Talk:Anzac spirit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Tags[edit]

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

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

New Zealand section[edit]

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

"Edwardian social mores"[edit]

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

Strange[edit]

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

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

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

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

A number of in-line citations have been added Edelmand (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ANZAC which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all these pov args[edit]

this article should in fact be completely removed because the subject you are discussing is based 100% on a person pov. the "anzac spririt" can no longer be difined because of the bastardization of the term by the media. It is now standign along side "unaustralian" as the most abused phrase in australia. its meaning is totally lost because it is now used to describe everything it shouldnt.

most of this article is actually rather offensive to me. it fails dismally in coming close to describing anything of any real value that the phrase should have sttributed to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.190.4 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spirit or legend?[edit]

Are they not two seperate things? A spirit normally woiuld refer to something ethereal.... but, when talking about it in the same context as which the anzac spirit is discussed, a comparison would be to how a game of football was played in the spirit of good sportsmanship and the like. The spirit of something is intangible. A legend, on the other hand, is a tale. It can be based in truth or fantasy, but a legend has tangible properties. The anzac spirit is different to the anzac legend. The legend is of the diggers being dumped on a beach miles from where they were meant to be, being used and abused by british officers, overcoming terrible odds, surviving and claiming victory from a defeat. The spirit is not about the facts, real or false, its about an attitude... to quote the movie The Castle... its about "the vibe". I think splitting this into two seperate areas, one for the legend and various interpretations of it, including myth side of the argument. The other part dedicated to the spirit and the itnerpretations and discussions on what it means. (just have to try and weed out the medias perversion of the saying to make it mean whatever they want it to mean) Theloneoutsider (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that 'spirit' and a 'legend' are two different words with different definitions. However, I think in modern Australia 'Anzac spirit' and 'Anzac legend' are used rather synonomously, mainly because the 'spirit' of the diggers has been perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the core component of the 'legend'. For this reason, many people seem to use the terms virtually interchangably, as is demonstrated by the use of those those terms in many of the articles cited in the article. So I don't think there should be a division reflected in the article - it would only complicate things. Edelmand (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism refs[edit]

i removed the URI that formerly linked to the site of the Australian Government Culture and Recreation Portal, but now links to a commercial site. i could not find the original site, so the criticism section needs a few refs. --MarioS (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to determine the meaning of an unclear sentence, I searched for mentions of the quoted "rule of censorship forbids criticism" fragment, and found http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/anzac-day/what-lies-beneath-a-national-legend/story-e6frgdaf-1225857331747?nk=d8652eee313a48c89222a03dc6ee6598 (accessed 2014-11-26). The page is from a national newspaper in Australia. Although this web page is far from a primary source, I added to the article another quote that this source attributes to Bean's diary, about avoiding causing needless distress to families at home. Pjrm (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more NZ content[edit]

Seriously, where are the NZ bits? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really apologise for removing that comment. It makes little sense, and seems designed, with the use of the word "seriously", to provoke. Maybe you could try explaining your concerns in clearer and more constructive language. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to this page to learn about what the ANZAC spirit means to NZers, and was disappointed to find only a large bias towards Australia in this article. I don't possess the knowledge to improve this article, and wanted to express my opinion, maybe to inspire a more knowledgable editor to address this imbalance. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, now I see what you're getting at. Yes, there does seem to be an imbalance, but it's a bit provocative to call it a bias. You seem to have identified the problem when you mention improving it yourself. We need someone with a good knowledge of the NZ aspects of this to contribute. Sorry. That won't be me. (Same problem as you.) But maybe someone will see this conversation and help. I've taken the liberty of giving this section a new title, more likely to attract possible contributors. I hope you don't mind. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly papers debating the ANZAC spirit in Australia tend to be Australia centric. Transnational history has only become a funding driver in the humanities in the last 15 years. Australian editors are more likely to read Australian papers, and it doesn't look like this article has been "done from first principles" but rather has been accumulated by edit after edit. The problem might be then the lack of attention to this issue by NZ interested editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later and still almost no NZ content in this article. Surely someone has researched the NZ experience of ANZAC Spirit? Jayarava (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DIY works best on Wikipedia. If you think that something is missing, please add it. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peace as an interval between war[edit]

Strictly speaking, the Anzac tradition is rooted in the belief that peace is just an interval between wars. When I can find some verfiable references that meet what wikipedia requires, does anyone have any objection if we put this in a heading which reads the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.18.43 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would change your second sentence to read "IF I can find some verifiable references that meet what wikipedia requires..." While I have certainly met some people over the years who see things that way, it occurred more frequently further in the past. It's hard to to define precisely what something like the Anzac tradition represents. It will inevitably mean different things to different people, and at different times. But if a reliable source reflects your view, for at least some people at some time, it could be added, so long as those latter two aspects were covered in what gets written. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peace as an interval between war is the Edwardian militarist view of it. There's nothing more Edwardian than Anzac Day. It is referenced in this book: http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-anzac-the-militarisation-of-australian-history/

Henry Renolds was critical of Anzac Day from this point of view. But I think it's a good enough source. Apparently the founders of Anzac Day wanted to remind Australians annually there will always come a time when the nation has to be prepared for so many to die.

ANZAC spirit and ANZAC legend should be 2 separate pages or at least in 2 different paragraphs[edit]

The introduction presents "the ANZAC spirit" and "the ANZAC legend" as the same thing when they are not. The ANZAC legend refers to the stories and events that present the good qualities of Australian and New Zealand soldiers, e.g. Simpson and his Donkey, the Gallipoli Landing. The ANZAC spirit however, refers to what is shown through the ANZAC legends, i.e. what is described in the introduction. --Ababcdc1 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anzac spirit. 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:

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) 06:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anzac spirit. 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:

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) 05:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anzac spirit. 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:

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) 01:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anzac spirit. 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:

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) 20:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it Your All when your Running on empty and never ging up---Through the Darkest Hours you see the spirit shine[edit]

Its About not Giving In[edit]

Big textSuperscript textALL OR NOTHING--120.21.91.151 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)∞[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anzac_spirit&oldid=1204901727"