Talk:Rats of Tobruk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Division into subheadings

Hi. I've edited this entry into subheadings that detail the sort of "life-cycle" if you will of the "Rats of Tobruk". I understand the criticisms seen lower down on the page that the Rats of Tobruk should be melded with the Siege of Tobruk page, but I really must counter it with a suggestion that they are as separate as say, Queen Elizabeth II is from the English Monarchy - the Rats are a (important) subcomponent of the Seige, but a story, association and legend in their own rights. There tends to be a tradition of units who fight in particularly difficult circumstances to come together and be defined by their shared struggles rather than by their prior (national army) allocations, and I think that the Rats of Tobruk define this more clearly than some other non-unitary definitions. I do not believe this page will be merged, since it's such a rich page, but I should encourage others who may not have the sufficient understanding to recognise that a group of people who have since created their own international war memorial organisation deserve to stand in their own right in an encyclopaedia article. Lest we forget. Bilious 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits by 220.233.65.177

The material added and then edited by this user appears to have come straight from [1] (note in particular the captions edited out). The ANZAC Day Commemoration Committee (Qld) credits it as "Written January 1942 by the Minister for Information, Senator the Hon. W P Ashley, as a tribute to the men who again honoured the name of ANZAC." I'm not aware of any current Wikipedia policy regarding the use of material copyrighted to the Australian government; I doubt it's GFDL compatible. In any case, the material was highly POV — a political speech, not an encyclopaedia article. -- Perey 29 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)

[edit] ANZAC usage

I don't think the term ANZAC should be used, as it specifically refers to World War I -3mta3 07:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

ANZAC continues to be used beyond WW1 whenever Australian & New Zealand forces operate either in coordination or as a joint force: WW2, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, East-Timor, Afghanistan, etc. - LamontCranston 10:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As there were no New Zealand units at Tobruk during the seige, ANZAC is inappropriate and I've just removed all references to 'ANZAC' from the article. --Nick Dowling 10:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wdywtk - I just removed the Anzac reference. It is entirely incorrect. The troops are not considered Anzacs and never would've called themselves as such. I changed the word Anzac to Garrison as that is what they are generally referred to in most of the history books I have read. The Anzacs technically ceased to exist half way through WW1 and there were no NZers in Tobruk.

[edit] Merge?

This article is pretty POV, and most of its information would probably be better placed in Siege of Tobruk, I propose a redirect. — 3mta3 11:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That would make a lot of sense. Alternetly, this article could be stripped back to a definition of what a 'rat of Tobruk' is, with the coverage of the fighting being moved to the Seige Article. Either way, the article needs a fair bit of work. --Nick Dowling 10:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/t/Talk%7ERats_of_Tobruk_d002.html"