Talk:Anzac Day/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit warring regarding ANZAC vs Anzac

Please cease the edit warring on this. Australian national legislation protects the word 'Anzac', three Australian states protect 'ANZAC'. I haven't a clue what the Kiwi's do. None of the refs I have seen say one is 'official', even the AWM (it just generally uses ANZAC). It probably deserves its own section regarding the issue so we can move past it, as I note it has been the subject of much discussion in the past. I am reverting it to the status quo ante until we get some discussion here. I will report any further edit warring on this issue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious that both forms are common and acceptable these days. One assumes that it wasn't the case originally. It would be interesting to find out how and when it changed, But I'd have no idea where to look. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Having spent 22 years in the RAAF (not Raaf) I'm pretty confident in saying that a lot of it is due to the disparity between service and civilian writing. It was alluded to in JSP(AS)102 Manual of Service Writing, which has now been superseded by ADFP 102 - Defence Writing Standards. The military has traditionally used all upper-case for acronyms and even abbreviations. This dates back to the use of morse code, which is case insensitive, but continued with the use of teleprinters right up until at least the late 1980s. Even now, message formats include mostly upper-case and ANZAC remains all upper-case. On the other hand, civilians generally use sentence case and ANZAC, along with a lot of military acronyms, started becoming Anzac in civilian texts a long time ago. I remember seeing it when I first joined the Air Training Corps in 1973. Even RAAF became "Raaf". Civilians seem to have problems relating to the military use of upper case. A case on point was seen at NCIS: Los Angeles not that long ago, starting with this edit, when an editor mistook "OPS" (the military abbreviation for "operations") for "OSP" (the acronym for "Office of Special Projects"). Another editor even suggested that "Ops" is the abbreviation for operations, which is not the case in the military.[1] I doubt that we'll ever find out when civvies started using "Anzac" instead of ANZAC. Despite the use of sentence case today, 25 April is still a commemoration of the ANZAC landings at Gallipoli, even though it has grown to commemorate the sacrifices of others. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

all interesting points, but as far as I am concerned, Vol 1 of Bean's Official History clearly uses both versions (and he should know). If you look at the Glossary on p. 609, he gives six usages of the term ANZAC/Anzac, including use of the term 'Anzacs'. He also explains how it arose on p. 124, where he uses both versions. And I wouldn't call Bean a 'civvie'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The glossary lists the acronym "ANZAC" (all caps - not sentence case) noting that the following terms are the "generally accepted uses":

(I) Originally, code name for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps

(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)

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

Of these only (3) uses "Anzac". This is a peculiarity of service writing. "1st Anzac Corps" is much like writing "Atm machine". "Corps" is redundant, as it is represented by the "c" in "Anzac", just as "machine" is represented by the "m" in "Atm", but it's the form used for writing the name of the unit in formal documents, such as letters and reports to outside agencies. A letter to the minister, for example, would use "Anzac Corps". We use the same practices today. Internal correspondence, such as minutes and messages would refer to "3CRU" but a letter to the minister would spell out the name of the unit: "No. 3 Control and Reporting Unit". On page 124, or rather page 125, when deciding on a code name, the suggestion was "How about ANZAC?", obviously relating to the "A. & N. Z. A. C." sign on the door, and any messages would have uses upper-case, since they were sent in morse code (see above). At the bottom of p.125 the footnote refers to "the ANZAC stamp". Certainly though, as a spoken word, ANZAC sounds like "Anzac", but written correspondence would have generally used "ANZAC", except when the formal "Anzac Corps" was used. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

True, re Bean. But the rest is WP:OR in my view. Bean uses both versions on p. 124 (mine is the 1942 edition). The Commonwealth legislation (first made in 1920 I think) uses 'Anzac'. Find a source that says it's officially one or the other and you'd be doing pretty well. What we need is a section that covers both, although I would suggest the usage in the article should be mixed, as appropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

While what AussieLegend has pointed out regarding capitalisation in Bean's Vol 1 Glossary is technically correct ('The glossary lists the acronym "ANZAC" (all caps - not sentence case)', this is potentially misleading, as EVERY entry in the glossary is in all caps. Thus there are entries such as DIXIE and MOUNTAIN GUN, and it would be difficult to imagine anybody claiming justification for those terms' full-capitalisation in every instance merely because they appeared in title case in the Glossary here. I would suggest that the fact that 'ANZAC' is fully-capitalised in the glossary is therefore meaningless in any discussion on whether the word should ALWAYS be fully-capitalised. Also, it is wrong, I believe, to ignore any source on the matter except Bean. There were literally hundreds of books, articles, documents etc. produced that indicate correct use of 'Anzac / ANZAC.' It was not until the seventies (I believe) that we started to see usage such as ANZAC Day creeping in. The fact that ALL place-names are fully-capitalised in military writing makes that also irrelevant to a discussion regarding the case of 'Anzac.' I also disagree that '1 Anzac Corps' and 'II Anzac Corps' are like writing 'ATM Machine.' That would be true ONLY if 'Anzac' were still being used as an acronym, but even by 1916, when these NEW formations came into existence, it was a WORD, no longer an acronym for the Army Corps. Thus 'I Anzac Corps' should be read exactly as it appears - 'One Anzac Corps' or 'First Anzac Corps', not as 'One Australian and New Zealand Army Corps Corps'. Incidentally, I am positive I can point to hundreds of uses of 'Anzac' in contemporary military writing for every one case of 'ANZAC.' Hayaman 23:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talk • contribs) Really interesting read re the usage of ANZAC. Thanks to all who have contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.170.93 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Really interesting read re the usage of ANZAC. Thanks to all who have contributed. Dairyflat (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Anzac commemoration in Malta

Copyright violation removed (The Times of Malta, Thursday, April 25, 2013) UNQUOTE

The above has been added from personal experience and also from family recollections.

Both my Grandfather (Franscis Bricat) and my uncle (Charles Brincat) used to be the curators of the Anzac cemetry in Malta.

As far as I am aware I have included only well known and recorded facts. The number of persons buried can be verified by a visit to the cemetry. I am now nearly 81 years old and as far as I remember there has always been a commemoration on Anzac day.

I therefore suggest that you re insert this information. It is a pity that Malta had never been included even though many soldiers received medical aid in Malta and some are buried here.

The reference to The Times of Malta was included so as to shaw that this has also been corroborated by a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.31.38 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The content that was added to the article, and which you added above, was copied word for word from the source. As such, it constitutes a Copyright violation and had to be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is Kiribati listed under China???

Can someone please edit this page to remove Kiribati from underneath the "China" heading and make it a new headline under "other countries". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.57.77 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015

Other overseas ceremonies Antarctica Scott Base, Antarctica holds a ceremony honoring the fallen on April 25. Americans from the nearby McMurdo Station are often invited.

Person0605(talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015‎

References

Done Thanks for the suggestion and reference
(PS your edit did not show properly as you closed your reference with <ref> instead of </ref> - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Somehow the impression has taken root that in that terrible Battle of Gallipoli (1915) only the Anzac troops fought and suffered in Turkey.

Somehow the impression has taken root that in that terrible Battle of Gallipoli (1915) only the Anzac troops fought and suffered in Turkey.

Britain actually suffered greater losses than Australia or New Zealand, as did France. Many Australians are unaware that other nations took part.

The article should make mention of this to avoid the myth living on. India and Canadian troops were also involved, as were many others.

This article states:

The Allied casualties included 21,255 from the United Kingdom, an estimated 10,000 dead soldiers from France, 8,709 from Australia, 2,721 from New Zealand, and 1,358 from British India.

In addition, there is a whole article - Gallipoli Campaign which discusses the campaign from a broader sense than this article does (or should). .I think that is sufficient. This articles is about the day, not the campaign. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Source Quality

AussieLegend, the PDF file you're using as a reference on criticism of ANZAC day looks like a middle- or high-school textbook, which would not be a quality historical source. Could you provide bibliographic details on the book? Beyond that, it's important to note that the mere fact that a particular source calls critics of ANZAC day "radical" doesn't mean that that's an NPOV statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not the source that I am using, it's a source that has been in the article for two years.[2] I just fixed the reference after you deleted it. (Note that Wikipedia:Link rot says Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.) The source is a PDF published by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, an Australian federal government department, and the specific text is from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. As a publication from a reputable source, referenced by an authoritative federal government department, definitely not a "middle- or high-school textbook", I don't see an issue with it. Note that it is also used by the Australian War Memorial,[3] another reputable and highly respected government institution. It's not a violation of NPOV to report exactly what a document from a reputable source says. There is a difference between "socialism" and "radical socialism". Perhaps your opposition to use of "radical" is caused by a lack of understanding of that difference and an apparent belief that use of "radical" is a way of denigrating socialists, which it is not? If the source refers to radical socialism, we aren't at liberty to decide that the claim refers to all forms of socialism. Please also note that per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when an edit of yours is good faith reverted, you do not immediately revert, as you did here. Instead you open a discussion on the article's talk page with the aim of resolving the issue and, while the matter is under discussion, the status quo prevails. That you opened a discussion is commendable, but removing a valid citation, contrary to Wikipedia:Link rot, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, is not. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Having tracked down the source, it turns out to be written by the Australian Government Department of Veterans Affairs as a teaching resource for secondary school. Secondary school level textbooks are not, in general, high quality historical sources, and certainly not of sufficient quality to use as a reference here. If you want to claim that the socialists who criticized ANZAC day were "radical," you should be looking through historical journals, monographs, and other high-quality material.

We have a difference over what constitutes reputability. You say that the source is "referenced by an authoritative federal government department." A federal government department does automatically not have much authority or reputability on matters of history. I would argue precisely the opposite: an organization run by political appointees is much more likely to be biased than other types of sources. Just look at the website that the source comes from. It's dedicated to promoting ANZAC day, and I wouldn't trust them to accurately and neutrally describe the people on the opposite side of the political fence. That's why I'm urging you to look for journal articles and monographs, for reputable historians who make the claim you'd like to include. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

While the PDF is a teaching resource, it is published by a very reliable source that is not an organisation that publishes school textbooks, so there is no issue with using it as a source. Moreso because it references the actual publication that it quotes from. Since the source publication is identified, there is no problem in using it. The DVA is not run by political appointees, it's run by public servants tasked with the responsibility of delivering government programs for war veterans, members of the Australian Defence Force, members of the Australian Federal Police and their dependents. The advantage of using the DVA source is that it quotes the actual publication, while online links to the publication do not display the content. We could cite the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History directly, and the citation would be valid, but the DVA source provides us with context for the quote, and the use of "radical". If you have a problem with use of the DVA source then you can ask at WP:RSN for opinions as to its reliability. The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History is not published by DVA, so your comments regarding DVA bias are irrelevant since they have no bearing on the original document or its content, which is reproduced in the DVA document. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to escalate to RSN. School textbooks aren't good historical sources, even if you personally have the utmost respect for the governmental organization that put them out. This isn't a matter of how much you or I respect a given governmental institution. It's a matter of the sorts of sources historians respect professionally, and no historian would ever think of citing a secondary school textbook in their work. It would be pretty laughable to do so, actually.

If you can find information more information about the original source, that would be helpful. Do you know the title of the article that it comes from? Do you know who the author of the article is? Do you know that it's commonly held that the critics of ANZAC day were "radical," or that this is just an argument made by the particular author of the original article? So far, all we know is that the original source comes from a collection of essays, and that the author disagrees with the criticisms of the "radical socialists and pacifists." As the author argues,

"However, as the Day has always been about memory, comradeship and civic virtue, that criticism has missed the mark. There have been occasional attempts to hijack the march for sectional propaganda purposes."

Would you also like to authoritatively state in this Wiki article that the "criticism has missed the mark"? The original source looks like quite an opinionated article, and we don't even know who wrote it. If you want to make this claim, you should really go back and do your homework first. Find us a source, with an author and a citation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please give up on the school textbooks angle. It's not relevant. The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History is not a school textbook and it is the source that says "radical socialists". I can confirm that having just been down to the local library and perused a paper copy. The DVA document is not a textbook either, and even if it was it's also irrelevant as the DVA document merely quotes the Oxford publication.

"Do you know the title of the article that it comes from?" - Huh? I've already provided that information several times. As clearly indicated in the DVA document the name of the publication is Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.[4][5] I've provided both of those links previously.

"So far, all we know is that the original source comes from a collection of essays" - We don't know that at all. Where did you come up with that? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402120539/http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html to http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html#1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706122800/http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=29267 to http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=29267

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140109224827/http://www.walkleys.com/books/790/ to http://www.walkleys.com/books/790/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalization

Is there a standard for how "ANZAC" (or "Anzac") should be capitalized in this context? Currently it is mixed in this article, and in other places that link to it. My opinion is that it should be "ANZAC" because it is an initialism, and that seems to be the most common practice through the rest of Wikipedia. But the world does not always work according to my opinion, so before changing anything I thought I should ask here. So are there any other views? (Note:I have also raised this same question on the article for ANZAC Cove.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: Both "ANZAC" and "Anzac" are used depending on context. Long answer: There have been numerous discussions regarding this and I've been involved in a few but I can't find the one that I was looking for. Hopefully somebody will find the big discussion that I can't. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110817084757/http://www.tahitipresse.pf/index.cfm?snav=see&presse=27352&lang=2 to http://www.tahitipresse.pf/index.cfm?snav=see&presse=27352&lang=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

NZ Mondayisation need clarifying.

At present the article is unclear on this. The date of Anzac Day does not change, -there is merely a substitute holiday entitlement on the following Monday, and ONLY for employees who wouldn't have otherwise worked on the day in the weekend it falls (who get their holiday entitlement on the actual date). Also the shop trading restrictions of not being open before 1pm still apply to the date itself 25th April, and this does not change. Sources here, here, and re restricted trading; here, and here.Number36 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308204426/http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html to http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html#1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308204426/http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html to http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html#1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is more than half of the lede about Canada?

Obviously, most of the lede is of of very little importance to the Holiday (using the broad sense of the term), since it isn't even celebrated in Canada. I assume this is the work of some (Canadian) troll. Could someone remove the material on Canada (it belongs in History, if anywhere) from the lede or include citations showing its importance in Canada?Abitslow (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. I don't think it was trolling, just the accumulation of trivia.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/rsa_hist_90years.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323181037/http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/rosemary.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/rosemary.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yfQQLGOQ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnfsa.gov.au%2Fcollection%2Fnational-collection%2Fsound%2Fsounds-australia%2Fcomplete-list%2F to http://nfsa.gov.au/collection/national-collection/sound/sounds-australia/complete-list/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Constantinople or Istanbul

Why not Istanbul? That's how we know it today, and the Turks called it that back then. Sure, Anglophones (and some others) called it Constantinople at the time. But they also said other things we don't repeat today. So why not Istanbul? Why create confusion without a reason?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Jack. The relevant naming convention is WP:PLACE, which mentions Istanbul specifically. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Anzac Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501163212/http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410051635/http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/saatwar/commemoration.htm to http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/saatwar/commemoration.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516112947/http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ahu/books_articles/ConferencePapers/The_Australian_Army_Vietnam_War_Ryan.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/AHU/books_articles/ConferencePapers/The_Australian_Army_Vietnam_War_Ryan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728040415/http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5085/ to http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5085/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/anzac/beaumont.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141207152529/http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/anzac_day/gallipoli/Pages/index.aspx to http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/anzac_day/gallipoli/Pages/index.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704072424/http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/poppy_hist.html to http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/poppy_hist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608092857/http://www.unisa.edu.au/news/2006/230406.asp to http://www.unisa.edu.au/news/2006/230406.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217173212/https://newmatilda.com/2010/04/26/our-national-day to http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/26/our-national-day
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530230923/http://www.gallipoli-association.org/content/events-2015 to http://www.gallipoli-association.org/content/events-2015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109233037/http://www.newzealandtimes.co.uk/news/kiwis-in-the-uk/anzac-day-dawn-service-in-london-a-royal-affair.htm to http://www.newzealandtimes.co.uk/news/kiwis-in-the-uk/anzac-day-dawn-service-in-london-a-royal-affair.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426235353/http://www.aism.edu.my/userfiles/file/Others/ANZAC%20Day%20Commemorative%20Service%20Article.pdf to http://www.aism.edu.my/userfiles/file/Others/ANZAC%20Day%20Commemorative%20Service%20Article.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006225743/http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5088/ to http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5088/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719234334/http://education.theage.com.au/pagedetail.asp?intpageid=1460&strsection=students&intsectionid=0 to http://www.education.theage.com.au/pagedetail.asp?intpageid=1460&strsection=students&intsectionid=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112000259/http://www.dva.gov.au/COMMEMS_OAWG/COMMEMORATIONS/Pages/index.aspx to http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/Pages/index.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nfsa.gov.au/collection/national-collection/sound/sounds-australia/complete-list/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Zoo Weekly

I understand why the specific reference to Zoo Weekly was removed, but I think there is a separate issue that is worth addressing. It is not just commercialisation of Anzac Day, but also the idea that certain kinds of promotions are in appropriate. In the past there have been complaints about strip clubs, for example.[6] I removed Karl Stefanovic's complaint about the Avengers movie coming out on Anzac Day (because I think that's trivial unless other join the campaign), but there does seem to be an attitude in Australia that Anzac Day is holy, even more so that religious holidays... It would also be good to have more information what the regulations are about use of the name and the day in general.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to get at this with the para I added. I agree that it could be expanded significantly - there's lots of useful further details in the references given, and lots of other references. Another aspect is the view that some kinds of commemorations are inappropriate - for instance, various sources discussed aspects of the Camp Gallipoli initiative (eg, arguing that it was crass, misrepresented history, and appeared to be a commercial enterprise masquarading as a charity), and others argued that the links between companies and legit veterans' charities were inappropriate (eg, the links between VB and veterans' charities). Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added in something about the Australian regulations. I think the heading should be changed, but I'm not sure to what. "Disapproval of some commemorations"...? I also don't think historians are necessarily the experts on contemporary popular culture.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Many claims here have no citations and citations from a decade ago are treated as if they are current.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We hear you but we're not mind readers. Point them out so we can fix them, or better yet, fix them yourself if you can. Akld guy (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There are many of them. For example, the citations in "Revival" are mostly 10 years old. There's really no indication of what's happened since, and in particular whether the revival has continued. In addition, the comment about the Australian's coverage in 1975 is really original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: The Revival section refers to the falling off in observance while Australia and New Zealand were participants in the Vietnam war. It didn't seem appropriate at that time to honour fallen soldiers in decades-old wars while young men were currently falling in that war. After the Vietnam war ended, there was a resurgence in observation, and observation has continued at a high level to this day. The section is referring to a revival that is now historic. Perhaps it doesn't make that clear. Akld guy (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the section and my comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

An unhelpful retort like that results in my not wanting to engage with you any more. Akld guy (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you never engaged with me in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

ANZAC day

I just wanted to ask if ANZAC day should be written in capitals or if it is now written as per the page as Anzac Day. I understand that ANZAC stood for the Australian and New Zealand alliance and wondered why it now became all lower case. I understand Anzac biscuits etc having the lower case but if someone could point me to where the day and identification because upper and lower case. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veterans Centres Network (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Anzac" is the accepted form, unless you are specifically referring to the army formation itself. Here's a couple of good sources....

http://www.anzacwebsites.com/general/anzac-capitals.htm

https://www.dva.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/commems-memorials/anzacday/Guidelines-Use-of-the-Word-Anzac.pdf

HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Related to" list not strictly related

In the info box, listed under "Related to" are Remembrance Day, Commonwealth of Nations (in brackets for some unknown reason), Armistice Day, Veterans Day and Memorial Day. I don't think that most of these belong here, as other similar remembrance days can be found under the category Observances honoring victims of war (which could no doubt do with looking at and adding to at some point too!). I would remove all except perhaps Remembrance Day because of the link to poppies, etc. and the fact that Anzac Day is mentioned there. Or just remove the Related To heading altogether. Thoughts? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree - these are equivalent days of commemoration, but there isn't a relationship between them. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick-D. I will remove them. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)