Talk:Australia Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ellipsis (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 3 February 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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


Remove invasion day

Referral of Australia day as: “Invasion day”; contradicts australian law as per statute τ 5.12.2 National Defamation Act. Therefore it should be removed. VAAW (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit odd, because there isn't a federal defamation Act. And who exactly would it be defaming? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the British - there were no Australian citizens prior to 1949. That fact alone makes a mockery of this entire page Autist4lyfe (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VAAW: a link to the specific law/Act, eg something on https://www.austlii.edu.au/ or https://www.legislation.gov.au/, would be helpful to this discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind to VAAW: as Laterthanyouthink says and as can be checked in those sources, there is no such law. I've given VAAW a "disruption" warning—their third this year, following others—and propose remove this section. Errantius (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it has to stay, as per WP:TPG - and it keeps a record of someone's apparent ignorance and/or attempt to deceive. VAAW might not last long as an editor if they continue the way they've started, by the sound of things! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With your measured opinion I concur. Errantius (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recognising that Australia Day is controversial

Hi. Just following up on this edit, I think it's worth adding more prominently that Australia Day is a very controversial day. There are plenty of reliable sources that support calling it controversial. I'm finding that the lead is particularly ignorant to the significant and growing distain around the date, especially considering it has only two rather passive sentences at the very end that barely give any balance. I would particularly like to get some diverse voices in this discussion, to try and prevent there being a biased discussion here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent has been adequately addressed in the lead. thorpewilliam (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorpewilliam: I disagree. As I provided, there are a plethora of reliable sources that make reasonable note of the disagreement within Australia about January 26th. Two sentences at the bottom do not give due weight to several thousands of people in cities across Australia marching, over a quarter of Australians supporting a change, and almost 50% of Australians predicting a change of date in the next 10 years (source). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: It is, at the same time, widely celebrated and a quarter wanting change is still quite well a minority. Minority positions are indeed discussed, including in the lead (personally I'd argue for removing the mention of those who wish to abolish the day in the lead because it's such a small minority overall) and they are discussed at considerable length further on in the article. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorpewilliam: Despite trying to boil this down into a simple minority-majority dialogue, you have to acknowledge that the minority still represents a forecast ~6.5 million Australians. There is a continuing upwards trend in the number of Australians supporting the change, and public opinion has grown significantly in recent years towards changing the date/other restorative measures. As you know, WP has very strong policies about the weight of article content in proportion to importance and impact - two sentences and a rather poorly written section (primarily, a lack of focus on the underlying culture and lived experience that forms the basis of the change the date movement) do not give due weight or respect to the opinion of over 6 million Australians. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: The significance of the 26th itself is only summarised in one, perhaps, two sentences. This is what leads do – they summarise information in brief. There's more about calls to change the date as well as the evolving focus of Australia Day celebrations in the body of the article. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorpewilliam: The historical significance of Australia Day as currently observed is detailed in about 2000 words throughout the article, and about 6 sentences in the lead. Regardless, the fundamental issue I'm highlighting here is that the weight upon the public conscious with respect to the change the date and affiliated movements isn't reflected appropriately in this article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: I understand the point you're conveying, but again, I must disagree. Based on appearance it seems the "change the date" movement takes up over a third of the article, which in my opinion is more than sufficient. Furthermore, I was referring to what Australia Day actually represents in historical terms – "Observed annually on 26 January, it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and raising of the Union Flag by Arthur Phillip following days of exploration of Port Jackson in New South Wales" "The date of 26 January 1788 marked the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia (then known as New Holland)" – two sentences. Hence, it seems proportional to me. thorpewilliam (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thorpewilliam: I mean, the entire section called "History" seems to be historical reference and the entire second paragraph in the lead is, so... anyways, that's a bit tangential. I still believe that the magnitude and sociocultural importance and impact of 'Change the Date' movements aren't fairly represented here, but I think it's best for us to just agree to disagree before this just becomes a circle. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle: Very well. At the very least our discussion here may serve to inform or interest other editors who stumble across it should they be wondering what the correct balance is. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australia day is to celebrate Australia becoming a nation - "Observed annually on 26 January, it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and raising of the Union Flag by Arthur Phillip" isn't even close. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0910/AustCitizenship#_Toc224109062 Note the date when people could start calling themselves Australian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.253.129 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We give the Indigenous perspective in one of four paragraphs in the lede. There's certainly enough good sourcing to justify this - and more every year- but as we say "Support for changing the date has remained a minority position". I don't see any serious groundswell along the lines of the support for a republic which is another topic that gets a general flogging.

There's another minority position which surfaces at these sort of events and that is the use of Australian symbols to represent a White Anglo-Saxon perspective. "Australia, love it or leave it", that sort of thing. I like to think that we contain many different cultures within our nation, but still we get this trumpery each year. --Pete (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change information - the dates of landing for First Fleet. Current information is incorrect

"Observed annually on 26 January, it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and raising of the Union Flag by Arthur Phillip following days of exploration of Port Jackson in New South Wales"

This is incorrect. Colonists actually landed in Botany Bay somewhere between the 18th and 20th of January in 1788. That this is still one of the number one answers that appear when users search 'Australia Day' is adding to the divide, and is misinformation. Could you please change? UNKNOWN Editor

I found this reference [1] --03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)OCrugbytragic (talk)

Hi OCrugbytragic. This section does say it arrived in Botany earlier, and goes on to detail their movements until 26th January, when they made landing at Sydney Cove. However it is all badly in need of proper citing (for which I don't have time now but might come back to at some point - I expect that there are adequate citations in the First Fleet article). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

It looks to me as if there's more than enough content to put most of the Change the Date (and/or more general criticisms and suggestions, polls, etc.) into a new article, and it's not going to go away anytime soon. Thoughts? Any volunteers? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink I'm for it. Have a small section in this article then move the bulk of the content to a seperate one. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain the logic of Australia Day celebrating British settlement rather than the day Australia become a nation?

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a "neutral viewpoint" with an aim of accuracy. Instead there are articles like this which ignore facts and pander to the PC crowd. (Unsigned comment by Autist4lyfe, 24 January 2022)

Moved this most recent comment to bottom. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Autist4lyfe, your question is not clear. Is there particular wording that you object to? Wikipedia reflects one of the common criticisms of Australia Day, often reported in the media - that the day is ill-chosen, because it is not on the day that Australia became a nation (1 May 1901), but rather the day that the British flag was erected at Sydney Cove. Please discuss here, and be careful about edit-warring. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must have slept through that lesson. What's special about 1 May 1901 besides it being your birthday? --Pete (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant 1 January 1901. But no historians regard that date as the one on which Australia became a nation (in the sense of a sovereign, independent nation). Six colonies merged to form one new colony. Sovereignty and independence came much later, but the precise date has been a matter of debate for many decades. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the OP's question, the article goes into quite a lot of depth about why Australia Day is on 26 January. It also extensively covers the issue of changing the date. It's not the job of the article nor is this Talk page the place to debate changing the date. There are plenty of other forums for that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional representation in citation of poll data

I have a concern that the final sentence of the first section does not include a suitable spread of citations.

Support for changing the date has remained a minority position, according to most polls.

There are seven cites, and while there appears to be a spread of journalism sources (News Corp, ABC and Nine Media) three of the remaining cites [2][3][4] are from a right-wing think tank (IPA). The editorial policy of the IPA sources indicates a push away from the 'change the date' movement and as a result I suspect the poll data may not be wholly independent. When reviewing the remaining four sources:

  • Ipsos[5] indicates half of respondents believe the date will change within a decade,
  • the Nine Media (SMH) article[6] is a re-hash of the same Ipsos poll,
  • the ABC[7] indicates a clear trend over time towards a supporting position of changing the date,
  • News Corp (news.com.au)[8] state "more than half of Aussies now supporting changing Australia Day"

As a result, I'd push for a change to the sentence to a more moderate position, and I recommend removing all bar one of the IPA cites and/or additional cites for comparable liberal think-tanks.

Suggested sentence change:

Support for changing the date has historically been a minority position, however polls indicate an increasing trend of support for changing the date, particularly among Australians under age 30.

References

  1. ^ https://theaimn.com/january-26-1788-the-day-the-white-men-came-and-plundered
  2. ^ "Poll - Mainstream Australians Continue To Support Australia Day On 26 January". Institute of Public Affairs. 2021-01-17. Retrieved 2021-03-22.
  3. ^ "Australia Day Poll" (PDF). January 2021. This poll of 1,038 Australians was commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs. Data for this poll was collected by marketing research firm Dynata between 11-13 December 2020.
  4. ^ "New Poll: Majority Of Australians Support Australia Day On 26 January". IPA - The Voice For Freedom. 2022-01-16. Retrieved 2022-01-26.
  5. ^ "Ipsos Australia Day Poll Report". Ipsos. 24 January 2021. Retrieved 22 March 2021.
  6. ^ Topsfield, Jewel (2021-01-24). "Not going to solve anything: Why some Australians don't want a date change". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2021-03-02.
  7. ^ "We're changing our minds on Australia Day — and it's happening rapidly". ABC News. 2021-06-17. Retrieved 2022-01-26.
  8. ^ Chung, Frank (2021-06-18). "'Majority' support changing Australia Day". news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site. Retrieved 2022-01-26.

...chat.edits 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following no response I've made the changes, removed one of the IPA ref's that were from the same year same poll data, and I've added two current cites from new media outlets in 2022. ...chat.edits 08:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ellipsis the News Corp article is itself referring to the ABC poll. While polls in general show a trend, the ABC poll is an exception to the rule. The language of the intro should acknowledge the reality that - at least according to the bulk of polls - the current date remains preferred. I will await your input before attempting to implement any further changes to this. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thorpewilliam, I don't think we can say 'the bulk of polls' say people don't support changing the date if this is entirely based on IPA polling. Unless there is significant polling from a range of sources, I think how Ellipsis has it is best. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow and tomorrow It's not just IPA polling. It's also Ipsos and YouGov, and the Guardian merely states of its poll that "57% of respondents would either support changing the day or keeping the traditional date with another day to better acknowledge and respect the continuous occupation of First Nations people". It's also worth nothing the IPA polls are not conducted by the IPA, but for the IPA by a polling agency (at least this is the case with the most recent one; I haven't checked with the others). Hence the ABC poll is the exception. The language mustn't be "the bulk of polls" but there ought to be a proper way of acknowledging that the 26th remains at present the preferred choice per the polling in general. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both, acknowledge the points and also that the news.com.au article is referring to the same polling as the ABC (which I hadn’t picked up). I think the revised sentence still stands, sources such as the Latch support a statement that acknowledges a shifting trend (particular paras 4 and 8). The bottom line is I felt that the supporting citations of the original statement were disproportionately skewed to IPA, which I would suggest isn’t an independent or mainstream media source - I’d suggest that publication has a history of right wing editorial bias. I think the modified sentence still stands on its own and aligns with the current polling data. (Latch article: https://thelatch.com.au/change-the-date-statistics/) ...chat.edits 11:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_Day&oldid=1069658317"