Talk:Anzac Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Anzac Day 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Holidays (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Edit warring regarding ANZAC vs Anzac[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)