Talk:Anzac Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anzac Day article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] ANZAC acronym and capitalisation

Hi, i am living in Turkey and i am interested in War History. I have attended the past 6 DawnServices at Gallipoli. I have added a picture today and i fixed the grey lines between the articles. About the acronym - Its official to capitalize the word ANZAC. user:olympos2

Some thoughts - personally think there should be a consistency of capitalisation - ANZAC is an acronym and should be capitalised. - Thoughts, anyone? - User:MMGB

I assumed that it ought to be capitalised, because of the acronym status - it's not a complete word but an abbreviation. But I see that somebody disagreed - I just spent two hours writing an article that I thought was needed, when a non-capitalised version apparantly existed already :( (whimper) The only aspect I was uncertain of was whether Day should have a capital or not... KJ

Karen - take that as your "official" welcome to the 'pedia :) I think that's happened to all of us at one point or another. Inconsistency abounds here, sadly. It's always a good idea to run a search before you tackle a new topic - just because it appears in red doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However on the bright side - what you have added is extremely valuable, and was absent from the original. The final article will be all the better as a result. Regards - User:MMGB

I always understood that the acronym 'Anzac' had long ago ceased to be capitalised in ordinary usage (like 'laser' or 'scuba', the two examples in Acronym), and that ANZAC was generally used to refer to older usage. I'll see if I can't find some Australian government or military style guide on this. -- Perey 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Australian War Memorial seems to be one of the few sites consistent in any degree—using 'ANZAC' for all references to the day and the soldiers. But 'Anzac' seems to be near-universal for such things as geographical names (e.g. Anzac Cove). -- Perey 18:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bean uses "ANZAC" for the army corps and "Anzac" for everything else ("Anzac sector", "Anzac Cove", "Anzac Beach", "Anzac Gully", etc.) Also, it's HMAS Anzac, not "HMAS ANZAC". I don't know why it is capitalised in "ANZAC Day" but if the AWM use it, that's fine with me. Geoff/Gsl 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For New Zealand it should be 'Anzac Day' - see the original New Zealand Gazette notice here: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/anzac-day-gazette-notice-1916 - Our site only uses 'ANZAC" to refer to the actual corps - eg veterans of the II ANZAC Battalion marched on Anzac Day. Australia seems to use caps though, so maybe this just requires an explanation in the New Zealand section? Jamie Mackay 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ausinfo pronouncement

According to the Australian Government Department of Finance and Adminstration (which is apparently abbreviated "Ausinfo") Style Manual, acronyms should not be capitalized. Paragraph 7.7 (fifth edition) starts:

An acronym is a shortened form that is always pronounced as a word. It may be formed from the initial letters of other words:
Anzac (from Australian and New Zealand Army Corps)

Based on that, it seems clear that the correct spelling is Anzac, not ANZAC. I propose to change this some time after 25 April 2008 unless somebody comes up with convincing reasons to the contrary. Groogle (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, it used to be ANZAC, but now there is a move away from that. The Australian Government Department of Finance and Adminstration are not the authority; some government departments in both NZ and OZ use either (but as mentioned, there is a move towards Anzac) Matt (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Just found this: http://www.anzacs.org/faq.html Matt (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As quoted in the article on the reference you cited, arguably the original term was "Anzac" when referring to concepts/places, rather than the actual army corps (which was always written "ANZAC"). I have been uncomfortable for quite a while seeing "ANZAC Day" written like that - it doesn't fit in with what to me was common usage. Seeing that the Australian legislation here protects the term "Anzac Day", as does the New Zealand legislation here, I would support a change away from the acronym "ANZAC" to the noun "Anzac" PalawanOz (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More

To say that 'Anzac' should always be spelled in full capitals ignores both the rules of English grammar and the word's historical usage. Insisting that the word should always be capitalised is implying that everybody in the past - including the Anzacs themselves - used the term incorrectly.

The full capitalisation is fine so long as it is actually the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - that is, the army formation - being referred to. However, when 'Anzac' is used as a proper noun, as in 'Anzac Cove', 'Anzac Day', or 'the Anzacs', the word does not refer to the army formation but forms one of the other six uses of the term as identified by Dr. Charles Bean in the Official History of Australia in World War 1.

The following definitions of the word 'Anzac' are from the Australian World War One Official Historian, Dr. Charles Bean. (Bean, C.E.W. The Official History of Australia In The War of 1914 - 1918 Vol 1. The Story Of Anzac p 609). [I have not changed any of the capitalisation from the original].

[quote]

(1) Originally, code name for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (see p. 124) ;

(2) Name given to the beach where the A. & N.Z. Army Corps landed on Gallipoli;

(3) Official name of the two A. & N.Z. Army Corps in France (1st Anzac Corps, 2nd Anzac Corps) ;

(4) Term universally applied by British troops in France to the Australians and New Zealanders of the two Anzac Corps (the Anzacs);

(5) In Palestine, often used to denote men of the Anzac Mounted Division as distinguished from those of the Australian Mounted Division;

(6) In Australia (and eventually in the A.I.F.), used to denote Australians and New Zealanders who served on Gallipoli.

The generally accepted uses of the term are (1), (2), (3), and (6).

[end quote]

Clearly Bean has indicated that while originally the term ANZAC was, as is well known, a short-hand way of referring to the actual army corps, a new word - 'Anzac' - sprang from this which almost immediately evolved to have different meanings and uses.

Most authors since 1915 have used the proper noun 'Anzacs' or 'Anzac' to refer to the troops, the sector of Gallipoli and the actual cove. To suggest, more than 90 years later, that each and every one of these writers used the term incorrectly because they did not entirely capitalise it is arrogance.

Consider exactly who used or uses the noun 'Anzac' :

The official Australian historian, Dr. Charles Bean;

The official British and New Zealand historians;

The Australian Imperial Force and the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in their official documents;

Those who wrote articles for the RSL in Reveille and other returned servicemen's magazines;

Those who wrote the unit histories (Australian, New Zealand and English);

Those that have written for the Australian War Memorial's Journal; the Gallipolian magazine; the Army Journal; the Defence Force Journal; the New Zealand Defence Quarterly and others.

Other authors on the subject (including French, Americans, Canadians and Turks);

All the newspapers of the day;

The Macquarie, Oxford and Collins dictionaries;

The compilers of the Imperial War Graves Commission's cemetery registers.

ALL used 'Anzac' when referring to the place, the holiday, or the men. They did not fully capitalise the proper noun because not only would that be an incorrect use of the term, it would also be incorrect use of basic grammar.

Almost every writer since 1915 has accepted that the word has different facets representing different concepts, that it is a word - a proper noun (or in some cases an adjective) - and we all (should) know that neither a proper noun nor an adjective is ever entirely capitalised.

Fully-capitalised acronyms may be used as words in order to avoid confusion with a word of the same spelling and pronunciation if that word already exists (for example PIN or AIDS - both these words - 'pin' and 'aids' already existed, so retaining the capitalisation for the new acronym helps avoid confusion). Obviously this is not the case with 'Anzac'. The word was invented in 1915, so there was no chance of confusion with an already-existing word (other examples of acronyms which evolved into nouns in the same way are 'Qantas', 'Fiat', 'scuba', 'laser' and 'radar'). The fully-capitalised acronym ANZAC refers only to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

It should not be used when referring to the sector at Gallipoli (the Anzac sector), the soldiers (the Anzacs), the name of the cove (Anzac Cove), the national holiday in Australia and New Zealand (Anzac Day), and it should not be used when writing of the Campaign Honours 'Landing at Anzac', 'Defence of Anzac' and 'Withdrawal from Anzac'.

To fully capitalise 'Anzac' in any of these cases is both historically and grammatically incorrect. 'Anzac' for the place, the holiday, and the soldier, is how almost every writer has used it since 1915.

From Hart's Rules, Oxford University Press 1983: "As a general rule, abbreviations and contractions should be followed by a full point unless the shortened form consists [entirely] of upper-case initials or is a recognized acronym pronounced as a single word: thus print BBC, HMS, OUP, PAYE, PLC, SDP, SPCK, TUC, WEA; Anzac, Aslib, Fiat, Naafi (or NAAFI). Abbreviations and contractions consisting of a mixture of upper and lower case take full points, as in I.o.W. (Isle of Wight), Bt. (Baronet), Kt. (Knight), Ltd. (Limited), St. (Street), and university degrees (D.Litt., D.Phil., Ph.D., etc.); exceptions to be made for Dr (Doctor), Revd (Reverend; not Rev), Mr, Mrs, Mme, Mlle, St (Saint); here full points are not required."

As far as I'm aware, it is beyond the scope of any institution to make it 'official' to fully-capitalise *any* word in the English language, much less one that has been, since its inception in 1915, not fully-capitalised. I have also attended Dawn Services in Gallipoli, but that has no bearing on whether 'Anzac' should be fully-capitalised. The fact that the Australian War Memorial does so is, according to its Director, an 'editorial' decision. The fact that the AWM never used to fully-capitalise the word, before the tenure of the current Director, is easily proven, and the fact that one or two institutions have taken it upon themselves to decide to fully-capitalise the noun does not make it either 'official' or universally-accepted.

I'm with Groogle on this in that, unless there are convincing arguments from someone to the contrary (not just. 'the AWM does it'), then the occurrences of the word in articles should be changed back to how it was used by the people who were actually there, and who knew better than those today. Hayaman (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be broad agreement (at least by the editors on this Talk Page), I would propose to change this article on Saturday 05 April 2008. This page will obviously get a lot more traffic in the lead up to Anzac Day this year, so would like to make the pages sooner rather than later. So if there are any last objections, please list them here prior to Saturday. PalawanOz (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death toll

Reading the article, one might be forgiven for thinking that only Anzacs died at Gallipoli. (On the other hand, most Australians do think that.)

In absolute terms, more Brits than Australians died, and more Turks than Brits died.

Relative to population, the Australian and NZ death toll was a lot higher.

From Battle of Gallipoli

Gallipoli casualties(Died Wounded Total)

Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150 New Zealand 2,701 4,852 7,553 Britain 21,255 52,230 73,485 France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000 India 1,358 3,421 4,779 Newfoundland 49 93 142 Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109

Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309

Total Dead and Wounded - nearly half a million men! And for what?! Nothing!

Over WWI in total, NZ had the highest casualty rate as percentage of population of any participant country.Aistralia had the highest casualty rate as a percentage of its military establishment. dramatic 17:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
This isn't true. Depending on whether you count civilian deaths and just those injured, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Romania, Italy and Bulgaria all had higher rates per population. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
NZ had the higest out of the Commonwealth I think Brian | (Talk) 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kokoda Trail

Is it worth mentioning that there is an increasing push to refocus commemerations on the Kokoda Trail?

Reasons for:

1. Gallipoli was someone else's war, largely irrelevant to Australia, and we lost.

2. Kokoda was very much our war, very important to Australia, and we won.

On this standard lefty-pacifist mythology that "Gallipoli was all for nothing and was someone else's war" I recommend Gerard Henderson's comment here. In fact the Gallipoli campaign was strategically a brilliant idea, unfortunately not followed through with proper resources or planning. Both my grandfathers were patriotic Australians, both fought in World War I (one of them at Gallipoli), and both maintained to their dying day that it was a war well worth fighting and winning. Adam 07:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Seen that article.

The idea to attack at Gallipoli was sound (brilliant is probably stretching the adjective). But for good and bad reasons the attack failed, and it was obvious that it had failed, and should have been aborted a long time before it was. Even Gerard Henderson says it was 'doomed' and 'could never succeed'.

As was, 150,000 allied casualties, most of whom died long after it was obvious that the attack had failed.

Like Iraq, participating in WW1 might have had some value as an insurance payment to a major power, (maybe) but it was never vital to Australia in the way that Kokoda was.

I think you are missing the point. The Gallipoli landings are important because they were the first time Australians fought together as fellow nationals under their own flag. That's the unique thing about it.

The article ought to mention this fact actually.

Please sign your contributions. Adam 08:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Right or wrong, 'lefty pacifist mythology' or not, if this is a significant body of opinion then it merits mention. I'm not convinced it is, though. -- Perey 16:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The view that Gallipoli achieved nothing is widespread, probably dominant. The standard belief is that the Australian solders were brilliant but that victory was denied us by the incompetence of the British officers. (We sometimes remember the Kiwis, though not this year. We almost never acknowledge that there were more British troops than Australians.)

Holding that view isn't incompatible with seeing Gallipoli as somehow more special than any other Australian battle, which is almost certainly the predominant view - we honour their sacrifice, not their achievements.

I cannot put a size to it, but there is a significant, probably lefty, possibly pacifist, body of opinion that belives that we should accord at least equal honour to those who fought successfuly defending Australia. --BenA 08:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

PS. A google search for "Gallipoli Kokoda" returns 6130 hits, many of them on this theme. See for yourself

1. Gallipoli was not a 'war'. It was a campaign. 'We' won the war. It was not 'irrelevant' to Australia, as the majority of people then wholeheartedly supported the idea of Empire and believed that England's wars were their wars. The fact that most people no longer think that way NOW is no reason to conclude irrelevance to Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, etc. THEN.

There was more than one phase to the Gallipoli campaign. To state that most casualties occurred after it was already known to be a failure is opinion, and not borne out by the facts. The Allies still believed they could push through up until the end of August 1915. It was then they realised they were not going to be able to break through. Relatively few casualties occurred after August 1915.

2. Kokoda was not a war either. Throwing what-should-be precise terms about regardless of their actual meaning never inspires confidence in an author's point of view.

Having said that, I see no reason not to commemorate Kokoda, but believe that already falls under Anzac Day. Hayaman (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Anzac conferences

I feel the recent text added by the user from IP 85.104.142.221 to the article on ANZAC Day is not strictly relevant to the article itself. I suggested a separate article on the subject of the conferences with a link on the ANZAC day page to see also. However, there are issues about linkspam and articles on future events. Any such article will be reviewed as to whether the content is encyclopaedic and appropriate for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for further info - particularly:

  • Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine - "While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other."
  • Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider
  • All articles about future events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. In particular: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.

When I went to the link provided at www.knowledgesocieties.org I got an error message. I have judged the material at present to not be worthy of a separate article and certianly not appropriate for this article.--A Y Arktos 22:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

JUST A NOTE: IT WOULD BE NICE IF THIS PAGE WAS NOT SO FOCUSED ON AUSTRALIA. I AM AUSTRALIAN MYSELF AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME NEW ZEALAND IMPUT AS THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY OR BOTH OF OUR NATIONS. THANKYOU.

[edit] ANZAC Day in Australia

This is all my POV, but is it worth making a point of the recent "latching on" of commercial interest to ANZAC day and it being purported in the press as more of a national day than Australia day? Because in my opinion it is not. I am a second generation Australian (3 British grandparents who fought in World War 2) and feel zero affinity to ANZAC day - I know more people who should be celebrating VE day than ANZAC by virtue of ancestry. I honestly think it is a shame that instituations such as the AFL play The Last Post on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday etc before games on the weekend of ANZAC day, not to mention the Collingwood/Essendon thing. ANZAC day, sadly in my opinion, has become a festival. Should more be made of this without the article becoming too weaselly? Ian peters 11:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you approach that POV in the article and is it a verifiable and notable POV? I don't see how popularity should necessarily imply commercialim or festivity -- my POV is that people who make those accusations about Anzac Day don't understand its popularity and so have to concoct these ideas to explain it to themselves. Though I do agree that some sickening examples of commercial exploitation exist, for example McDonalds Anzac "Cookies" <spew> --Russell E 11:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you can, but then again, line such as "... many Australians have now come to regard ANZAC Day as the true national day ... the national identity of Australia was largely forged during World War 1 ... the most iconic event in the war for most Australians was the landing at Gallipoli." strike me as quite POV, and somewhat weaselly. In discussing the commercial exploitation, I would cite the AFL promoting their ANZAC round with heavy ANZAC emphasis such as The Last Post played before tonight's game (21st April). The main point is I don't think enough migrant Australians (1st generation and 2nd generation such as me) identify with ANZAC day for the above comments to remain in the article. I fear ANZAC day is becoming as untouchable as the issue of Jewish influence in the US. Thus I would propose replacing the 2nd paragraph with something like this (a little devils advocate here):
ANZAC Day has grown in recognition in recent years, and is regarded by some Australians as more important than Australia Day. This is somewhat unusual, as the day commemorates Australia's worst war catstrophe, and more generally the service of Australians in wars past. However many Australians have no Australian ancestors who have been to war for Australia, and therefore lack anything more than an altruistic reason for commemorating the loss and sacrifice of others unknown to them. In recent years, the commemoration at Galipoli in Turkey has grown in popularity, particularly for young Australians and sporting teams heading to Europe. The threat of a terrorist attack at the Gallipoli site in 2004 did not deter some 15,000 Australians from attending the event. Ian peters 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd support such a rewording. I'm surprised that the article contains no reference to the origins of the parade in the protests of WWI vets about their treatment on returning to Australia. — JEREMY 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it's worth mentioning in that paragraph how ANZAC Day is not only a commemoration for our lost ANZACs but also as a day for recognising our currently serving troops? I think there has always been that underlying message on ANZAC Day. But others may see it differently. (Prof. Alex 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
It seems to have become a "Current Servicepeople's Day", certainly. I think the History section of the article should address this shift in emphasis, as it's an important aspect of what might seen as the politicisation of the event. — JEREMY 03:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

After last years commemorations at Anzac Cove were a bit of a party, this years one was much more sombre. They banned alcohol and there wasn't a concert. I know that in NZ ANZAC Day is not considered any form of heroic celebration like the descriptions I've read above (about Australia). With the change in attitude at the Anzac Cove commemorations is the last sentence under the Australian heading any longer correct? If it is, I do think it should be referenced, surely if the statement was true then there would be a citable media comment agreeing with it. - Shudda 17:59, 27 April 2006)

Australia's 'worst war catastrophe'? Anzac Day is held on the day of the initial Allied landings on the Gallipoli Peninsula, but to state that this was "Australia's worst war catastrophe" is conjecture and many would not agree. Over the eight months from the Landing till the Evacuation, Australia lost around 8000 soldiers killed. Many more died on the Western Front over the same time period. When Anzac Day was first being formalised, it WAS regarded by many as Australia's National Day. 'Australia Day' was not proclaimed until 1946. Hayaman (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian nature of dawn service

I attended the dawn service this year at the AWM, I was surprised at how Christian the service was (Hymns, prayers, most of the speakers were defence force chaplins etc.) is this the same everywhere in Australia? How about New Zealand? Should the christian tone of the commomeration be mentioned in the article?--nixie 05:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In earlier times a Christian service would be expected, its disappointing that now it is seen as a surprise. Most soldiers who died were members of churches, buried in church grounds, had monuments built on church land by the congregations who mourned their members' loss. Not to mention higher levels of religiosity in that era from which those soldiers are from. michael talk 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I normally attend the Albany dawn service, and it strikes me as half Christian service, half military service. Yes, it has the hymns and prayers. Yes, it also has salutes, flag raising and lowering and lots of military bigwigs. (Maybe we get less chaplins and more Officers simply because it's Albany) I don't think it really needs to be added though. Morgrim 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Its important to note that Defence Chaplains are typically Christian, but are trained to be generic and fairly non-denomonational for occaisions such as ANZAC day. It is true that most memorial services are generally Christian, this represents their majority representation in most of NZ, and it is also true that the Defence Force have a key role to play, as those responsible for upholding the ANZAC Traditions. But most services I have attended include a couple of simple hymns, an address by either a returned serviceman or an NZDF member on the theme of ANZAC day, the laying of wreaths and some form of salute. (And the parade itself, the march led by the services.). I think that those who don't particularly care for the Christian aspect (I am not an active Christian myself) can still see past the detail, to the respectful nature of the remembrance. I can't speak for every service, of course, but this mornings that I attended in NZ was quite appropriate, I thought. BlakJakNZ 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallipoli --> Gallipoli, Turkey

There is a Wikipedia:Requested move to move the page Gallipoli to Gallipoli, Turkey because there is a Gallipoli, Italy. If you would like to express an opinion on this proposed move please follow the link to Talk:Gallipoli --Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture links

Wouldn't it be valuable to readers to add the links to these movie and documentary about Gallipoli?

Gallipoli (2005) http://imdb.com/title/tt0450426/ Gallipoli (1981) http://imdb.com/title/tt0082432/

J. Cheah

[edit] Poppies??

No mention that everyone wears poppys?

They don't, they wear poppies. GrahamBould 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they don't wear poppies either. That's Rememberance Day. Iorek85 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes they do, at least in New Zealand. --antilivedT | C | G 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They wear rosemary in Australia, though the article doesn't mention it. I remember being taught that this was because of the rosemary growing on the shores of Gallipoli, but a look at the wiki page for rosemary says that it's often used for remembrance. Any sources either way? Okay, I guess there's this- http://www.defence.gov.au/anzacday/history.htm, which says both facts are true.DrHacky 15:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick search of rosemary for Anzac day in NZ. It barely rates a mention. On the GG's and govt web sites there is no mention of it. [1] I must admit, despite being an Aussie who has had a large military involvement with Anzac day, rosemary hasn't really been a thing that i knew of. 09:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poppies - New Zealand unique

In contrast to the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, however, the RSA did not hold its inaugural Poppy Appeal in association with Armistice Day 1921 (11 November 1921), but instead chose the day prior to ANZAC Day 1922. The reason is one of those quirks of history: the ship carrying the poppies from France arrived in New Zealand too late for the scheme to be properly publicised prior to Armistice Day, thereby forcing the Association to postpone its Poppy campaign until the day prior to ANZAC Day 1922. The decision nonetheless established an historic precedence whereby Poppy Day – as the day was known from the outset – became forever associated with ANZAC Day in New Zealand, thus setting it apart from the rest of the world where it is largely associated with Armistice Day.[2] Ozdaren 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias towards Australia

I just read this article and it seems to be rather bias towards Australia. Could New Zealand have more of a feature in this article? After all, what does the NZ in ANZAC stand for? Will try and get some images of the service in Wellington tomorrow.--HamedogTalk|@ 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a little more detail for NZ today. BlakJakNZ 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Troop review" image caption

Are these people Pathfinders or Scouts and should this be said instead of just Troop review on the image caption. Ansell 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they are Pathfinders and I don't see any relevance to the topic other than this may have been on an ANZAC day. I suggest getting rid of the image entirely. Brettr 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I took this pic. I don't know if they are pathfinder, scouts or whatever. Of course this is not troops, no army in Cook Islands, even if Cook islanders were enrolled in the ANZAC (probably in the Maori battallion, see [3]). In fact, it was the end of the ceremony, I missed most of it, woke up too late. Anyway, it was to show that the ANZAC day is not only commemorated in Australia and New Zealand. If you prefer, there is also this pic, not a very good quality, captured from a DV camera too :) Nevers
They look like boys brigade or similar. Ozdaren (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorial for other wars too

The first paragraph of the article makes it sound like Anzac day is only about remembering those involved with the Gallipoli landing. The day is actually about remembering those who have fought in any war. GK1 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So, we have two days of rememberance (three if you count Reserves Day); April 25th and November 11. I was inclined to think November 11 is the day that "is actually about remembering those who have fought in any war." Wikiphyte 03:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, ANZAC day is not just about Gallipoli landing, its all wars and conflicts. Brian | (Talk) 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Gee guys, I dunno... reading the article, it seems clear enough: "ANZAC Day - 25 April - marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War." ..."They landed at Gallipoli on 25 April,...

" Whilst I agree the sentiment of ANZAC Day is definately in support of all of those who have fought in any war, the foundation of ANZAC Day is indeed the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps landing at Gallipolli. That can't be denied. Over time its meaning has changed but that doesn't change its origins nor its focus. (This is reflected by the words of the speakers that I heard at this years local ANZAC Service.) BlakJakNZ 06:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANZAC Day football

What happened to the ANZAC day football game photo? Ozdaren 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory, I think that photo may have had a copyright issue - I cant remember how it was tagged, but I remember when it first got posted that I wasn't sure that it was all that kosher. As a side note if you end up re-loading it, I thought it was too big on the page... however if you reduced it in size, you would really lose sight of the players - so perhaps not the best pic in the first place for this article? PalawanOz 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agreee about it's size. I was going to reduce it on the page. I'll try to get the AFL or RSL to give me a photo to use. Ozdaren 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Surely someone who was there would have been able to take a photo. If I can get tickets next year (and that is a very big IF), then I'll take a camera along. --Spewmaster 02:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The ANZAC Medal in the AFL game is not awarded to the "best on ground". I have corrected this.Njb1969 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay in Australian Literary Review

Yesterday's Australian Literary Review liftout in The Australian had an interesting essay on ANZAC Day with some choice quotes. Hesperian 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please mention the annual Anzac Day in Turkey

On Anzac Day in 1985, the name "Anzac Cove" was officially recognised by the Turkish government. The Anzac Day dawn service was held at Ari Burnu Cemetery within the cove until 1999 when the number of people attending outgrew the site. A purpose built "Anzac Commemorative Site" was constructed nearby on North Beach in time for the 2000 service. --134.155.99.41 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I just did it and hope it was ok. Greetings from a descendant of a Turkish Mehmetçik. :-)

[edit] Criticisms - and then glorifisations..

It's quite ironic that under "criticisms" there is a massive, wikipedia-produced, glorifisation at the end: "ANZAC Day in recent years has drawn record crowds[7]. This has largely been seen as the younger generations of Australia wanting to honour their family connections to the sacrifices made by the previous generations[8].". I'm referring to the last sentence... even thought it's cited, it should be rewritten.. anyone? Juckum (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Juckum I think you are missing the point. The previous generations did make a huge sacrifice. It isn't glorifying the deeds of past generations to say they gave their lives so we shall live. If it weren't for the suffering and sacrifice, we in Australia wouldn't exist now. The many thousands of Australian's who died protecing Australia from Japanese aggresion have given us the chance to exist. If it weren't for their sacrifice, the way they laid down their lives, this part of the world would be a different place.Ozdaren (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it needs to be changed. The last sentence is needed to put the others in perspective. 76.180.65.118 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)SAB

[edit] Other observations

I'd like to make a couple of observations about aspects of the article.

• The Acronym ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. True. But any other word derived from the acronym is just that - a word, and should not be fully capitalised, as per the discussion above. The soldiers were known as 'Anzacs'. The holiday is 'Anzac Day'. The cove is 'Anzac Cove'. The sector of Gallipoli is the 'Anzac sector ' (as opposed to the Helles and Suvla sectors). There are literally thousands of primary source documents and other material proving this. When the Turks officially named the cove 'Anzak Koyu' they idid not call it 'ANZAK Koyu'.

• 'Istanbul' was 'Constantinople' in 1915, so the allies were not attempting to capture Istanbul.

• There were at least two Arab regiments present at Anzac - the 72nd and 77th, so 'Ottoman forces' is more accurate than 'Turkish forces'. Hayaman (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the move request. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article moved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I am unable to move the page myself due to the Anzac Day page having a history attached to it. As per the discussions above, I propose to move the page from ANZAC Day to Anzac Day, as the non-capitalised version is the commonly accepted version by the general public, and also in Australian and New Zealand legislation. PalawanOz (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this move. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Most common to write "Anzac" by reliable sources: News, Books, Scholar Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Move it. Tan | 39 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. "ANZAC Day" looks very odd. -- Avenue (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. All historical sources, primary and secondary, use the form 'Anzac'. Hayaman (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per comments above. One thing to note is that because the non-capped article was created first (28 March 2002), and pasted into this one along with other text, a history merge will have to be done, to ensure we adhere to the terms of GDFL. Here's the oldest version of the non-capped page: [4], and the first version of the current page:[5] Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It's always called Anzac Day here in Aus. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Matt (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ANZAC seems to have become a word in and of itself rather than just an acronym, similar to LASER/laser. Narson (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Sir John Monash

Monash initiated the initial ANZAC day and was one of the principal organisers after the war and yet gets no mention in the article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with the 'tone' of one sentence

Despite the objections of the few, Anzac Day now draws record crowds[7]. This has largely been seen as the younger generations of Australia wanting to honour their family connections to the sacrifices made by the previous generations[8].

Right, I happen to be a part of this 'younger generation of Australia', celebrate ANZAC Day every year and do it as much 'honour' as any of the best do, and yet have no 'family connections' to any of these particular sacrifices. Who wants to reword this? Take the tone of racism out of it, yeah? The 'younger generations of Australia' are not composed primarily of people that have particular 'family connections' to ANZAC Day, yet obviously a significant amount of youth commemorate it with a decent amount of respect - where do 'family connections' fit into THAT? This sort of thing doesn't belong here - it doesn't represent the 'younger generations of Australia', unfortunately many would prefer it to, but Wikipedia shouldn't have that breeching of neutrality.

Keep the bit about the sacrifices, the honour, the younger generations, but this 'family connections' stuff should be firmly disposed of. Ideas? Opinions? 220.101.129.116 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article cited mentions nothing about "family connections". I have therefore removed the phrase.Edelmand (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! 220.101.129.116 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANZAC Day remembers ALL fallen Aust and NZ soldiers

Bold text'ANZAC Day began to commemorate Gallipoli but has evolved in Australian culture to recognise all fallen Australian and New Zealand war dead. See this extract from the page from the Australian National War Memorial

Source: http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.htm (An Australian Government Site)

"The date, 25 April, was officially named ANZAC Day in 1916 and was marked by a wide variety of ceremonies and services in Australia, a march through London, and a sports day in the Australian camp in Egypt. In London over 2,000 Australian and New Zealand troops marched through the streets. A London newspaper headline dubbed them "The knights of Gallipoli". Marches were held all over Australia in 1916. Wounded soldiers from Gallipoli attended the Sydney march in convoys of cars, attended by nurses. For the remaining years of the war, ANZAC Day was used as an occasion for patriotic rallies and recruiting campaigns, and parades of serving members of the AIF were held in most cities.

During the 1920s ANZAC Day became established as a national day of commemoration for the 60,000 Australians who died during the war. The first year in which all states observed some form of public holiday together on ANZAC Day was 1927. By the mid-1930s all the rituals we today associate with the day – dawn vigils, marches, memorial services, reunions, two-up games – were firmly established as part of ANZAC Day culture.

With the coming of the Second World War, ANZAC Day was used to also commemorate the lives of Australians lost in that war. In subsequent years the meaning of the day has been further broadened to include Australians killed in all the military operations in which Australia has been involved.

ANZAC Day was first commemorated at the Memorial in 1942 but, due to government orders preventing large public gatherings in case of Japanese air attack, it was a small affair and was neither a march nor a memorial service. ANZAC Day has been annually commemorated at the Memorial ever since.""

AND from the same page:

"Australians recognise 25 April as an occasion of national commemoration. Commemorative services are held at dawn – the time of the original landing – across the nation. Later in the day, ex-servicemen and women meet and join in marches through the major cities and many smaller centres. Commemorative ceremonies are held at war memorials around the country. It is a day when Australians reflect on the many different meanings of war."

As a proud Australian could you please correct your definition on Wikipedia. Also the amount of space you give to the criticism of ANZAC Day at the end of the article is out of proportion with the reality here in Australia. Very few people are critical of this national day and while I acknowledge there will be some criticism - the amount of commentary you allow in the article is not in proportion with actual sentiment here in this country.

Thanks for Wikipedia its a great service.

--KS Frith, Sydney Australia.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksfrith (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aus B class assessment

After going through the article I've made a couple of structural changes. references made into 2 columns, reduced the subsub sections on AFL/NRL games to bold headers this reduces the TOC size. Additionally I removed the section on ANZAC Biscuits as its nothing to do specifically with the 25th should be covered within the context of ANZAC.

I also moved an image of a person marching from the criticism section as its not associated with that section, given that the person is readily identifiable it raises concerns under WP:BLP, that section should only have a protest type image. Reading this section I dont think has given undue weight, the comments by DR Martin Ball could be removed especially the quote as its a conglomerate of comments made within a media opinion piece.

To move forward to GA the references need to be cleaned up, there are still three EL that are linked within the text these need to be changed to citation or moved to a EL section. The lead needs to become a summary of the article and include that ANZAC day has become more than just remembrance of the Gallipoli landing/campaign. Gnangarra 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and protests

This section is needing some more attention as it doesnt differentiate between what is Criticism of the day, what it means etc. Where as events like 2005 in Turkey are more news items related to a specific location, rather actual criticisms of the day in general. Gnangarra 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The events in 2005, as reported at the time, were controversial because they were perceived by some to reflect an inappropriate carnival atmosphere on a day traditionally reserved for commemorating the war dead. The sources cited document this complaint. As such, the material is better placed in the section dealing with "Criticisms, protests and controversies" rather than being placed in isolation elsewhere in the article. Edelmand (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Checking against sources I have identified a word for word copy violation in this section it has been removed Gnangarra 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have re-worded the information so that it is no longer copy violation, and inserted back into the article. Edelmand (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] discussion piece

the para;

In 2007, the issue of allowing conscientious objectors to march was raised in New Zealand, with Peace Action Wellington saying that "conscientious objectors are the real heroes of Anzac Day, which ... has ceased to be a day when people commit to 'never again' wage war and instead has become a celebration of the military and armed conflict".[31]

after reading the source [6] is this relevant to the article as sources reads more like its only two people in Wellington rather than something that was across all of New Zealand. Gnangarra 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst not disputing the fact that the PAW protest did exist, I don't see it as being terribly relevant in the greater scheme of things - I have had a number of concerns in the back of my head about this whole Criticism section, along the lines that the amount of criticism in the public arena is too small to justify such a large section in the article. Yes, and that is despite it all being so well referenced. PalawanOz (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight tag for "Criticism, protests and controversies" section

An 'undue weight' tag has been added to the "criticism, protests and controversies" section. This section, as currently written, covers three main themes:

  • Historical protests against Anzac day (both in the arts arena, and in the form of anti-war demonstrations);
  • The argument that the revived interest in Anzac day is reflective of an increased feeling of national pride in the Australian community; and
  • The "carnival" or "party" atmosphere perceived to be present at some recent Anzac day ceremonies, particularly amongst the young.

It is unclear which of these three themes the 'undue weight' tag is intended to apply to. The undue weight policy states that:

... the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each..Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

A range of reliable source materials -- both mainstream press pieces and academic articles -- have been provided as citations for the information in this section. If it is alleged that any or all of the three themes listed above are "minority views", then the "majority view" must be thoroughly documented and backed with reliable sources in the article. Currently, this "majority view" is not even identified, much less sourced. Until this is done, the information in the section, as presently written, must stay. Edelmand (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The lack of referencing of the 'majority' view isn't at issue - the reliable-source references given for some of the tiny-minority views stand for themselves, and show that they should not be given the weight in the article they currently have. I would support the removal of the well-referenced tiny-minority views. PalawanOz (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, which of the views (I have summarised them into three main themes above) do you consider to be tiny-minority? Just one, or all three? Secondly, if you want to remove the current well-referenced views, you must first be able to demonstrate that they are tiny-minority views. The only way of doing this is to show that there exists a contrary majority view or views which have been published by reliable sources. As the undue weight policy make clear "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Presently, there is no such contrary view even articulated, so the suggestion that the current views are tiny-minority cannot be substantiated. Presumably, if you think the views are tiny-minority, you must be aware of the existence of contrary majority view of views. If so, what are they, and what reliable sources are there to show this? Edelmand (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

the first point Historical protests against Anzac day (both in the arts arena, and in the form of anti-war demonstrations) no problems with. The second point The argument that the revived interest in Anzac day is reflective of an increased feeling of national pride in the Australian community; how is that a criticism. The third point The "carnival" or "party" atmosphere perceived to be present at some recent Anzac day ceremonies, particularly amongst the young. needs no more than a single paragraph with pertinent sources. Specifically the PAW incident is no more significant than any other protest in anti-Vietnam, Feminist and should have at the most the same level of coverage ie Recently ANZAC day in New Zealeand has attracted protest against New Zealands involvment in places like Afghanistan, and Solomons. Also the PAW paragraph is factually incorrect as the protest wasnt about of allowing conscientious objectors to march was raised in New Zealand. Then theres the quoting of a blogger(Tim Brunero) like he's a reliable signifcant commentator on ANZAC day, all he wrote was an opinion piece on an internet new site. Gnangarra 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to the removal of the PAW incident.
  • The argument that the revived interest in Anzac day is reflective of an increased feeling of national pride in the Australian community: how is that a criticism?: The criticisms cited, as expressed by journalist Mark McKenna, Professor Joy Damousi and Dr Martin Ball, revolve around the idea that this phenomenon involves an uncritical and self-serving embrace of the Anzac legend by former Prime Minister John Howard. See for example the cited interview with Damousi, who argues that "war and its commemoration assumed a particular patriotic and nationalistic hue under Howard; he unashamedly used Gallipoli and the ANZAC to celebrate past military alliances and to glorify them".
  • The third point The "carnival" or "party" atmosphere perceived to be present at some recent Anzac day ceremonies, particularly amongst the young. needs no more than a single paragraph with pertinent sources. This issue is currently covered in a single paragraph with pertinent sources.
  • Then theres the quoting of a blogger(Tim Brunero) like he's a reliable signifcant commentator on ANZAC day, all he wrote was an opinion piece on an internet new site. The site in question (http://www.livenews.com.au) includes opinion pieces affiliated with Macquarie National News. Brunero is a columnist who contributes his articles to this news service and others, such as the Sydney Morning Herald. There is no reason to suggest that the source cited should be considered any less reliable than other opinion pieces routinely cited on wikipedia from other major news websites, such as the The Courier Mail or The Age. At any rate, the second citation provided (an interview with Stuart Macintyre) makes much the same point concerning the revival of youth interest in Anzac Day. Edelmand (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave the section a copy edit, removed PAW detail into a general sentence retaining and adding an additional source. The remainder of the section I copy edited to condense, generalised, removed redundant prose, weasel wording, and naming of individuals though all the sourcing has been retained.The complete editing can be viewed here That IMHO addresses the weight issue, Edelmand if your happy with the result please remove the tag. Gnangarra 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs look good. I am a little hazy about some of your edits to the rest. You suggest the existence of weasel wording in the previous version - could you please be more precise as to which words/phrases you consider to be weasel words? If anything, the edited version has added weasel words, such as "Critics contend", "Other critics have suggested". Wikipedia's policy on weasel words specifically identifies phrases such as these as ones to be avoided. Is there a reason the names of the people making the various criticisms have been removed? I agree that it reads better now thanks to your good work, but I fear that someone will simply come along and place "weasel word" tags throughout the section, as has already happened once before to this page.

I will not change your edit for now, pending your response (other than removing the undue weight tag). Thanks. Edelmand (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)