Talk:ANZAC spirit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag ANZAC spirit is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-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
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (and tag for cleanup).
Flag
Portal
 ANZAC spirit 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.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] POV

I have reverted to an older version of the article. Does this help with the POV? --Apyule 08:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the version you reverted to is pure nationalist-militaristic ideology. The version prior to your revert (which is again current) actually discusses the evolution of ANZAC mythology as it occured.Fifelfoo 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, but can it survive a haircut?

This article may well have survived VfD, but can it survive editing and become the stub of all stubs? The first sentence is untrue. The second sentence is untrue, and so on. Just about every sentence in this windup contains untrue POV nonsense. Moriori 01:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

    • You object to the words mythology and myth but a spirit and/or legend must by definition be mythology. The Anzac spirit is not a solid object but a concept. What you are objecting to is the current interpretation of the myth. If you can provide references to support your view then you should open the discussion of what you feel is an appropriate interpretation--Porturology 03:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Better still, I will edit the article by removing POV and speculation which has not been supported by references. The onus is on the people making the claim, not me. Moriori 08:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • As there is no original research in Wiki - you should support your view with references - there is plenty out there taking both right and left views of Anzac day. This is just a topic, that because of its nature everyone has a personal POV and what we should aim at is something that is acceptable to most people.--Porturology 11:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is probably the worst article with regards to POV and factual accuracy that I have seen survive Vfd (Not that is what deleting is for though). But it has, so I have started some work on making it better. --Apyule 05:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you I think it is now much better. What other objections do you have.--Porturology 11:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's getting better, but there are still a few big problems, including minimal linking within the text, many bold statements without references and there is still some way to go towards a fully NPOV. --Apyule 12:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Are there any objections if I change Australia in the first line to Australasia--Porturology 11:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but I think that the whole intro could do with a re-write. --Apyule 12:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

This is currently tagged as disputed, POV and in need of cleanup. It has been totally transformed since these were added, and I think that they should be removed. Any objections? --Apyule 04:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

no objections from me--AYArktos 08:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand section

I just removed a partly missing sentace from the NZ section. It didn't make sense, but now there is a coninuity gap. --Apyule 05:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Edwardian social mores"

This phrase is used a couple of times. Perhaps some elaboration of what it refers to would help make the article more accessible to a wider audience. I considered linking to Edwardian period but it doesn't really help. I wouldn't feel qualified to elaborate myself on which aspects of Edwardian society are relevant here so I'll leave it up to someone else to volunteer. --Russell E 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange

I find this article quite... hopeless. It seems less about about the 'ANZAC spirit' and more about the role of leftist and 'revolutionary' party groups battling the state governments for the grace of returned soldiers. And then the article finishes off with quite a zinger: "since the 'War on Terror' began."

It needs help. I'm going to rip a lot out now. michael talk 13:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's largely bullshit. Thanks for looking at it.--cj | talk 16:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead describes it as a "mythology". I think that is a pejorative statement. I fully sympathise that the notion of the ANZAC spirit might be seen as having been overplayed, particularly when it is suggested that Australians have mateship and there is a suggestion that other nations don't. But the term mythology used here seems simplistic dismissal and we need to be smarter. Although there are rferences cited at the end of the article, it is not clear what statements are supported by these references and what of the articel is unsupported. As the references are not easily accessible, I can't check easily and as far as I am concerned the article needs in-line citations to avoid reading as original research.--Golden Wattle talk 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)