Jump to content

Talk:Anzac biscuit

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

2004 comment

[edit]

I moved the page to singular title--ZayZayEM 06:26, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2005 comment

[edit]

Can someone provide a reference for the "Reinvented in NZ" comment? Sounds kinda partisan, like the Pavlova origin controversy Shermozle 11:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Dunedin? Anzac biscuits may be derived from a Scottish recipe, but that has nothing to do with Dunedin - there are Scots all over New Zealand and Australia. My grandmother - a girl during the First World War - had a recipe book dating from about 1917/1918 that has a recipe for Anzac biscuits. It was published in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contest of Origin between NZ and AUS

[edit]

This sounds like it was added by someone from either Australia or New Zealand with slightly too much support for their country and no proof of the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.109.153 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because if one person from Nz or Aus claimed it for there country, a person or persons would object from the other country. This sentance is very diplomatic in neather suggesting one country over another. Lovingnews1989 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The article states vaguely "The term ANZAC is protected under Australian law". Does this mean trademarked, protected by statute, or copyright? How does this affect its use outside Australia?

The words "and therefore the word should not be used without permission" sounds too much like POV, and permission is supposedly to be obtained "from the RSL" - do the RSL really have control over this brand?

"and its misuse can be legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Can anyone give an authoritative and supported revision of this please? DavidFarmbrough

On 31 August 1916 the word 'Anzac' was protected by law to prevent its exploitation for business or trade purposes [1] and More info: [2]

There should probably be a mention of the popularity of the biscuits in show competitions, bake sales, and general home cooking. 202.171.170.2 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Anzac is not a 'brand'. That's exactly the kind of thing the Protection of Word 'Anzac’ Regulations were designed to prevent it becoming.

This also became law in the United Kingdom Anzac (Restriction on Trade Use of Word) Act 1916.

These laws were enacted to protect the word ‘Anzac’, and any word which resembles it, from inappropriate use, and are still very much in force.

Following Gallipoli, 'Anzac' was popular as a name (usually a middle name). A search of the National Archives of Australia recordsearch database using keywords 'Anzac' and 'enlistment' will show hundreds of World War 2 soldiers' names including 'Anzac' along with their dates of birth and enlistment details.

Under the Regulations no person may use the word ‘Anzac’, or any word resembling it, in connection with: … any trade, business, calling or profession or in connexion with any entertainment or any lottery or art union or as the name or part of a name of any private residence, boat, vehicle of charitable or other institution, or other institution …

The RSL does not have control of these regulations in Australia. They are administered by the minister for Veteran's Affairs. Hayaman (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Anzac' has also been protected in New Zealand since 1916. The Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 (section 17) states that, 'The Governor-General may... prohibit, regulate, or control the use in connection with any business, trade, or occupation of the word "Anzac" or of any other word that so closely resembles the word "Anzac" as to be likely to deceive or mislead any person.'

What this means is that 'Anzac' cannot be used for any commercial venture, at least in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. It is also protected under international copyright laws.

ANZAC versus Anzac

[edit]

It is DISRESPECTFUL to use the uncapitalised form of ANZAC.

It is an ACRONYM not a word and thousands of ANZACs died honouring the legends of the ANZAC it is not for some GenY upstart to change that because they think it needs to be modernised.

Please show some proper respect and amend the article accordingly.

I eat Anzac biscuits (which have rolled oats etc. in them). ANZAC biscuits (to me at least) sound like they are made out of fallen ANZACs. I think Anzac (non-capitals) is the modern adjective for things relating to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Any thoughts?

Matt (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's been a discussion regarding this on the 'Anzac Day' page - the vote was unanimous by about ten editors to none that 'Anzac' is the correct capitalisation, both historically and grammatically. 'ANZAC' stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - in other words it refers to a military unit, a 'corps' generally consisting of two divisions. There is therefore no such thing as 'ANZACs' either. The soldiers were referred to as 'Anzacs'. Hayaman (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the instigator of the latest move from ANZAC Day (using capitals) to Anzac Day - for the reasons variously reported on the talk page. I could see an argument for "ANZAC biscuit" being a biscuit baked for members of the ANZAC units (where ANZAC is a noun describing another noun, like "school bus" is a "bus for school"... hence, "ANZAC biscuit" is a "biscuit for the ANZAC unit"). However..... to me it would make slightly more sense for the term to refers to "a biscuit for Anzac(s)", ie, using the non-capitalised version in the adjective sense to describe a concept/group. A long winded way of saying.... I think "Anzac biscuit" is probably more appropriate. PalawanOz (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly authoritative... but Arnott's uses the "Anzac Biscuit" variant here PalawanOz (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone has to speculate too much on these matters as there are plenty of examples in contemporary writings, and a lot of research already been done on them. For example, on Anzac biscuits, see here. This article debunks the myth that the biscuits first appeared at Gallipoli, and certainly no authoritive source I've ever read in twenty years of research into Gallipoli has ever mentioned Anzac biscuits - by whatever name - being made at Gallipoli. Hayaman (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the link provided above by Hayaman is 'broken'--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting also, following on from what PalawanOz said above, that every link in the article is named 'ANZAC' biscuit, cookie, etc., but when the links are followed, in every case the actual capitalisation used on the authoratitive site is .... 'Anzac'. The only exceptions to this being in some cases, in titles, when everything is fully-capitalised anyway. So why are people changing this when they write these articles or link to others ? Hayaman (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A slight bias to this article

[edit]

It is important to take a conservative approach when interpreting recent findings and research. I don't feel that such an approach has been observed at times in this article. For example it is stated that the first time the word 'Anzac' appears in the name of the biscuit was in the ninth edition of the 'St Andrew's Cookery Book'. This is however not definitive, but rather the earliest known instance of the use so far discovered. Reading the referenced article outlining Professor Leach's research it is stated in it that the first published recipe so far discovered for anything with the title of 'Anzac biscuits' is, as is the case of the first use of the name 'pavlova', to be found in Australia. It was however a recipe for a different biscuit, but a point still worth inclusion in the main article I would have thought. Also it is noted that in this same recipe book ('The War Chest Cookery Book') the prototype of today's Anzac biscuits can be found under the name 'Rolled Oats Biscuits'. There is no mention of these being unique to Dunedin. So the prerequisites for the possible renaming of the rolled oats biscuit to the Anzac clearly existed in Australia. The point to note here is that the level of effort put into researching the origins of the Anzac biscuit would seem to be heavily weighted in favour of NZ. I might be wrong in making such an assumption, but it does seem to me that if the chief source of information from the Australian side of the story is gleamed from the Australian National Dictionary then perhaps not a lot of contemporary research is being done there. If I am wrong on this, and if anyone knows of similar academic efforts being put into such research in Australia then they should point it out. Until and if a similar extensive analysis of Australian recipes of that time is done it can only be conjecture as to when the name was used correctly for the first time.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variant Of Oatcakes?

[edit]

The assertion that "The biscuit appears to be a variation of Scottish oat cakes" seems dubious. The inclusion of oats aside they bear scant similarity: the Anzac a sweet biscuit, the oatcake savoury and roughly fulfilling the role of bread or a cracker. There may well be a Scots influence in the origin but this needs citation and, if Anzacs truly did develop from oatcakes, this also needs citation to explain how the end result was so different. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is now a citation attached to this but I don't think it backs the assertion up. Firstly it refers to Scottish Oatmeal Cakes, which is not a term I have ever heard. It may or may not mean oatcakes but seems to be talking about, or believe it is talking about, a type of cake, which an oatcake is not. Secondly it asserts that rolled oats are "regular oatmeal". This may simply indicate that it is the most commonly available form in Australia but it makes another difference between Anzacs and oatcakes come to mind. Anzacs are made with the rolled variety and oatcakes are made with un-rolled medium meal (or various combinations of coarse, medium and fine oatmeal depending on the desired texture). You'd get a funny kind of oatcake if you made it with rolled oats.

There's about as much similarity between an Anzac and an oatcake, down to their shared oat content, as there is between a Tim Tam and a slice of bread, down to their wheat content. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2010 (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]

Recipe

[edit]

I always thought the reason for leaving out eggs was so the biscuits would keep from being sent from NZ (where as eggs would go off). I'm not sure on the actual science of it, but it certainly claims that in many cook books. (Baking for Blokes by Steve Joll for one example)--202.89.153.161 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC --> Anzac

[edit]

I'm changing the all upper case ANZAC to Anzac, because the bulk of the references do not capitalise it. In particular, the official Australian Govt website "Protecting the word Anzac" doesn't use all caps. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early recipes

[edit]

Anzac ginger biscuits from 1916 ->http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58013699

Soldiers letter ->http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/67485518

Anzac biscuits ->http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58043393

Theodore D (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

At present the article says the Anzac biscuit originated in both Aus and NZ. However, new research has found an earliest named recipe for the Anzac biscuit in an Oz newspaper.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11194834 Now, I realise some Kiwi Wikipedians might think it a bit on the nose if Oz is allowed to claim sole ownership based on this one recipe. Especially when this may not be the last word, and anyway the recipe already existed in both countries prior, just with a different name. Yet, this is exactly the situation happening over at the pavlova dessert article. Any suggestions on what to do about this inconsistency would be good. Thanks! Theodore D (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anzac biscuit. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"so long as they are sold as biscuits and not cookies."

[edit]

What the hell does that mean??? what's the difference between the two in that part of the world? 94.134.203.232 (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anzac_biscuit&oldid=1205769500"