Talk:Australia Day

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

I would be happy with something like counter-observance. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. Neanderthal4914 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Not only meets the criteria, but has been discussed MANY times before. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Still pushes a pov Neanderthal4914 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not including those names would push a worse one. It would be hiding reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

no Neanderthal4914 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You seem to be well outnumbered, so kindly give this a rest. Errantios (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but only up to a point. See WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON, for example. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever mate, I wont add anything more to itNeanderthal4914 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I don't think it has been explicitly discussed before, but it seems reasonable to include them, given that:

• They are significant, widely covered in the media, and happen every year.
• Survival and Invasion day are included as nicknames - which has been discussed before (#"Also called" in infobox, #Having survival day and invasion day pushes a point of view).
• The protests and mourning ceremonies are mentioned in the lead section and Australia Day § Debate.

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair points. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the protests should be mentioned. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all on politics - classic traditions are important

Beyond the contentious political aspects, Australia Day is also deeply connected to cultural traditions, including its culinary practices. Foods such as lamingtons, pavlovas, bushmen’s damper bread,' and BBQ sausage sizzles are commonly enjoyed on this day and even part of Australia day eating contests with just those foods, reflecting Australia’s unique identity. These dishes are widely celebrated in backyards, parks, and offered at major grocery chains. Much like how Thanksgiving in America is associated with turkey and cranberry sauce, Australia Day has its own classic foods that are central to the celebrations. Currently, the page focuses heavily on the political aspects (which is important), but it could benefit from a dedicated section highlighting festive foods and cultural practices associated with the day. More detailed coverage of these traditions would provide a more well-rounded view of Australia Day, as this aspect currently appears underrepresented and in need of further information. An example would be that I can't even see the word - "Lamington" being mentioned even once in the entire article despite it really should be.49.195.20.141 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to create a section on the foods. Will you include the beer as well? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

"See also" 2026 bombing attempt

260218 - Laterthanyouthink added to ’See also’ a link to 2026 Invasion Day protest bombing attempt

260219 - Willthorpe reverted: Undid revision 1339106551 by Laterthanyouthink (talk) does not quite belong here

260219 - I reverted: Undid revision 1339196912 by Willthorpe (talk) A terroristic bomb attack on an Australia Day event isn't relevant to Australia Day?

260219 - 5225C reverted: No, it isn't. The incident relates to a protest, so it would be related to Invasion Day Undid revision 1339207728 by Errantios

290220 - I reverted: Undid revision 1339208610 by 5225C (talk) Are you not aware that Australia Day and Invasion Day are the same?

260221 - 5225C reverted: Not from this article or really anything else... Seems like a POV issue? Undid revision 1339412939 by Errantios

I would reply that this article states that ‘Australia Day’ and ‘Invasion Day’ name one and the same day.

Since I cannot revert a third time, this issue is brought to Talk for the opinion of other users:

Should ‘See also’ in this article link to 2026 Invasion Day protest bombing attempt?

Errantios (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a reasonable and valid entry.

MOS:SEEALSO says entries should be "related ... articles", "relevant", "tangentially related topics ... related to the topic of the article", and 2026 Invasion Day protest bombing attempt meets all of those criteria, because it did happen at an Australia / Invasion Day rally. The dashed-parenthetical phase in the first sentence of 2026 Invasion Day protest bombing attempt explicitly states the connection.

SEEALSO also says "provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". The Australia Day article mentions the term "Invasion Day" several times, including in the infobox, so we can reasonably assume the relevance is apparent, even to a non-Australian reader. If the only objection to the entry was that the relevance was not immediately apparent, that could be resolved by a brief annotation, although I do not think it necessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

An attempted terrorist bombing, which occurred on one year over the history of a holiday that has been celebrated in some form since the early nineteenth century, does not necessarily belong in the 'See also' section of the main article. Such an article as this one, covering a major national holiday, should probably not refer to a specific act of attempted violence in that section.

The recency (WP:RECENT) of this repugnant act may make determination of how to cover it difficult. The proper answer to whether the attempted bombing should be included in this article, and how, will probably become clearer in time.

I note that the editor also added a link in the 'See also' section of the Australia Day debate piece, though in that case, the attempted bombing was already covered in the body. There is no question that it should be covered there, as a clear act of political violence pertinent to the political discourse mainly discussed therein.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)