Talk:ANZAC biscuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 ANZAC biscuit is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 2004 comment

I moved the page to singular title--ZayZayEM 06:26, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 comment

Can someone provide a reference for the "Reinvented in NZ" comment? Sounds kinda partisan, like the Pavlova origin controversy Shermozle 11:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contest of Origin between NZ and AUS

This sounds like it was added by someone from either Australia or New Zealand with slightly too much support for their country and no proof of the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.109.153 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is because if one person from Nz or Aus claimed it for there country, a person or persons would object from the other country. This sentance is very diplomatic in neather suggesting one country over another. Lovingnews1989 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal protection?

The article states vaguely "The term ANZAC is protected under Australian law". Does this mean trademarked, protected by statute, or copyright? How does this affect its use outside Australia?

The words "and therefore the word should not be used without permission" sounds too much like POV, and permission is supposedly to be obtained "from the RSL" - do the RSL really have control over this brand?

"and its misuse can be legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Can anyone give an authoritative and supported revision of this please? DavidFarmbrough

On 31 August 1916 the word 'Anzac' was protected by law to prevent its exploitation for business or trade purposes [1] and More info: [2]

There should probably be a mention of the popularity of the biscuits in show competitions, bake sales, and general home cooking. 202.171.170.2 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Anzac is not a 'brand'. That's exactly the kind of thing the Protection of Word 'Anzac’ Regulations were designed to prevent it becoming.

This also became law in the United Kingdom Anzac (Restriction on Trade Use of Word) Act 1916.

These laws were enacted to protect the word ‘Anzac’, and any word which resembles it, from inappropriate use, and are still very much in force.

Following Gallipoli, 'Anzac' was popular as a name (usually a middle name). A search of the National Archives of Australia recordsearch database using keywords 'Anzac' and 'enlistment' will show hundreds of World War 2 soldiers' names including 'Anzac' along with their dates of birth and enlistment details.

Under the Regulations no person may use the word ‘Anzac’, or any word resembling it, in connection with: … any trade, business, calling or profession or in connexion with any entertainment or any lottery or art union or as the name or part of a name of any private residence, boat, vehicle of charitable or other institution, or other institution …

The RSL does not have control of these regulations in Australia. They are administered by the minister for Veteran's Affairs. Hayaman (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The word 'Anzac' has also been protected in New Zealand since 1916. The Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 (section 17) states that, 'The Governor-General may... prohibit, regulate, or control the use in connection with any business, trade, or occupation of the word "Anzac" or of any other word that so closely resembles the word "Anzac" as to be likely to deceive or mislead any person.'

What this means is that 'Anzac' cannot be used for any commercial venture, at least in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. It is also protected under international copyright laws.

[edit] ANZAC versus Anzac

I eat Anzac biscuits (which have rolled oats etc. in them). ANZAC biscuits (to me at least) sound like they are made out of fallen ANZACs. I think Anzac (non-capitals) is the modern adjective for things relating to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Any thoughts?

Matt (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's been a discussion regarding this on the 'Anzac Day' page - the vote was unanimous by about ten editors to none that 'Anzac' is the correct capitalisation, both historically and grammatically. 'ANZAC' stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - in other words it refers to a military unit, a 'corps' generally consisting of two divisions. There is therefore no such thing as 'ANZACs' either. The soldiers were referred to as 'Anzacs'. Hayaman (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I was the instigator of the latest move from ANZAC Day (using capitals) to Anzac Day - for the reasons variously reported on the talk page. I could see an argument for "ANZAC biscuit" being a biscuit baked for members of the ANZAC units (where ANZAC is a noun describing another noun, like "school bus" is a "bus for school"... hence, "ANZAC biscuit" is a "biscuit for the ANZAC unit"). However..... to me it would make slightly more sense for the term to refers to "a biscuit for Anzac(s)", ie, using the non-capitalised version in the adjective sense to describe a concept/group. A long winded way of saying.... I think "Anzac biscuit" is probably more appropriate. PalawanOz (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hardly authoritative... but Arnott's uses the "Anzac Biscuit" variant here PalawanOz (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone has to speculate too much on these matters as there are plenty of examples in contemporary writings, and a lot of research already been done on them. For example, on Anzac biscuits, see here. This article debunks the myth that the biscuits first appeared at Gallipoli, and certainly no authoritive source I've ever read in twenty years of research into Gallipoli has ever mentioned Anzac biscuits - by whatever name - being made at Gallipoli. Hayaman (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting also, following on from what PalawanOz said above, that every link in the article is named 'ANZAC' biscuit, cookie, etc., but when the links are followed, in every case the actual capitalisation used on the authoratitive site is .... 'Anzac'. The only exceptions to this being in some cases, in titles, when everything is fully-capitalised anyway. So why are people changing this when they write these articles or link to others ? Hayaman (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A slight bias to this article

It is important to take a conservative approach when interpreting recent findings and research. I don't feel that such an approach has been observed at times in this article. For example it is stated that the first time the word 'Anzac' appears in the name of the biscuit was in the ninth edition of the 'St Andrew's Cookery Book'. This is however not definitive, but rather the earliest known instance of the use so far discovered. Reading the referenced article outlining Professor Leach's research it is stated in it that the first published recipe so far discovered for anything with the title of 'Anzac biscuits' is, as is the case of the first use of the name 'pavlova', to be found in Australia. It was however a recipe for a different biscuit, but a point still worth inclusion in the main article I would have thought. Also it is noted that in this same recipe book ('The War Chest Cookery Book') the prototype of today's Anzac biscuits can be found under the name 'Rolled Oats Biscuits'. There is no mention of these being unique to Dunedin. So the prerequisites for the possible renaming of the rolled oats biscuit to the Anzac clearly existed in Australia. The point to note here is that the level of effort put into researching the origins of the Anzac biscuit would seem to be heavily weighted in favour of NZ. I might be wrong in making such an assumption, but it does seem to me that if the chief source of information from the Australian side of the story is gleamed from the Australian National Dictionary then perhaps not a lot of contemporary research is being done there. If I am wrong on this, and if anyone knows of similar academic efforts being put into such research in Australia then they should point it out. Until and if a similar extensive analysis of Australian recipes of that time is done it can only be conjecture as to when the name was used correctly for the first time.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)