sign being stolen on Australia Day is non sequitur with regards barbeques and pool parties being an outpouring of national sentiment which is considered racist by some critics ... Stealing a sign is theft, and it may at times be racist but it does not follow in terms of the way that it is attempting to link and verify the two sentences above it. This reference may belong somewhere in the article but not here - in my view it should be removed immediately! --VS ^{talk...images} 12:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While, as with most of these sorts of comments, there is some truth in them, and so it is not quite rubbish, it is weasel words and unverified. As VirtualSteve says, the link provided is not a reference for the claims made. Even if parties were becoming the norm, the exaggerated "great outpouring of nationalistic sentiment" definitely hasn't been around long enough to say it is "usual"! JPD (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that nationalist sentiment would be an accurate description about the feelings that Australia Day brings about in people. A recent example of this would be the number of people displaying the Australian flag in protest to the flag-ban at the Big Day Out. A quick glance at the article on Nationalism would suffice in order to explain why patriotism is considered nationalist.

Daniel Zimirk 03:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Daniel as you can see people are having problems with the way this article is currently non-encyclopedic at this point. I have initially adjusted the sentence to remove some of the exaggerated weazel words. Secondly I have removed the first reference. It is simply does not support the paragraph it is attached to. I have left the second reference at this stage - I think the jury should have time to consider this one for a bit longer. Can I stress - this is not about not understanding the point of view but it is about using proper references. I certainly am not trying to upset you and your views on this and so I have one other suggestion as follows - If this point is important to you (and others) it should be made more critically and carefully. You should first redlink the words "Invasion Day" and "Survival Day" (both are the same day) and then create a single page that directs/redirects readers to this point of view in full. That would IMHO be the encylopedic thing to do.--VS ^{talk...images} 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the statement is that I don't see how nationalistic sentiment can be directly linked with racism. Nationalism and patriotism mean love for ones country, not ones ethnic or racial group. 58.84.208.31 12:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I am not saying that the controversy-causing flag-flying is not "nationalist", I am questioning whether there really is a "great outpouring" of this sentiment, especially when as you say a lot of it was in reaction to the reported ban, not simply a response to Australia Day. On top of that, even if this really is as big as you suggest recently, it hasn't been going on long enough to say it "usually" happens!

As for the anon's comments, I think the point is that much of the "nationalist sentiment" that Daniel refers to has been associated (fairly or unfairly) with racism by critics. This doesn't mean that nationalism is being directly linked with racism, but even if it were, that wouldn't be the issue for us. We can report on any notable criticism made, even if we think the links made are invalid. The main problem is still the fact that it is unverified and weaselly. JPD (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAP

• I have moved the latest reference by Daniel from where he originally placed it and noted reasons in edit summary. I do not do so with a firm belief that it is a useful reference as it is about an article that refers in the main to allegations of Police actions - only mentioning Invasion Day at the very start. Others may not like the reference (I personally think it is quite weasely because it purports to verify the Invasion issue when in fact it does not) but I will leave the decision for it to stay or go for others to decide at this stage. --VS ^{talk...images} 11:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • PS and on second glance I have renewed requests for facts in at least two areas. Daniel you really must stop removing other editors legitimate requests for such citations. What you are doing in my opinion is reducing the veracity of any argument you could make and you seem to be in danger of failing WP:NOT#SOAP. Please can you read your own reference again - doesn't it just (at best) support your contention that a small (it is after all only 500 people) marched on a day that they call Invasion Day etc - it certainly does not support the view (please note my highlighted emphasis) that non- Aboriginal Australians are celebrating the decimation of Aboriginal peoples, the confiscation of their lands and the destruction of their culture, or even that Aboriginal peoples are of the belief that non-Aboriginal peoples are doing this when they celebrate Australia Day in any way - as this part of the article suggests? --VS ^{talk...images} 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Denial Of Historic Fact

Ever since I began editing this page I have been met with criticism and rebuke for my attempts to offer a balanced argument on the topic of criticisms of Australia Day. While the original wording of the section was not mine, I attempted to work with what was there. Every time I made a change to either back something up or to make things appear either more truthful and not so one-sided, I have been refused. The fact that the reference to a research paper concerned with Genocide in Australia was deemed not relevant to the reasons why Aborigines and their supporters deem Australia Day as worthy of criticism seems to prove that Australia is in a state of denial over historic facts, and the citizens of this country are willing to accept the glossed over fairy tale that right-wing politicians believe we should all swallow without question. Since this page appears to accept only a one-sided point of view, I will not attempt to edit this page in the future, due to the narrow-mindedness of those that would ignore history over arrogant pride. Daniel Zimirk 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has anythign to do with denying historic fact, it is about using this page for soapboxing. The issue of genocide in Australia is indeed an important issue (although it is important to write about it from a neutral point of view), but the paper you linked to does not mention Australia Day at all and is only tangentially relevant, and not a source for anything contained in the article, particularly once the reference to genocide had been removed. Similarly, a report about "Invasion Day" and people stealing a protest sign about Australia day is not a source for criticism of general nationalist sentiment as racist. The problem seems to be that your links don't seem to actually be connected to the text. The next question is whether the word genocide is included. I tend to think that the issues could be presented openly without having to have the inevitable arguments over that word. These issues should be covered in other articles on Wikipedia, but for this one it would be better to focus on the facts concerning Australian Day in particular, giving links to the articles where the historical issues are covered. JPD (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Daniel, I second what JPD (and others) have been saying and trying to say - expecially with regards the comment (as I have made now on numerous occasions also) that the problem seems to be that your links don't seem to actually be connected to the text. Indeed although some of your references have been nonsensical in terms of the connection to Australia Day almost everyone has been nice in terms of pointing that out. These have not been attacks but requests to write encyclopedically towards the article on Australia Day. This is (the same request that is generally or overtly made for every article on Wiki) - which judging by your profile and other outputs you are otherwise able to do. With respect it seems quite churlish now to start calling those that legitimately request such input as narrow-minded, arrogant, prideful etc. I agree with your suggestion to not edit this page - but you should only stop until such time as you realise that presenting the truth requires you to be diligent in terms of the linkage of references to the correct article. Once you have worked that out - then please come back to this article as a better editor. Alternatively - as I politely suggested many edits ago - write or add to other articles that reflect the point you are making and to which the references that you are finding may have some relevance. --VS ^{talk...images} 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is very poor

User:b1_ March 5, 2007

It does not communicate what it means to be an Australian on Australia day at all well. Needs to be simplified for one. Sorry day stuff is most certainly not 1/4 of what Australia day is about. A single point and a link to a seperate entry, please. What about the concept of mateship and of giving everyone a fair go? What about the outback and country australia. What about the national anthem and the alternative national anthem (Aussies know what I mean). There needs to be some attempt to convey to an outsider what it means to be australian - an attempt to convey australian culture, and this includes aboriginal culture. The article needs to be more positive, it is a celebration day afterall.

No, this article should be neutral, whether the day is a celebration or not. More importantly, it is an article about the day and it's celebrations, not about "what it means to be Australian" in general. Including more info on celebrations would be good, but the fact is that for better or worse, Australians haven't historically made a big deal out of Australia Day. JPD (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Australia Day is not just about the big celebrations on the day. It also about what individuals get up to on the day and what the day means to australians. If it means very little then that needs mentioning also with references. I have a vague idea that historically it has not been celebrated with gusto but I would like to see some proof. With 500,000 at the Perth celebrations last year I'd say it means something to most people at the moment.

• • Yes the article should be neutral, but not at the expense of distorting reality. This article sacrifices truth in the name of polititical correctness. Someone reading this entry in its current form 100yrs from now would get the impression that the aboriginal protest celebration Invasion Day was a big part of the identity of the day. This is not the reality and this article has been hi-jacked by a protest entry. It should be under a heading of "Recent Developments" perhaps, because that is what it is, and have a link to a separate page dedicated to it, because it is a separate issue.

• • I'm also not sure mentioning the Big Day Out is neutral. That's a youth event ie specific to a certain group of australians. Should we be mentioning it and ommitting the RSL Bingo Australia Day Extravaganza? To me it is an indication very few older people contribute to Wikipedia because they're not net savvy. A weakness of the concept of Wikipedia perhaps. User:b1_ March 7, 2007

You're right that it's not just about big celebrations, but obviously they are the ones that have the most written about them, and so they get written about first. It's not anything to do with political correctness. The fact is that the day has been a day of protest for some groups since the 1930s at least. It's not a recent development, and it doesn't belong on a separate page, because it really is about the nature of the day. To say it is a separate issue is to completely misunderstand not only the protests, but history as well (after all, you mixed it up with Sorry Day). I don't think the article suggests the protest events are a huge part of the day in general, but if it does distort anything, it is only because the information on celebrations is so short, and the answer is to expand that. JPD (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Big Day Out is in some ways similar to the protest events in that it is important to certain groups. In fact, most of Australia Day events are like this to some extent. The neutral approach is describe all the ones that invovle significant numbers of people. If you have sources for the Bingo event (is this a national thing, just in Ballina, or...?), then add it. JPD (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I think there is a misunderstanding here. For me the average Australian is not celebrating the landing of the British Fleet (Australian don't like the British - Australians are decended from the convicts locked up in the hull of the ships that followed the first fleet), nor are we celebrating, indirectly, Federation and the gaining of the independence from the British like the Americans might celebrate Independence Day because there was no war preceding it and hence little associated feeling is attached to it. What the average Australian is celebrating is being Australian, and reflecting on what that means. There is a communal sense of pride, general flag waving and acknowledgement of how lucky we are to be living in a wealthy, tolerant, free, generous, safe land of plenty. We give thanks for how lucky we are and are encouraged to get out among fellow Australians to celebrate our good fortune. This is far removed from Invasion Day and the message it is trying to put out, that Aborigines were almost wiped out by the British, and have been oppressed ever since by Australians. The two are linked by its historical context but that's as far as it goes with regard the meaning of the day for most Australians. Hence why I say they are separate, meaning it deserves a mention and a link but not a paragraph. The protestors of course want it to be one and the same issue. That rather than feel pride and community on the day, Australians should feel shame and guilt.

• • The article just comes across as a little amateurish to me when comparing it to, say, the Wikipedia entry on "Australia" or the one on "Independence Day" which seem more polished. To be fair it's most likely just a case of 'not finished yet' though, which is why we're here.

• • User:b1_ March 8, 2007

The day originates as anniversary, and so celebrates that anniversary. Different people and groups throughout history have attached different messages to this anniversary. The fact that they can be quite different does not mean that they are separate issues. Of course it is natural that the day develops into a general celebration of Australia as a country and it's institutions which in many ways trace their history back to that day. However, I think you will find that the Australia Day as "being Australia, and reflecting on what that means" view, together with the "general flag waving" and so on, without reference to the anniversary, is a much more recent development than the Aboriginal protests. Remember that this article is not only about how Australia Day is celebrated now, but also about its history. It is also not about what you think the average Australian is celebrating ("For me, the average Australian..."). There isn't any "average Australian", and the article isn't even about only what "most Australians" think. Minority views are separate views on the same issue (including what it means to be Australian, and whether some actually are lucky to be so), whether they are saying that there isn't much to celebrate or that it isn't a good day to celebrate it. A good article puts all the views together, in context. You are right that this isn't a very good article, but I don't think that removing any material is the way to make it better. JPD (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Have there really been organised rallys by aboriginals, on Australia Day, between 1938 and 1988? I can't say I have heard of them. Have we got any links for reference? I referred to Invasion Day as a recent development because I had only first heard of it in 2005. I was aware of various protests back to 1988. As far as I know the title "Invasion Day" is recent. I have no doubt aborigines have felt disenfranchised every year since 1788 but have aboriginal Australia Day protests been ongoing back to the 1930s?

• • The problem with the article is that it is not conveying the majority view - what Australia Day means to most people in Australia today. It's fine to include minority views but where's the majority view (and for that matter, where's the other minority views of, for example, ethnic Australians and how they celebrate the day)? Here's a detailed and fully referenced article on the day that communicates well where we're at: http://www.australiaday.com.au/studentresources/history.aspx The last paragraph before chronology sums it up pretty well. I thought the article was an interesting read. A nice summary of the evolution of the meaning of the day to Australians through the centuries.

• • • • User:b1_ March 10, 2007

I'm not really sure what difference it makes whether protest were called "Invasion Day" or "Day of Mourning" or whatever else. They aren't a recent development, whether the names are or not. I don't know much about the years between 1938 and 1988, as they didn't attract as much attention, but the tent embassy in Canberra started on Australia Day 1972. An Aboriginal boycott is recorded even earlier in 1888.

As you say, the problems with the article are mainly missing information. The solution is to add the information. Be bold and do it yourself (but log in first!) The article you give is quite a good source, as you say, although as a publication of the Australia Day Council, it is worth toning down the promotional side of it in some places. JPD (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary inaccurate

From my reading, the 26th is not the day of landing, but the day when Authur Philip "took formal possession of the colony" a small difference, but, I think one worth noting. --Riccodecicco 11:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BioShock

This is a relatively minor thing, but this day of 1959 is mentioned in Bioshock. The password to one of the doors is 0126, or Jan 26th. Don't know if it's worthy. ~~ Frvwfr2 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I have removed the following statements from the article:

• "There is no great sense of attachment to Australia Day by some Australians from the Eastern coast either."
• "In recent years, Australia Day has been celebrated more intensely by all, Anglo-Australians in particular, and the day creates nationalist sentiment."
• "Critics regard this nationalist sentiment as racist towards the many different cultures that coexist within the country's borders, especially the Aborigines."

The first two are either original research or an individual's point of view for which no sources have been provided despite fact tags dating back to January. The third is already covered in earlier parts of the article.

As always, other views and comments welcome but if you think these should be re-added to the article please provide some sources to support them. Thanks. Euryalus 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Invasion day?

(Removed some extremely offensive and rascist material) 203.217.66.134 (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

HI

HELLO AUSTRALIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.212.214 (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)