Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Australia Day

Good articleAustralia Day has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 26, 2005, January 26, 2006, January 26, 2007, January 26, 2008, January 26, 2009, January 26, 2010, January 26, 2011, January 26, 2012, January 26, 2013, January 26, 2014, January 26, 2015, January 26, 2016, January 26, 2017, January 26, 2018, January 26, 2019, January 26, 2020, January 26, 2021, January 26, 2022, January 26, 2023, and January 26, 2024.


Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Australia day was created after the Citizenship act was legislated in 1948 and enacted on 26th Jan, 1949. This removed our title as British subjects and gave us the title of Australian citizens with our own passport. It also allowed people who wished to migrate the opportunity to become Australian citizens. It is not related to the colonisation in 1788 as we were not Australians.

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/citizenship-act WallyVS (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er no, our status as British subjects and British Nationals was REINFORCED by the 1948 ' British Nationality and Australian Citizenship Act ' 1948 . See Section 7 of the ORIGINAL Act. Right up until 3of March 1986 the UK Parliament could and did legislate for all Australians - see Australia Act ( UK ) 1986 . 103.89.11.9 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I hope you have a chance to correct the article. WallyVS (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26 January was celebrated as Australia Day before 1949."Australia Day". Truth (Sydney newspaper). No. 2767. New South Wales, Australia. 17 January 1943. p. 28. Retrieved 27 January 2023 – via National Library of Australia. "Australia Day". Westralian Worker. No. 2045. Western Australia. 23 January 1948. p. 4. Retrieved 27 January 2023 – via National Library of Australia. (notice of shops' closure on Australia Day in WA) Doug butler (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. The source the original request quotes literally says the Act "came into effect on Australia Day" - i.e. Australia Day already existed. Melcous (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I too, in my ignorance (as an average Joe) thought that the 1949 celebration was the start of Australia Day celebrations. But in checking for myself. That is clearly not the case (as other much more learned people have advised). Jason F2 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise, Woolworths etc

Willthorpe moved the paragraph about merchandising and "boycott Woolworths" etc from Australia Day [1] to Australia Day debate [2], but I'm not sure that is the right place for it. The Australia Day debate article is primarily about the date, whereas the Kmart, Woolworths, Aldi have not made any mention of changing the date. The specific section Australia Day debate § Political responses does not seem correct because the retailers are not saying that it is a political move (although Dutton and Michael Sukkar are claiming that it is).

What to do other editors think? Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is no doubt that Dutton's and Sukkar's responses are political, and no surprise to anyone. Woolworth's formal position is primarily about it being a commercial decision. They did also say "At the same time there's been broader discussion about 26 January and what it means to different parts of the community." I guess that's a little bit political, but it's very carefully and diplomatically written. Of course the conspiracy theorists and hard core opponents of changing the date immediately declared it to be entirely political. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need a new section Australia Day debate § Commercial responses ? [3][4][5][6] Mitch Ames (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames Very good suggestion. Thanks for picking up on this; I didn’t intend to imply any political expression from Woolworths. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... a new section Australia Day debate § Commercial responses — Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamation of British sovereignty

I'm concerned about this claim in the second paragraph: "The date of 26 January 1788 marks the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia". The referenced website has been taken down and I can find no other source that makes this claim. Elsewhere in wikipedia tends to contradict it, including the article itself. We know that Cook had already proclaimed sovereignty at Possession island in 1770 and that the NSW colony was proclaimed on 7 February. Caviare (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article from SBS. About a quarter of the way down it says "The 26th...marks the raising of the Union Jack flag in Sydney Cove by Captain Arthur Phillip, who also officially declared British sovereignty over half of Australia." Is that good enough? HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I think is the only written account of the account of the day, nothing is mentioned about a declaration of sovereignty, only of a flag raising. I think we need more authoritative sources. Caviare (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The declaration of sovereignty didn't occur till February 7th, so while true, your suggestion is a little misleading
It may also be worth using the actual area claimed (the area bounded by latitude 10 37' to latitude 43 49' south and inland to longitude 135 east) Kamikkels (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Also called" in infobox

@Willthorpe: In the infobox there is a section labelled "Also called", which currently includes the entries "Anniversary Day", "Foundation Day", "Survival Day", and "Invasion Day". I don't plan to dispute that those four entries are actually used as alternative names for Australia Day. However, it's clear that the latter two are pejorative terms used to protest the celebration. Given the scope of this article is clearly the public holiday and its celebration, with criticism covered in the Australia Day debate article, the latter two should be separated from the former two to make clear that "Survival Day" and "Invasion Day" are not used as alternative terms for the celebration. I did this by adding "In protest:" to separate the list but Willthorpe considered this inaccurate, citing some recent usage of the term "Survival Day" as an alternative name by NITV and some local governments. However, both are still using that term as an acknowledgement of the "mixed nature of the day", and so it is still a protest term. I don't mind how the list is separated but the latter two names need to be clearly identified as having a different purpose and use to the other two. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both 5225C and Willthorpe have valid points. Is there an better subheading rather than "In protest"? Perhaps "As counter-observance", per the last paragraph of the lead. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complicated than just being "In protest". Those using those names but still holding events try to make those events very positive ones. And the number using those names and wanting the date changed is growing. Even the Opposition Leader, while not yet agreeing to change in date, is now proposing that a time of reflection be part of the days' activities. Maybe just something like Alternate views. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 I agree it is more complicated than that, and that Alternate views has some merit. Counter-observance likewise has some merit but also some limitations, as does Alternative commemorations which I’m drawing from here. Currently the lead describes the latter two names as counter-observances, though this may run the risk of sidelining that “Survival Day” may be a word carrying mixed connotations/views about the date in a different manner than “Invasion Day”. It is perhaps reasonable to say that these names may be used in conjunction with one another in varying ways.
The Australia Day website, which obviously promotes the mainstream observance of the date foremost, says this:
“January 26 has multiple meanings: it is Australia Day for some, and it is also, for some, Survival Day.
Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have mixed feelings about celebrating this day - some consider it a day of mourning, and others use the day to mark the survival of their ongoing traditions and cultures.”
Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with something like counter-observance. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view would be that the infobox does not need to separate out the reasons it is called by different names - the article itself does that well. MOS:INFOBOX suggests the less information the more effective. And given it is difficult to find a succinct agreeadway of doing it, "also called" is simple and completely neutral. The closest parallel I can think of is Reunification Day which also lists "Black April" and "Fall of Saigon" in the infobox under "Also called" without any additional headings, but the article makes clear these are names used by different groups who have different views of what is being commemorated. Melcous (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having survival day and invasion day pushes a point of view

Shouldn't be a "also known as" as it pushes a negative view on the holiday Neanderthal4914 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as Survival Day and Invasion Day, as described and sourced in Australia_Day#Debate. Wikipedia is not pushing a negative view; it is documenting the reality. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that's in there, why should it be pushed in the holiday article? That's like saying "santa uses elves in a sweatshop" Neanderthal4914 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Neanderthal4914 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Survival and Invasion Day clearly meet the criteria for {{infobox holiday|nickame}}, which is "any ... alternatives ... for the holiday_name or official_name". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only meets the criteria, but has been discussed MANY times before. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still pushes a pov Neanderthal4914 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not including those names would push a worse one. It would be hiding reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Neanderthal4914 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You seem to be well outnumbered, so kindly give this a rest. Errantios (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing anything. Isnt the whole point of a talk page to talk about stuff Neanderthal4914 (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only up to a point. See WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON, for example. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever mate, I wont add anything more to itNeanderthal4914 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of protests in infobox

Do these warrant inclusion as Aus Day events under the 'Events' heading of the infobox? Has this been discussed before? Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been explicitly discussed before, but it seems reasonable to include them, given that:
Mitch Ames (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_Day