Talk:Australia Day/Archive 2

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 I also think that the outdated names in the lead are also misleading.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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)

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 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. 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 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)
 * Good work Backslash Forwardslash. Format (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I detect a distinctively POV approach in the moving the now only use of Invasion Day to almost the end of the section. That's exactly what a writer hoping people would miss something he had to mention would do.
 * Do you have a reference for "...but have failed to gain widespread public support"? HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The introduction seems to me to be a rather neutral treatment of the subject covering first the official names, then a breif history, concluding with a coverage of the dispute. While if I were writing an article as an academic or journalist I would include far more coverage of "Invasion Day" the goal of wikipedia is NPOV and that should be upheld, and I believe it is Rotovia (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * HiLo48: It's not POV, it's following the exact same structure as the article itself. The article goes; History, Celebrations, Oppositions, Suggested changes. The intro goes History, Celebrations, Opposition, Suggested Changes. Would you like to restructure the article so that opposition is mentioned before History? It's not hiding it; if anything it stands out in bold. Also, read the Opposition to change section. It provides enough citations to make that claim backable. It is in fact taking a POV by giving Invasion Day special treatment over the rest of the subject matter and violating what is pretty standard summarisation practice. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rotovia: I would be happy to expand on the opposition in the lead (It still hasn't fully been done justice) but it's about as evenly spread as the actual article content will allow. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm not opposed to this wording in particular, but I gather that generally the format for these articles is Name -> Alternative Names -> Short Definition -> Rest of Lead. In this case, I'm still stuck with the idea that Invasion Day is an alternative name for Australia Day, so normal practice would be to list it in the first sentence. If we want to pull it away from there then so be it, but it does seem that Invasion Day is far more recognisable than the previous names listed. Would adding: "Australia Day (previously known as Anniversary Day, Foundation Day and ANA Day, and more controversially as Invasion Day or Survival Day), ..." just to make sure that the most commonly seen names are grouped together be acceptable? - Bilby (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a problem. I'm pleased with this discussion and have been patiently waiting for a couple more constructive comments before responding again. However, a less patient user, Truthtoseek, has taken the law into his own hands and has now removed the Invasion Day reference from the lead three times in avery short time. I reverted twice, making it clear in the Edit summary the second time round that Truthtoseek should join this discussion. He/she ignored me and removed it again. For me to respond again would be a third revert, so I won't do that. This article is the only one Truthtoseek has ever edited, the first time on the 26th Jan just past. Probably doesn't know enough of the rules, nor even to look at the Edit summary. (It was unfortunate behaviour like this on Australia Day that led to me blocking things and seeking this now very constructive discussion.) Where do we go from here? HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd let it sit - we're near to consensus here, and whatever happens the current wording will be changed. Edit warring doesn't really help anyone, and will most likely just result in blocks or protection. It does no harm to have it removed from the lead while we discuss it. - Bilby (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the above: I think for now we can go with the revised last paragraph, irrespective of what happens in the first, as - if nothing else - it does seem better than the current last paragraph in the lead. So I've changed them over. Hopefully this is ok. - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * HiLo48: There are vandals on Wikipedia. Don't railroad discussion just because some random user has popped up; an administrator will deal with him.
 * Bilby: That suggestion is far to long of a comment to have in brackets. To simply provide Invasion Day there and mention that it's controversial provokes the thought with the reader, "Why is that controversial?" While we want to have the reader asking that question and while we want to answer it, we ruin the flow of the lead and in the end simply distract the reader from the information we are presenting! By giving a fuller, more complete information about the information in the third paragraph, we aren't hiding the information, we're explaining and providing more information than we would be by simply dropping a quick mention. As for your concerns about it being an alternative name, I would say 'Invasion Day' is more than a name; it's a movement. While we could simply mention the name, I feel we are better off by explaining Invasion Day and what it represents. That was we encounter a much more neutral representation of both the Australia and Invasion Day argument. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're hiding anything by putting it in the last paragraph, and agree with you that it needs an explanation. My concern is is simply that it makes sense to say "Australia Day (also known as ..) is ..." A full explanation is needed, and having it later in the lead is fine, but it also seems reasonable to follow standard practice and list alternative names immediately after the first. Just in a briefer format than was there before. - Bilby (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Invasion Day really an alternative name though? It's not as if Australia Day and Invasion Day mean the same thing. I thought the whole idea of it was that it was a separate day that is recognized for completely different reasons. Rather than being an alternative name, the name refers to what is quite clearly an alternative commemoration, one linked to but certainly not the same as the Australia Day concept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's commemorating exactly the same event, on the same day, but from a very different perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's not the same Day. By listing it as an alternative name, it suggests the two are interchangable. 'Invasion Day' isn't the national holiday of Australia, it's a Day to counter Australia Day. It's not so much an alternative name but an alternative commemoration and type of event. Hence why the entire commemoration of Invasion Day should be explained as a whole, not tried to be merged as if it is the same thing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the argument that they're two separate commemorations, while it has some merit, is a bit difficult to carry through - both recognise exactly the same event, on the same day of the year, but from different perspectives. There may be value in it, but it's such a gray area that I think it is easier to treat them as different names for the same thing. At any rate, if you don't think it should be added as an alternative name, and consensus heads that way, I'm always happy to defer to consensus. My main focus on this article should be to fix up the second fifty years, which is missing all the historically important bits. :)
 * I should add, in relation to whether or not the two are interchangeable, in his Australia Day speech Abbott did seem to suggest that Invasion Day was an alternative name. That caught me by surprise. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Australia Day commemorates the landing of the British on the 26th of January. Invasion Day mourns the destruction of Aboriginal culture on the 26th January. Same event yes, same celebration no. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a matter of perspective - Australia Day celebrates the arrival of the British on January 26, Invasion Day mourns the arrival of the British on January 26. While I understand where you're going, I feel it is a distinction with no difference. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Galah66 (talk)

Sweeping undiscussed changes
Wikipedia has a brand new editor with the name of Ozday. This unsubtly named user has made only two contributions to Wikipedia, both involving considerable changes to this article on Australia Day, all with an obvious POV towards it all being a wonderful event that all Australians should love, and culminating with "...no change to 26 January is likely."

No discussion at all preceded these changes. Some use australiaday.com.au as their source. That looks very much like a primary source which is going to have an obvious bias in its thoughts on the matter of Australia Day.

The day is a controversial one to many people. Our new, completely one-eyed editor (note the name again) has considerably changed the tone of the article, without any discussion.

I'm not comfortable at all with what has been done here, but unsure how to proceed.

HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the change as per your comments above. I'm always suspicious of new single-issue editors who obviously have had prior experience with editing.  He/She can address the issues here it they want.--Dmol (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I too was suspicious of a brand new editor who could edit that well HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am OzDay, a new and totally inexperinced Wikipedia editor who's clumsy contribution has been correctly rejected. Yes, I have had experience writing/editing in other media, but this was my first attempt in Wikipedia. Being a novice I didn't/still don't understand how it all works and I suspect that I still have much to learn. Your suspicions are right - I do have strong link to Australia Day, but think that this could be an advantage to the Australia Day article. I was rather lazy with the references and should have worked harder on referencing the original sources. I'd appreciate any guidance as I try to participate in the conversation with you to end up with an enhanced article.

My changes were not intended to make the day appear to be triumphal. I believe that I had the following contributions to make:

- The first half of the current article is very historically focused and I wanted to balance this by reflecting the contemporary experience where over half of the population participate in the day - and do so in lots of small communties, not just the capital cities. There is accademic research to support the participation figures and also to show that a larger number of Australians see the day as being future-focused or present-day focussed, rather than being historically focused.

- I share your observations that there are problems with the date, January 26. While the debate continues, my observation is that I don't think that any date change is likely unless a viable alternative date is identified and community consensus is formed. Tom Calma's most recent contribution to the date discussion suggests that the advent of a republic might be the only way a groundswell of opinion might result in a viable alternative and an eventual change.

On a technical matter. Should I change my user name? Have I got the Wikipedia protocol wrong?

What do I do now?Ozday (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OzDay again. I have been reflecting and I do believe that the Celebrations section of the article would greatly benefit from significant expansion and enhancement. Currently there is minimal attention paid to the contemporary participatory experience for the majority of Australians. Sustainable Tourism CRC conducted research a few years ago reported that 53% of Australians do something quite deliberately to celebrate their national day. The current word-weight of the article does not reflect this contemporary participation experience. The current word count reflects this imbalance… - History section is 1,577 words - Celebrations section is just 251 words - Criticism etc section is 1,598 words

So I seek your advice. What is the consensus on this position? If so and I draft a new section, do I post it here for discussion before I upload it in the article? And still keen to recieve advice on my username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozday (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a look at WP:Username you will see details of Wikipedia's username policy. One set of prohibited names are "Promotional usernames (which) are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia." Your username, plus the tone of your edits, made it clear that you are here to promote the subject of the only article you have ever edited. You can understand that outright commercial promotion of that style is banned, and obviously some people benefit financially from Australia Day's success. In my mind your name comes very close to that definition.


 * As for your content, I have concerns that as soon as you start adding details of individual celebrations, other editors will want to add what happens in their town, ad nauseum. Where will it stop? Broad descriptions and summaries are good.


 * I also recommend that you end every post with four tildes (~). It's usually the symbol at the top left of the keyboard. That will automatically add your username plus date and time to your post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Now Galah66. This could get adictive.

Below is my draft/suggested new celebrations section. I would welcome everyone's comments before I post it. As per HiLo48's suggestion above I have avoided the hundreds of local event and have focused just on the bigger ones. I have pretty much included all of the prior content but have significantly expanded it (see the comments from OZday [my previous username] above about the relative weighting of the sections). To begin the section I have included partricipation data to give scale to the occassion. I have finished the section with data about perceptions of the meanings of the day. This seems to segue well into the critcisms section which then follows. I look forward to comments. - Contemporary Celebrations

Since 1988 participation in Australia Day has continued to increase and in 1994 all States and Territories began to celebrate a unified public holiday on the actual day for the first time.[19] Research conducted in 2007 reported that 27.6% of Australians attended an organsied Australia Day event and a further 25.6% celebrated with family and friends (Deery, M., Jago, L. And Fredline, L. (2007) celebrating a National Day: The Meaning and Impact of Australia Day Events, Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre making Australia Day the largest annual public event in the nation). This supported the results of an earlier research project where 66% of respondents anticipated that they would actively celebrate Australia Day 2005 (Elliott and Shanahan Research (2004) Newspoll Omnibus Survey Australia Day 2005).

Outdoor concerts, community barbeques, sports competitions, festivals and fireworks are some of the many events presented in communities large and small across the nation. These official events are presented by the National Australia Day Council, an official council or committee in each state and territory, and 780 local committees in communities across the nation (National Australia Day Council, Annual Report 2008-2009, 2009).

In Sydney the harbour is a focus and races are held, such as a ferry race and the tall ships race while Melbourne’s events focus more on the celebration of multi-culturalism (Smith, B., (2007) ‘Grab Your Ukulele and March for the Nation’, The Age, 27/1/2007, p. 5). With audiences exceeding 400,000 at the Perth Skyworks (the largest single event presented each Australia Day), major celebrations are not confined to the East coast capitals (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7024177/fewer-young-at-dry-skyworks/).

Citizenship ceremonies are also commonly held with Australia Day now the largest occasion for the acquisition of citizenship. On January 26 2009 13,000 people from 120 countries took Australian Citizenship. In recent years many citizenship ceremonies have includes an affirmation by existing citizens (Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2009) Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 191-193). Research conducted in 2007 reported that 78.6% of respondents thought that citizenship ceremonies were an important feature of the day (Deery, M., Jago, L. And Fredline, L. (2007) Celebrating a National Day: The Meaning and Impact of Australia Day Events, Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre).

The official Australia Day Ambassador Program supports celebrations in communities across the nation by facilitating the participation of high-achieving Australians in local community celebrations. For 2009, 340 Ambassadors participated in 377 local community celebrations (National Australia Day Council, (2009) Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 9). The Order of Australia awards are also a feature of the day. The Australia Day Achievement Medallion is awarded to citizens by local governments based on excellence in both government and non-government organisations. The Governor-General and Prime Minister both address to the nation. On the eve of Australia Day each year, the Prime Minister announces the winner of the Australian of the Year award, presented to an Australian citizen who has shown a "significant contribution to the Australian community and nation", and is an "inspirational role model for the Australian community".[21] Subcategories of the award include Young and Senior Australian of the Year, and an award for Australia's Local Hero.

Various music festivals are held on Australia Day, such as the Big Day Out, the Triple J Hottest 100, and the Australia Day Live Concert which is broadcast nationally. For many years an international cricket match has been held on Australia Day at the Adelaide Oval. These matches have included both Test matches and One Day Internationals.

Despite the date reflecting the arrival of the First Fleet, contemporary celebrations are not particularly historical in their theme with no re-enactments or similar events. Research in 2004 indicated that Australians reflect on history and future equally on Australia Day, with 44% agreeing our past is the most important thing to think about on Australia Day and 41% saying they look towards our future. Only 13% thought it was important to think about the present at this time and 3% were unsure (Pearson, W. And O’Neill, G. (2009) ‘Australia Day: A Day for All Australians?’ in McCrone, D. and McPherson, G. (eds) National Days: Constructing and Mobilising National Identity, Palgrave McMillan, Hampshire, p. 82)

Reflecting a major shift in Australians’ understanding of the place of Indigenous Australians in their national identity, Newspoll research reports that in November 2009 ninety percent of Australians believed it was important to recognise Australia’s indigenous people and culture as part of Australia Day celebrations. A similar proportion (89%) say it’s important to recognise the cultural diversity of the nation. (Newspoll Omnibus Survey (2009) viewed at http://www.australiaday.org.au/media/files/hz5pkr_Research%20results%20-%20media%20release%20FINAL.pdf ) Despite the significant attendance at Australia Day events, and a positive disposition towards the recognition of Indigenous Australians and more recent migrants the date of the celebrations, which reflects both the arrival of the First Fleet and the disposition of the original Australians, remains a source of considerable challenge. - Galah66 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if anyone had comments on the proposed expansion of the Celebrations section. I will leave it unchanged for another day, then will go ahead, unless suggestions are made. Galah66 (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Big changes like that might take a bit of time to consider, but it is great to see work being done on the article. :) As some comments:
 * Reflecting a major shift in Australians’ understanding of the place of Indigenous Australians in their national identity, Newspoll research reports that in November 2009 ninety percent of Australians believed it was important to recognise Australia’s indigenous people and culture as part of Australia Day celebrations. A similar proportion (89%) say it’s important to recognise the cultural diversity of the nation.
 * This has a couple of problems - it is very close to the source, and probably overly close paraphrasing. I'm also a bit concerned about "ninety percent of Australians", as technically that should be 90% of those polled. The first part also feels a bit like OR: does this represent a major shift? And, if so, can we source this?
 * In Sydney the harbour is a focus and races are held, such as a ferry race and the tall ships race while Melbourne’s events focus more on the celebration of multi-culturalism
 * The source described a multicultural event, but it isn't compared to Sydney.
 * With audiences exceeding 400,000 at the Perth Skyworks (the largest single event presented each Australia Day), major celebrations are not confined to the East coast capitals
 * Needs a year - that should be that an estimated audience of 400,000 attended the Perth Skyshow in 2007. I'd add that the article is mostly about the reduced attendance at the event, so I'm not sure how that aspect should be covered: I tend to be a bit wary of picking part of a source (the numbers) without noting the context.
 * The statement:
 * ... contemporary celebrations are not particularly historical in their theme with no re-enactments or similar events.
 * makes me a tad nervous without a source, as the idea that there are no re-enactments doesn't seem correct.
 * Research in 2004 indicated that Australians reflect on history and future equally on Australia Day, with 44% agreeing our past is the most important thing to think about on Australia Day and 41% saying they look towards our future. Only 13% thought it was important to think about the present at this time and 3% were unsure.
 * Reads as if it is from a particular point of view ("Only 13% thought"), and needs to be reworded to not be aimed at Australians ("our", etc).
 * Generally there's some good stuff here, but it may need to be expressed more formally - it reads a bit like something the Australia Day Council would put out, rather than the more neutral wording we generally need to aim for - and we'll need to tidy up the referencing. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Excellent comments. I will work on your comments and the referencing. I will look to post it in the next day or so. Galah66 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Bilby. You have suggested that a few citations are needed. I'm not sure what the Wiki-protocols are on how I can cite original research. For example I have researched the GG (vice-regal news) and PM's (speeches/transcripts) web sites to establish the fact about their event attendance. Similarly I have trawled various official websites to draw the conclusion that there are very, very few events with historical themes. Suggestions on how I proceed? The comment about the cricket was in the article before I edited it. As an occassional cricket punter I know the statement to be true. Again, what to do? Finally, I will work on the Perth event citation. Galah66 (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In practice, you can't include original research - I tend to think of Wikipedia as a literature review, where you can only describe information that can be directly sourced to a reliable source. Thus, generally, if it is your own research and is unpublished it can't be included. It is an odd view, in some ways, but it makes sense given the intensely collaborative nature of Wikipedia. However, not many of those claims can't be sourced, except perhaps the historical themes one. I'll see what I can find. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

PLEASE REMOVE MISLEADING PHOTOGRAPH I have just received confirmation from the State Library of Queensland that image no. 66719: 'Australia Day picnic on the riverbank at St. Lucia, Brisbane, 1908,' is indeed incorrect. The inscription on the back of the photograph states, ""St. Lucia 26/1/08. To Roy. In rememberance of Rocky." Obviously a get together for a friend who had passed away, this is not an Australia day picnic in 1908. The library will be updating the image with the correct information tomorrow. Rodney214 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm removing it for now. - Bilby (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

Nicknames
I was not the one who removed 'Invasion Day' etc from the sidepanel in the first place however I can not disagree with this action. Whilst the other names featured, e.g. Foundation Day, appear to be sanctioned alternative names for the day, 'Invasion Day' etc are just inflammatory names used by special interest groups. These are not legitimate names for the day and their existence is already discussed later in the article. (Sir Harry Nessbit 05:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Nessbit (talk • contribs)

Bias
Am I the only one who feels this article presents some pretty emotive and potentially inflammatory statements as fact? I have attempted to reword some of the points so they are more accurately presented as the opinions of specific groups. A user seems to have taken exception to this as they clearly share the views stated in the article and is trying to revert it back. Would like to hear peoples' thoughts on this. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWESTERN (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are the thoughts of the chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia notable enough for inclusion?
Pino Migliorino has an article in today's Age (and I would guess the SMH) all about inclusiveness on Australia Day. Not sure if there's anything there worth adding to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Several alternative dates for Australia Day have been proposed." HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with that, but I guess we could add something like "although, to date they have not gained the required support". Or something. :) "Required support" I like a bit, as it doesn't make mention of the extent of the support, and to be honest it may well be as much about who supports the changes as how many. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're probably right about it being more about who supports a change rather than a number. My first thought about pointing out that proposals have so far been unsuccessful was, isn't that bloody obvious? The date hasn't changed! Hence my choice of not even mentioning that it has so far been unsuccessful. If we do say something there, "required support" is good. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a large, multi-point section about various proposals to change the date. Therefore I do not see too much to be concerned about in the tense of the opening summary of what is to follow. The what is to follow is the important bit. I see nothing wrong in changing the tense to past tense plus present tense either, but I just do not see this one line as all that important. I do not agree with "required support" wording as it implies there is an existing, agreed-upon benchmark of support, and that once that "required support" is reached, voila, the date will change. Even if, say, some vote showed 90% of Aust citizens supported the change, that alone does not automatically guarantee that the date will change. We shouldn't speculate that the date will inevitably change once the "required support" is reached, because we can't know that, and we do not even know what that "required support" might be. We could say that "There have been various proposals to change the date" and perhaps describe with references the levels of support and commentary such proposals have attracted, but that is all. Format (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I agree with HiLo48 that "widespread public support" is incorrect, as we don't know if there is widespread support (although I think we can safely assume that there isn't), and, even if there was such support, there is no reason to assume that the date would be changed. "Required support" I preferred as it left the issue ambiguous - it doesn't speak of a number or particular people, just that whatever support may be required, it hasn't been met. But it isn't that important to me - I'm quite happy with HiLo48's original suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think HiLo48's original suggestion ("Several alternative dates for Australia Day have been proposed.") is good. The subsequent sections describing different points of view on the subject make it clear there are contrasting views and that some people want it to change, and others wants to keep 26 January. "Required support" to me seems to expect that there will be a change some time, which to me seems to suggest a POV. Format (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

--Galah66 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also added a few words about public festivals, concerts and citizenship ceremonies to the list of the more formal evnets.Galah66 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just capitalised Governor-General and Prime Minister int he lead. I'd like to suggest that I look in Wikimedia Commons for three images to add to the article: 1) an image of an event some time between 1788 and 1988 as there is nothing at the moment, 2) a citizenship ceremony photo as these ceremonies are central to the formality of the day, and 3) a photo from the Australian of the Year Awards also central to the official celebrations. Comments?Galah66 (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have just added three photos as per above. Still looking for one for the sesqui-centenary section.Galah66 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Couln't find and royalty free photographs. As ist getting close to Australia Day I have been researching updates to some of the statistics and will bring them up-to-date where possible. I might tidy a few bits up here and there too. Galah66 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we bloody well go again
In the annual Australia Day shit fight, two IP editors and now my mate Pete/Skyring, who hates my guts and will attack my work here at the drop of a hat, have tried to replace the long standing nicknames of "Survival Day" and "Invasion Day" with "Citizen's Day". None have used an Edit summary, or taken the matter to the Talk page, not even Pete, who has been here for years and should bloody well know how things work here. I'm sure he does realise that if I revert again it will be my third revert, and he'll have the text all ready to report me for 3RR, in yet another attempt to get me banned here.

I can accept the IP editors taking the action they did, in pure naivety, but for Pete/Skyring, the world's greatest wikilawyer, to push his politics in this way sickens me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The changes about which I'm concerned have now been reverted by User:Danjel. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Try cutting down on the personal attacks, HiLo. I don't hate anyone. What I really detest is cant and polemic masquerading as information. This is an encyclopaedia, not a political tract. --Pete (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You hate the ALP, Julia Gillard, the HSU and all its officials, and following the rules here, while being an expert at claiming to follow them. And that latter claim, as made clear above, is just plain rubbish. You hate me for pointing out your POV pushing here. All I was doing was moving the article back towards a long established status quo, with a solid explanation. To revert me, with no Edit summary at all, will take an awful lot of explaining. Incompetence, POV pushing, or ulterior motive seem the most likely explanations. Oh, and it seems that you also hate apologising when you stuff up. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One useful way to look at humanity is to separate people - who are all loveable in their own individual ways - from behaviour, which can be good or bad. Consider that someone you love deeply could be affected by grief or anger, drugs or pain to commit some awful act. Do you stop loving them if they run over the neighbour's yapping dog which has kept them awake every night for a week? What a horrid thing to do, to destroy an innocent little child's pet. Or do you understand that they, like everybody else, are only human? I don't hate Julia Gillard. Or you. Please stop assigning motives and emotions to me which I do not possess. You cannot see into my heart, and you are wrong in your guesses. Simple as that. Why not look at people with more thoughtful eyes? --Pete (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've put a lot of thought into trying to understand you. I think I'm pretty close now, as described above. What I hadn't mentioned was your repetitive nonsense about seeing things with one's heart. I see things as they are. No sentimental, emotional claptrap needed. I'm still awaiting your explanation and apology for that unexplained revert of my work. I even looked into your heart, and couldn't see it there either. Pretty sure you would rather just provoke and push a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish I could see things as they are. But Plato demolished that notion 2 500 years ago. Lao Tzu earlier than that. It's an impossibility. So. You see people and their behaviour as one and the same. A good person cannot do a bad thing, and a bad person cannot do a good thing? --Pete (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So you two spent Australia day arguing about crap while the rest of us partied, lol101.160.34.87 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Seems that way sometimes. Here in Canberra there was a lot going on, but basically I spent my day with friends and relatives, catching up, talking, having a few drinks and eating too much food. Roo kebabs and roast lamb. Yum! --Pete (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe views
The Duke of Wellington is nicknamed "The Iron Duke" (bonus points for knowing why). Bob Menzies is AKA "Pig Iron Bob", Kevin Rudd is inextricably linked to "Krudd", but is Australia Day really nicknamed Invasion Day, Survival Day etc.?

Now, of course we can find sources for all of the above, but when it comes to nicknames, it seems to me that "Invasion Day" is akin to the flat earth view of the world. It is the province of a few who hold their minority opinion dearly. They find it hard to get along with the majority. For these people, it is a battlefield, a "Remember the Maine!" moment. Does anybody really remember the Maine any more? It's been a hundred years or so, and nobody uses the second half of the popular slogan, though it led to an imperial war.

Seems to me that "Invasion Day" and its ilk are the province of the 1% rather than the 99% who couldn't give a rat's arse. Fringe stuff at best. --Pete (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Date claimed sovereignty?
We have the line in our introduction:

"26 January 1788 marked the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia (then known as New Holland).

It's sourced to Victorian Government web page, which seems to have lapsed. I have always assumed that the date Britain proclaimed sovereignty over the Eastern seabord was was in 1770, when Cook dropped in on Possession Island (Queensland), while 26 January 1788 was merely the officially proclamation of the Colony of New South Wales. It's possible the Vic.gov website is wrong. Or it may be a legal distinction between "taking possession" and "claiming sovereignty"? Perhaps there is. Can a boffin offer an opinion here? Observoz (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't even the official proclamation of the Colony of New South Wales. That occurred on 7 February 1788, as we point out (or should, if we don't).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked: we do include this detail already. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Application of WP:CRITICISM
Looking at WP:CRITICISM, we find that wikipolicy is to deprecate specific Criticism or Controversy sections, such as that found in this article. Accordingly, I intend to remove it and reincorporate the material at an appropriate level of prominence, into some other section. For example, we could present these very fringey and minority views in a paragraph headed "Aboriginal activism", linked to a specific article. Australia Day shouldn't have to carry a large chunk of polemic. --Pete (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"This is often considered by the Australian government ..."
...is really poor English, and weaselish. A new editor seems to want to Edit war over it. I don't want to edit war, but I do want a quality article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As well as the above post, I also posted on the new editor's Talk page, asking him to come here. I reverted again with a detailed Edit summary. He has now reverted again, without even an Edit summary. I won't play there any more for now. I am beginning to suspect incompetence. Can someone help with this please? HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This clown has now posted on MY Talk page, but not here or on his own Talk page, where I have posted. What ARE we dealing with? HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Australia Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516025232/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/spring-is-in-the-air-what-a-golden-day-for-the-wattles/135279.aspx?storypage=0 to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/spring-is-in-the-air-what-a-golden-day-for-the-wattles/135279.aspx?storypage=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Australia Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051106133028/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200501/s1289372.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1289372.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703002259/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24958860-661,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24958860-661,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Australia Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706121336/http://www.australiaday.gov.au/pages/page79.asp to http://www.australiaday.gov.au/pages/page79.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110510080440/http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/gilly-backs-australia-day-debate/story-0-1111118672763 to http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/gilly-backs-australia-day-debate/story-0-1111118672763

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:45, 2 March 2016 (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.

semi-protection requested
I've requested semi-protection for this page, due to the annual vandalism around this time of year. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Straya Day
I added Straya Day to the nick-names section. It was removed with this Undo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia_Day&diff=761981357&oldid=761979632.

Suggesting to put it back.

Stephanwehner (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the strine term "Straya Day" belongs in the infobox. a reliable reference or two would be the minimum requirement to support your case. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Immigrant day
This edit added the alternative name "Immigrant Day" to the lead section, but that term is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and I can find no reference to support it.

Is there any evidence to support this term? If yes, a reference should be added. If not, the term should be removed. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Also called Invasion Day
Despite being well sourced in the article text, "Invasion Day" has again been removed from the infobox (most recently over of several edits since this version). I've done 3 reverts already in the last 24 hours - on material that is contentious but not blatant vandalism - so I can't restore it. Other editors' assistance - and/or a discuss here - is requested. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored again by.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Changing the date would merely result in an 'old invasion day' and a 'new invasion day'.1.144.96.143 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New section for former dates referred to as Australia Day
A quick search of Trove reveals that previously Australia Day has been celebrated on other dates. Here's an example from 1915: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/166930683. While this article currently focuses on January 26, I feel that a section acknowledging that Australia Day celebrations have been held on other days in the past is worthwhile. Thoughts? --Danimations (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Another example here, from 1927: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/93598749 --Danimations (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)