Talk:Anzac Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated B-class, Top-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Holidays (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Why is Kiribati listed under China???[edit]

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015[edit]

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.

[1] Person0605(talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015‎

References

Yes check.svg 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.[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1] 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,[2] 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.[3][4] 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)