Talk:Australian War Memorial

roof

I remember hearing something about the roof of the tomb of the unknown soldier being specially designed to illuminate the grave at the 11th minute of the 11th hour, can anyone confirm this (preferably someone who lives in canberra)

I'm not aware of this being the case with the AWM but according to Ken Inglis' book Sacred Places the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne was designed with this feature, however daylight savings has altered the timing.Bureau (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the roof of the Hall of Memory was designed well before the repatriation of an Unknown Soldier was considered. The soldier was not brought back until 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaColumna (talk • contribs) 06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Motto

Does anyone know the actual motto that goes with the basket handles on ANZAC Parade? anyone, if you do please contact us asap and there is a reward. that is only if you know — B.Bryant 23:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Piper

Does anyone know what the piper plays at the closing? (Is it even the same thing every time?) I presume that it's the equivalent of Taps, but I don't have any idea what the term for it is. — B.Bryant 23:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The tune played is "The Last Post". IIRC "Taps" sounds very similar; it may be based on "The Last Post", which is generally played (outside the USA) when "Taps" would be played.

Nope, the piper plays a "lament". He alternates with a bugler, who plays "The Last Post". —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaColumna (talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(I was actually at the War Memorial today. Took a host of pictures. All of them ruined by a whopping great date/time watermark. Oh, well; it's not like an excuse to revisit the place is unwelcome.) --fuddlemark 15:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, is there a general article on the use of pipers in the military, e.g. who uses them, what the history is, what they play, etc.? — B.Bryant 23:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Today he played the lament "Flowers of the Forest". 119.12.137.190 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

World's largest collection of Victoria Crosses??

I believe the AWM's collection of VCs is the largest such collection in the world. Is this true? JackofOz 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This page claims it is the largest publicly held collectiobn in the world. [1] --Martyman-(talk) 00:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I'll add that link to the Victoria Cross article as well. JackofOz 00:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this page might be a better fit as it also lists the VC's at the museum. [2] --Martyman-(talk) 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, mate. I'd rather you get the credit than me since you did the legwork. JackofOz 01:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's cool. You probably know these articles better than I do. You can add it if you think it is appropriate. --Martyman-(talk) 01:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but I insist. I'm feeling good today and my generosity of spirit knows no bounds. JackofOz 01:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the Imperial War Museum in london has the largest collection http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Victoria_Cross#Collections 211.28.237.39 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Anzac not in caps

ANZAC is certainly put in upper case when it's a stand-alone acronym. And caps are always used on maps and road signs, so it's ANZAC PDE in those cases. But for general reference, I would have thought it's "Anzac Parade", not "ANZAC Parade". I've made the change in the article. JackofOz 00:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you are right Jack. I thought that it was Anzac Parade not ANZAC Parade. --Everlast118 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. However, it is AWM policy to capitalise ANZAC, hence: ANZAC Day, ANZAC parade, ANZAC legend on its website. I presume the entry has been composed by AWM staff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaColumna (talk • contribs) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Architecture

[3] From the press release

The nation’s top award for public buildings, the prestigious RAIA Sir Zelman Cowan Award for Public Buildings, was awarded to Denton Corker Marshall for Anzac Hall at the Australian War Memorial. The project involved creating a new museum at the war memorial that was sympathetically designed to “remember the men and women who fought for Australian in theatres of war”. The jury described the result as a “powerful and contemporary form of the new building that complements the old”. --nixie 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Photos

Can some space be found for some of these photos? --Fir0002 05:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will have a go at re-organizing the photos tomorrow if no one beats me to it. --Martyman-(talk) 06:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted a gallery feature, as found on London building articles. This automatically builds a table of thumbnails from image names inserted one per line between tags. See here for a creative example. --Surgeonsmate 04:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A different photo question

Wikipedia states that Australian copyright law says that any photograph taken before 1955 is public domain. However, the Australian War Memorial website says that permission must granted to reproduce any of the photos from their site. Which is right? They have a lot of good World War II photos that I'd like to use in articles here on Wikipedia. I've tried writing to the Australian War Memorial with this question but they haven't responded. Cla68 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Australian copyright law the situation seems fairly clear:

* Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died in 1954 or earlier, is out of copyright.

* Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died after 1954, will be out of copyright seventy (70) years after the author's death.

Also any work that was published after the death of the author, will be out of copyright seventy (70) years after the year of first publication. Unpublished works hold copyright indefinitely.

Photographs, sound recordings, films, and anonymous/pseudonymous works are copyright for seventy (70) years from their first publication.

So my intrepretation is that in Australia we can freely use photographs published up until 31 December 1935, and after that date we can make use of fair dealing. However, this is under Australian law, and my understanding is that Wikipedia is published in the US and US law applies. --Surgeonsmate 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thinking aloud

I just adjusted this article to include Kerry Stokes aquisition and kind insistance on it being displayed at AWM. Looking at the article is there value in a subsection on the VC medal collection given that this is a significant collection or would it be making the article touristy Gnangarra 09:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• To my mind there seems sufficient on the topic and a separate section is not justified. The purpose fo the AWM is not to house Victoria Crosses but to remember all soldiers who fought (including those awarded VCs). I must have missed it - saw the anonymous purchase, haven't seen the ref to Stikes - surely no longer an anonymous purchase if attributed.--A Y Arktos\^talk 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point about the suggestion. Kerry Stokes bids were anonymous, thats how it should read. I'm not worried about any edits I just inserted the paragraph from the VC article. Gnangarra 10:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article ever got to the point where it discussed each gallery the VCs could be further expanded on since there is a whole gallery for them - but until then I think the balance is good as is.--Peta 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Assistance is required

This article looks great, much better in fact than the articles of Parliament House, Canberra and Old Parliament House, Canberra, they are terrible by comparison. I am on a kind of mission to greatly improve the quality of these important but ignored articles. Look at United States Capitol and Michigan State Capitol!

If you can do this for the War memorial, then surley we can work together to boost the quality of other Important Australain Land-marks. Your help would be grealy appreciated.

Thanks , User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Feature article?

Anyone think this is ready for feature status? – B.Bryant 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See the featured article criteria. The most noticeable failure of this article against that criteria is the provision of references. A peer review of the article may help offer ideas for improvement.--cj | talk 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is also not comprehensive - while it discusses the building it does not talk about the AWM as (1) a toursit attraction and more importantly (2) its role in preserving and recording history.--Peta 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rated it as B-class - add references, etc. and nominate it for good article status. Carom 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not up to scratch. There should be some reference to recent changes, and especially to the criticisms raised, for example (most recently) in Ken Inglis' SACRED PLACES (epilogue in new 2008 edition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaColumna (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Museum

I've used the fantastic AWM website for a few years now, so I know the AWM mainly as a museum/repository: in fact, it was only really on reading this article that I realise it's actually a memorial as well. The introductory paragraphs talk about four major elements: an Anzac Parade, a commemorative area, a museum, and a sculpture garden. The contents mention three of these but not the museum - instead it has a section on the memorial building. Reading that section it isn't made explicit that this is the museum - it's confusing to people like me who aren't familiar with the physical set-up of the site. Jasper33 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a museum in the sense that the IWM is. It's a memorial, first and foremost, and the fact that it contains relics and exhibits is of secondary importance. It may seem a moot point if you only look at the physical objects in glass cases, but the distinction is crucial and goes right to the heart of the Australian collective consciousness. Attend a Dawn Service and you'll begin to understand. --Pete 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I live on the other side of the world. I was trying to point out that the article isn't clear: the museum is mentioned in the first para, but it's not clear whether exhibits are found throughout the various areas, or just in the commemorative area and the memorial building - or some other combination. I don't know because I haven't been there: I was hoping the article would clarify the matter and it doesn't. By the way, I am hugely grateful to the Australian Armed forces: they liberated my grandparents from a Japanese POW and civilian internee camp in Borneo in 1945. Jasper33 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure and content

I have some ideas about the structure and content of the article. I am a novice at Wikipedia but happy make the changes and additions if people agreed.

Museum Galleries and Research Centre

I think there should be separate sections for both Memorial’s collections and galleries and Research Centre. Both are areas of the Memorial that fulfil important functions of the Memorial as define by the Australian War Memorial ACT 1980.

The Memorial’s website claims that “The Research Centre is the single most important resource for researching Australia's military history’ and I can’t argue with that so perhaps a section would be good.

I also believe that as the largest part the Memorial, the museum galleries, desperately need representation in the article. The museum seems to be a vital part of the Memorial’s commemorative function. From personal experience, most people spend most of the time in the galleries. It is far from being of secondary importance instead its where people learn why the Memorial exists and why its important to remember.

Remembrance Driveway and Anzac Parade

The Remembrance Driveway and Anzac Parade seem to have a very high profile in the article especially when there are more relevant sections about the Memorial itself lower in the article. The article states that Anzac Parade is part of the Australian War Memorial. However, as the NCA website states, Anzac Parade is managed by the National Capital Authority not the Memorial.

It seems to me that both sections could be moved into one section covering the physical surrounds of the Memorial.

Comments?

NickNoo 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What's holding you back?

I agree with all you say. I don't have a real lot of time nowadays, nor do I tend to make large rewrites. I'm more of a detail man. I've added a couple of photographs to the article, and tidied up a bit here and there over the years, but that's about it. You are as good as any other editor when it comes to doing the work, so if you see something that needs doing, and you can do it, then get stuck in. Just ask for advice and you'll get it, and if you seem to be heading down the wrong path, you'll soon notice other editors putting a steadying hand on your shoulder. That's the way the thing works. Make a big bold change and other folk will come along and tidy up the headings and wikidates and so on. If the thing gets too big we can always split up the main article into sub articles. I've wondered about Anzac Parade and the Remembrance Driveway myself - all they really need in this article are brief mentions. --Pete 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sodersten

I have changed the name of the designer from Emil Sodersteen to Emil Sodersten in accordance with common usage. If you search Wikipedia you will see that the later spelling, as changed by deed poll, is the more widely used. The Australian Dictionary of Biography spells his name with one "e" in the arcticles heading. [4] Archifile (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Connections with the Menin Gate

I'm reading a book about the Menin Gate, and wanted to point out here the connections between this memorial and the one in Belgium. First, the painting Menin Gate at Midnight is used to illustrate this article, but it is not mentioned in the text of the article! The reason is that the painting (originally done in London) is displayed at this memorial, something that needs to be mentioned in the text to explain why the painting is being used to illustrate this article (I would add the information, but someone needs to check first that this and other information wasn't removed by a vandal, and I don't have time to do that right now). The other connection is the lions on display at the AWM - these are the original lions that formed the Menin Gate during World War I! (At the time, the "gate" was just a road flanked by the stone lions on pedestals.) It's an amazing story, how the stone lions from Belgium ended up in Australia, eventually being restored and put on display at this memorial. I'll try and add details and references about that at some point, if no-one else does first. A source and picture for the latter bit are here and here. Source and picture for the painting and its history (and how it ended up at the AWM) are here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When I first visited the AWM I always wondered about the lions but then read about it while at the AWM, I have photo of one (maybe both but in my offline collection). I'll be back in Canberra in March but I'll try and get a photo something like this. Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The commissioned history of the AWM, Here is Their Spirit. A History of the Australian War Memorial 1917-1990 by Michael McKernan has a few pages on the painting. It played an important role in raising funds for the AWM's building during the 1920s and 1930s as the AWM charged an admission fee to see it (while the main museum, which was at Melbourne's exhibition building was free) and this commercial success lead the AWM to engage salesmen to sell copies of it door to door! I've induced some details on this in the John Treloar (museum administrator), but I think that the painting is highly notable in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

caption below photo of memorial, infobox

where the photograph of the memorial is in the infobox, below it it has the words 'For Australian military dead of all wars'. I would suggest that it could have the word fallen in place of dead, perhaps? Cybergothiche (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating aspect. Fallen is poetic, dead prosaic. If you see that particular war as something that descended on you against your (the nation's) will, then fallen implies the tragedy of the situation. If it's been a war voluntarily entered, and with gusto, then dead would be more appropriate. It is only days since the NATO/5eyes war in Afghanistan was lost; no doubt the debate will be long and fierce. "The war to end all wars' was coined for the First World War, indicating that someone was war fatigued, so dead is more appropriate. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2572:D09E:40F1:917 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinate error

U

Headline text

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Ntcygdyhszjfhdhgegtvtgfhyrct trf{| class="wikitable" |Jhdydyjgwfgdyrdgf |}

—69.119.228.27 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Request is gibberish, and there appears to be no error in the article's coordinates. Deor (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

I agree that the article should cover the debate over the AWM's non-inclusion of the frontier wars, but the material which is being edit warred in is clearly not encyclopaedic: it's written as a one-sided polemic rather than an attempt to provide balanced coverage of this issue. Something along the lines of the last paragraph of Australian frontier wars#Historiography (which, from memory, I wrote) seems sensible. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - this material in its current form is not appropriate. No issue with its inclusion if done as suggested though. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this post, the War Memorial has announced its expanding its coverage of the Frontier Wars DocWinters (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Australian War Historians

Hi Rupert,

I was wondering whether there was a group of administrators specializing on Australian military history; and if so, who are the leading experts? There are a few pages where there has been some dispute about citations. --TheBlackandSilver (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history if you'd like other editors to weigh in on a discussion. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day, yes, I agree with Nick. Best to post a note over at Milhist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Updated the page

Hi, I work at the War Memorial, and I updated the page to reflect how a lot of the information included was either out of date, or incorrect122.148.31.38 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

A lot of people are divided about the expansion of the War Memorial. Any concerns that I had were eliminated the second that I discovered that Peter Stanley (Nick-D here on Wiki) was incensed by the proposed development. I am all for it now. Oh, and - He was coming south and there was a Battle for Australia Nick-D (Peter Stanley). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.18.47 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The expansion was opposed mainly because of the size of the costs. Even medicos objected that half a billion Dollars should be spent on this (late 2019). There must obviously be a war memorial to honour the dead but those people who have experienced the many miseries of war would say that war is the biggest evil which can befall you, but the promotion of Anzac Day and the War Memorial never contains 'the lessons to be learned to avoid war'. History is littered with empires or would be empires which died through a war where they bit off more than they could chew. All memories of war should contain a chapter 'how could it have been avoided?" I have not heard much since the beginning of the COVID crisis (early 2020) and would personally hope that the expansion be postponed until we have paid off the COVID debts. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:405F:FF74:D367:DF43 (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse your comment. As a person who grew up in West Berlin with still rubble around, I can tell you that Germans (generally) have learned their lessons and endorse the conclusion that war is the greatest evil that can befall anyone. Will the loss of the Afghanistan war have an impact on the War Memorial's focus to avoid the negative aspects of war, and the risks to lose?

I had been called away and just wanted to add that the question "How could it have been avoided?" is one that always needs to be asked when looking at war, even though it appears we may not get a fully satisfactory answer.

2001:8003:A070:7F00:2572:D09E:40F1:917 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)