text:
Anzac Day

Anzac Day (Rā Whakamahara ki ngā Hōia o Ahitereiria me Aotearoa or Rā o ngā Hōia) is a national day of remembrance in Australia, New Zealand and Tonga that broadly commemorates all Australians and New Zealanders "who served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations" and "the contribution and suffering of all those who have served". Observed on 25 April each year, Anzac Day was originally devised to honour the members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) who served in the Gallipoli campaign, their first engagement in the First World War (1914–1918).

History
Anzac Day marks the anniversary of the first campaign that led to major casualties for Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War. The acronym ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, whose soldiers were known as Anzacs. Anzac Day remains one of the most important national occasions of both Australia and New Zealand; however, the ceremonies and their meanings have changed significantly since 1915. According to Martin Crotty, a historian at the University of Queensland, Anzac commemorations have "suited political purposes right from 1916 when the first Anzac Day march was held in London and Australia, which were very much around trying to get more people to sign up to the war in 1916–1918".

Gallipoli campaign, 1915
In 1915, Australian and New Zealand soldiers formed part of an Allied expedition that set out to capture the Gallipoli Peninsula to open the way to the Black Sea for the Allied navies. The objective was to capture Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, which was a member of the Central Powers during the war. The ANZAC force landed at Gallipoli on 25 April, meeting fierce resistance from the Ottoman Army commanded by Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk). What had been planned as a bold strike to knock the Ottomans out of the war quickly became a stalemate, and the campaign dragged on for eight months. At the end of 1915, the Allied forces were evacuated after both sides had suffered heavy casualties and endured great hardships. The Allied deaths totalled over 56,000, including 8,709 from Australia and 2,721 from New Zealand. News of the landing at Gallipoli made a profound impact on Australians and New Zealanders at home and 25 April quickly became the day on which they remembered the sacrifice of those who had died in the war.

Though the Gallipoli campaign failed to achieve its military objectives of capturing Constantinople and knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war, the actions of the Australian and New Zealand troops during the campaign bequeathed an intangible but powerful legacy. The creation of what became known as an Anzac legend became an important part of the national identity in both countries. This has shaped the way their citizens have viewed both their past and their understanding of the present. The heroism of the soldiers in the failed Gallipoli campaign made their sacrifices iconic in New Zealand memory, and is often credited with securing the psychological independence of the nation.

From 1915 to World War II
On 30 April 1915, when the first news of the landing reached New Zealand, a half-day holiday was declared and impromptu services were held.

Adelaide, South Australia, was the site of Australia's first built memorial to the Gallipoli landing, unveiled by Governor-General Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson on Wattle Day, 7 September 1915, just over four months after the first landings. The monument was originally the centrepiece of the Wattle Day League's Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove on Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue in the South Park Lands. The original native pines and remnant seedlings of the original wattles still grow in Wattle Grove, but in 1940 the Adelaide City Council moved the monument and its surrounding pergola a short distance away to Lundie Gardens. Also in South Australia, Eight Hour Day, 13 October 1915, was renamed Anzac Day and a carnival was organised to raise money for the Wounded Soldiers Fund. The name Anzac Day was chosen through a competition, won by Robert Wheeler, a draper of Prospect.

Melbourne observed an Anzac Remembrance Day on 17 December 1915.

However, the first instance of what would soon become an annual national ritual of observance – Anzac Day – started in Queensland. On 10 January 1916, Canon David John Garland was appointed the honorary secretary of the Anzac Day Commemoration Committee of Queensland (ADCCQ) at a public meeting which endorsed 25 April as the date to be promoted as "Anzac Day" in 1916 and ever after. Queensland Premier T.J. Ryan urged the other Australian states to enact a similar parade, and soon the date became a national day of reflection. Devoted to the cause of a non-denominational commemoration that could be attended by the whole of Australian society, Garland worked amicably across all denominational divides, creating the framework for Anzac Day commemorative services. Garland is specifically credited with initiating the Anzac Day march, the wreath-laying ceremonies at memorials and the special church services, the two minutes silence, and the luncheon for returned soldiers. Garland intended the silence to be used in lieu of a prayer to allow the Anzac Day service to be universally attended, allowing attendees to make a silent prayer or remembrance in accordance with their own beliefs. He particularly feared that the universality of the ceremony would fall victim to religious sectarian disputes. The State Library of Queensland holds the minutes from the Anzac Day Commemoration Committee of Queensland; the collection has been digitised and available to view online. In 2019, the collection was added to UNESCO's Memory of the World Australian Register.

The date 25 April was officially named Anzac Day in 1916; in that year, it was marked by a wide variety of ceremonies and services in Australia, New Zealand and London. In New Zealand, it was gazetted as a half-day holiday. Over 2,000 people attended the service in Rotorua. In London, over 2,000 Australian and New Zealand troops marched through the streets of the city. An unnamed London newspaper reputedly dubbed them "The Knights of Gallipoli". Marches were held all over Australia; wounded soldiers from Gallipoli attended the Sydney march in convoys of cars, accompanied by nurses.

In Egypt, General John Monash paraded the troops on Anzac Day 1916.

For the remaining years of the war, Anzac Day was used as an occasion for patriotic rallies and recruiting campaigns, and marches of serving members of the AIF were held in most cities. From 1916 onwards, in both Australia and New Zealand, Anzac memorials were held on or about 25 April, mainly organised by returned servicemen and school children in cooperation with local authorities. Early morning services were solemn, with a more upbeat tone set for honouring returned soldiers during afternoon activities.

Australian troops did not return to great victory parades at the end of the war. This was partly because their arrival home depended on available shipping, but also because of the influenza epidemic of 1919, which prevented people assembling in large numbers. The 1919 Sydney parade was cancelled as a result, but a public commemorative service was held in the Domain, where participants were required to wear masks and stand three feet apart.

Anzac Day was gazetted as a public holiday in New Zealand in 1920, through the Anzac Day Act, after lobbying by the New Zealand Returned Services' Association, the RSA.

In Australia at the 1921 State Premiers' Conference, it was decided that Anzac Day would be observed on 25 April each year. However, it was not observed uniformly in all the states until 1922 when the States were invited to co-operate with the Commonwealth in observing the day, and an invitation was telegraphed to the various religious bodies suggesting that memorial services be held in the morning. In the early 1920s returned soldiers mostly commemorated Anzac Day informally, primarily as a means of keeping in contact with each other. But as time passed and they inevitably began to drift apart, the ex-soldiers perceived a need for an institutionalised reunion. During the late 1920s, Anzac Day became established as a National Day of Commemoration for the 60,000 Australians and 18,000 New Zealanders who died during the war. The first year in which all the Australian states observed some form of public holiday together on Anzac Day was 1927. By the mid-1930s, all the rituals now associated with the day – dawn vigils, marches, memorial services, reunions, two-up games – became part of Australian Anzac Day culture. New Zealand commemorations also adopted many of these rituals, with the dawn service being introduced from Australia in 1939.

Changes after World War II
With the coming of the Second World War, Anzac Day became a day on which to commemorate the lives of Australians and New Zealanders which were lost in that war as well and in subsequent wars. The meaning of the day has been further broadened to include those killed in all the military operations in which the countries have been involved. Anzac Day was first commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in 1942, but, due to government orders preventing large public gatherings in case of Japanese air attack, it was a small affair and was neither a march nor a memorial service. Anzac Day has been annually commemorated at the Australian War Memorial ever since. In New Zealand, Anzac Day saw a surge in popularity immediately after World War II.

Popularity sinks
By the 1950s, many New Zealanders had become antagonistic or indifferent towards the day. Much of this was linked to the legal ban on commerce on Anzac Day, and the banning by many local authorities of sports events and other entertainment on the day. Annoyance was particularly pronounced in 1953 and 1959, when Anzac Day fell on a Saturday. There was widespread public debate on the issue, with some people calling for the public holiday to be moved to the nearest Sunday or abolished altogether. In 1966, a new Anzac Day Act was passed, allowing sport and entertainment in the afternoon.

During and after Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War (1962–1975), interest in Anzac Day reached its lowest point in Australia. On 26 April 1975, The Australian newspaper covered the passing of Anzac Day in a single story. In the 1960s and 1970s, anti-war protesters used Anzac Day events as a platform to voice opposition to conscription and Australia's military involvement in general; in the following 20 years, the relevance of Australia's war connection with the British Empire was brought into question. In 1967, two members of the left-wing Progressive Youth Movement in Christchurch staged a minor protest at the Anzac Day ceremony, laying a wreath protesting against the Vietnam War. They were subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct. In 1978, a women's group laid a wreath dedicated to all the women raped and killed during war, and movements for feminism, gay rights, and peace used the occasion to draw attention to their respective causes at various times during the 1980s. In 1981, the group Women Against Rape in War marched up Anzac Parade towards the Australian War Memorial to lay their wreath at the Stone of Remembrance. At the head of the procession, women held a banner which read, "In memory of all women of all countries raped in all wars." More than 60 women were arrested by police. Following this time, there were calls for a new type of comradeship that did not discriminate based on sex or race.

1990s–2010s: Revival
However, since the late 1980s and especially the 1990s, interest in and attendance at Anzac Day has grown. On 25 April 1990, Bob Hawke became the first Australian politician to visit Gallipoli, and he also decided that government would pay to take Anzac veterans to Gallipoli for the 75th anniversary of the dawn landing. This is seen by historians as a major milestone in the recovery of Anzac Day.

Prime Minister John Howard was also a huge proponent of Anzac Day commemorations, and visited Gallipoli on 25 April in both 2000 and 2005.

An increasing number of attendees have been young Australians, many of whom attend ceremonies swathed in Australian flags, wearing green and gold T-shirts and beanies and with Australian flag tattoos imprinted on their skin. This phenomenon has been perceived by some as a reflection of the desire of younger generations of Australians to honour the sacrifices made by the previous generations.

Australians and New Zealanders recognise 25 April as a ceremonial occasion to reflect on the cost of war and to remember those who fought and died in war. Commemorative services and marches are held at dawn, the time of the original landing, mainly at war memorials in cities and towns across both nations and the sites of some of Australia and New Zealand's more-recognised battles and greatest losses, such as Villers-Bretonneux in France and Gallipoli in Turkey.

One of the traditions of Anzac Day is the gunfire breakfast (coffee with rum added) which occurs shortly after many dawn ceremonies, and recalls the "breakfast" taken by many soldiers before facing battle. Later in the day, ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen meet and join in marches through the major cities and many smaller centres.

In 2018, female veterans were encouraged to march at the front of their sections. The "By The Left" initiative was launched following a number of reported cases where servicewomen had been challenged that they were wearing their medals on the wrong side, as people should wear their own medals on the left side of their chest, but people marching in place of their parents or other ancestors should wear that person's medals on the right side.

According to historian Carolyn Holbrook of Deakin University, "We reached Peak Anzac in 2015 sure, and there has been some backing off since then, but in terms of the dawn services and Anzac Day commemoration, it will remain huge for a good while yet ... There is nothing better to take its place in terms of a national mythology."

In recent years, there has been greater recognition of the often overlooked role that women, immigrants and Indigenous Australians played in the wars, in the news and in the arts. Black Diggers, which premiered at the Sydney Festival, told the stories of the Aboriginal men who enlisted, whose sacrifices were ignored, and who were quickly forgotten upon their return. Country Arts SA's Aboriginal Diggers Project is a 3-year project (2017–2019) capturing the stories and experiences of Aboriginal servicemen and women who have served in Australia's Military from the Boer War to the present day through film, theatre and visual arts.

2020–2022: COVID-19 pandemic
In 2020, most Anzac Day marches in Australia and New Zealand were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a consequence of the cancellation of the service, two Army veterans, Bill Sowry and Terry James, suggested standing in front of the driveways to observe a minute of silence; and, at the same time, Justin Wilbur, the son of a Vietnam veteran, offered to light a candle as a tribute to the soldiers. He created a Facebook group Aussies and Kiwis for ANZACS, and Ashleigh Leckie, a Navy veteran, combined their ideas and put forth what we now know as the Driveway at Dawn movement. This movement was later adopted by the RSL and RSA and was consequently renamed Light up the Dawn and Stand at Dawn.
 * 2020

In the United Kingdom, Kathy Lette presented a Zoom performance of The One Day of the Year with five actors performing from their homes.

In 2021 major state marches occurred although under pandemic restriction settings such as in Queensland and the Northern Territory, others with ticketing and/or restrictions on numbers marching and watching, such as the national event in Canberra, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania. Overseas services were not held. Services did not happen in Perth as on 24 April Perth city and the Peel region entered a sudden 3 day COVID-19 lockdown and Anzac Day services in the affected areas were cancelled.
 * 2021

In 2022 dawn services returned in both Australia and in Gallipoli. The end of pandemic restriction meant crowds returned to pre-pandemic levels in Queensland New South Wales South Australia, Victoria, The ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory where Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Deputy Opposition Leader Richard Marles (representing Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese who was sick with COVID at the time) attended a dawn service. Perth saw the return of the dawn service for the first time in three years albeit with only 500 attendees due to ongoing COVID restrictions. Dawn services occurred in New Zealand but parades were cancelled due to the pandemic.
 * 2022

Post-pandemic: 2023–present
30,000 attended the Canberra war memorial service in 2023, continuing a trend since 2015 of crowds declining.

As a public holiday
ANZAC Day is a public holiday in Australia, New Zealand and Tonga (including in the dependencies of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Cook Islands, Niue, Norfolk Island and Tokelau).

Dawn service
A dawn service was held on the Western Front by an Australian battalion on the first anniversary of the Gallipoli landing on 25 April 1916, and historians agree that in Australia dawn services spontaneously popped up around the country to commemorate the fallen at Gallipoli in the years after this. The timing of the dawn service is based on the time that the ANZAC forces started the landing on the Gallipoli peninsula, but also has origins in a combination of military, symbolic and religious traditions. Various stories name different towns as having the first ever service in Australia, including Albany, Western Australia, but no definite proof has been found to corroborate any of them. In Rockhampton, Queensland on 26 April 1916, over 600 people attended an interdenominational service that started at 6.30 am. However, the dawn service held at the Sydney Cenotaph in 1928 can lay claim to being the first of a continuous tradition. The 1931 service at the Cenotaph was the first attended by the Governor and representatives of state and federal governments.

Dawn services were originally very simple and in many cases they were restricted to veterans only, to remember and reflect among the comrades with whom they shared a special bond. Before dawn the gathered veterans would be ordered to stand-to and a lone bugler would play the "Last Post". Two minutes of silence would follow, concluded with the "Reveille". In more recent times the families of veterans and the general public have been encouraged to take part in dawn services. Some of the ceremonies have also become more elaborate, incorporating hymns, prayer readings, laying of wreaths, laments and the playing of the Australian national anthem, but others have retained the simple format of the dawn stand-to. The fourth stanza of Laurence Binyon's poem "For the Fallen" (known as the "Ode of Remembrance", or simply as "the Ode") is often recited.

Commemorative services and traditions
Despite federation being proclaimed in Australia in 1901, it is argued that the national identity of Australia was largely forged during the violent conflict of World War I, and the most iconic event in the war for most Australians was the landing at Gallipoli. Dr. Paul Skrebels of the University of South Australia has noted that Anzac Day has continued to grow in popularity; even the threat of a terrorist attack at the Gallipoli site in 2004 did not deter some 15,000 Australians from making the pilgrimage to Turkey to commemorate the fallen ANZAC troops.

In cities and towns nationwide, marches by veterans from all past wars, as well as current serving members of the Australian Defence Force and Reserves, allied veterans, Australian Defence Force Cadets and Australian Air League, members of Scouts Australia, Guides Australia, and other service groups take place. The Anzac Day March from each state capital is televised live with commentary. These events are generally followed by social gatherings of veterans, hosted either in a public house or in an RSL club, often including a traditional Australian gambling game called two-up, which was an extremely popular pastime with ANZAC soldiers. (In most Australian states and territories, gambling is forbidden outside of licensed venues; however, due to the significance of this tradition, two-up is legal only on Anzac Day.)

A National Ceremony is held at the Australian War Memorial, starting at 10:30 am, with the traditional order of service including the Commemorative Address, wreath laying, hymns, the sounding of the Last Post, observance of one minute's silence, and the national anthems of Australia and New Zealand. Families often place artificial red poppies beside the names of relatives on the Memorial's Roll of Honour. Sprigs of rosemary or laurel are often worn on lapels.

Although commemoration events are always held on 25 April, most states and territories currently observe a substitute public holiday on the following Monday when Anzac Day falls on a Sunday. When Anzac Day falls on Easter Monday, such as in 2011, the Easter Monday holiday is transferred to Tuesday. This followed a 2008 meeting of the Council for the Australian Federation in which the states and territories made an in-principle agreement to work towards making this a universal practice. However, in 2009, the Legislative Council of Tasmania rejected a bill amendment that would have enabled the substitute holiday in that state.

Commemorative postage stamps
Australia Post has issued stamps over the years to commemorate Anzac Day, the first being in 1935 for the 20th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings.

The list of issued stamps includes:
 * 1935 – 20th Anniversary (2 values) 2d Red and 1/- Black featuring the London Cenotaph.
 * 1955 – the then current 3½d Purple Nursing commemorative stamp was privately overprinted with the words "ANZAC 1915–1955 40 YEARS LEST WE FORGET" and a value ranging from 1d to £1 was also added which was the fundraising amount in addition to the legal cost of stamp of which the denomination was 3½d. Eight values were issued and were intended to raise funds for the Anzac commemorations. It is believed these stamps were authorised by the secretary of a leading Melbourne RSL club.
 * 1965 – 50th Anniversary (3 values) 5d Khaki, 8d Blue and 2/3 Maroon featuring Simpson and his donkey.
 * 1990 – 75th Anniversary (5 values) 41¢ x 2, 65¢, $1, and $1.10 all featuring various Anzac themes.
 * 2000 – ANZAC legends (4 values) 45¢ x 4 featuring Walter Parker, Roy Longmore, Alec Campbell and the Anzac medal.
 * 2008 – five stamps depicting Australians showing respect and lines from the Ode of Remembrance
 * 2014–2018 – A Century of War
 * 2014 – Tri-services
 * 2015 – War Animals
 * 2016 – Vietnam War
 * 2017 – Women in War
 * 2018 – War Memorials: five base-rate ($1) stamps depicting Cobbers Statue at Australian Memorial Park; the Avenue of Honour in Ballarat; Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier, Canberra; Darwin Cenotaph; and the Legacy Memorial at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne

Australian rules football
During many wars, Australian rules football matches have been played overseas in places like northern Africa, Vietnam, and Iraq as a celebration of Australian culture and as a bonding exercise between soldiers.

The modern-day tradition began in 1995 and is played every year between traditional AFL rivals Collingwood and Essendon at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. This annual match is often considered the biggest of the AFL season outside of the finals, sometimes drawing bigger crowds than all but the Grand Final, and often selling out in advance. The inaugural match in 1995 drew a crowd of 94,825 people, with the 2023 match drawing a crowd of 95,179, the second biggest home and away crowd in AFL history. The Anzac Medal is awarded to the player in the match who best exemplifies the Anzac spirit – skill, courage, self-sacrifice, teamwork and fair play. As of 2024, Collingwood hold the advantage 17 wins to 10, with two draws (in 1995 and 2024). The match was not played in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2013, St Kilda and the Sydney Swans played an Anzac Day game in Wellington, New Zealand, the first AFL game played for premiership points outside of Australia. The winning team, Sydney, were presented with the inaugural Simpson–Henderson Trophy by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The trophy was named after two notable Anzac soldiers: John Simpson Kirkpatrick and Richard Alexander Henderson.

Rugby League football
From 1997, the Anzac Test, a rugby league test match, has commemorated Anzac Day, though it is typically played prior to Anzac Day. The match is always played between the Australian and New Zealand national teams, and has drawn attendances of between 20,000 and 45,000 in the past. The final Anzac test occurred in 2017.

Domestically, matches have been played on Anzac Day since 1927 (with occasional exceptions). Since 2002, the National Rugby League (NRL) has followed the lead of the Australian Football League, hosting a match between traditional rivals St. George Illawarra Dragons and the Sydney Roosters each year to commemorate Anzac Day in the ANZAC Day Cup, although these two sides had previously met on Anzac Day several times as early as the 1970s. Between 2009 and 2023, an additional Anzac Day game has been played between the Melbourne Storm and New Zealand Warriors; the South Sydney Rabbitohs replaced the New Zealand Warriors in 2024.

Commemoration in New Zealand
New Zealand's commemoration of Anzac Day is similar. The number of New Zealanders attending Anzac Day events in New Zealand, and at Gallipoli, is increasing. For some, the day adds weight to the idea that war is futile.

Dawn marches and other memorials nationwide are typically attended by the New Zealand Defence Force, the New Zealand Cadet Forces, members of the New Zealand Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Order of St John Ambulance Service (Youth and Adult Volunteers) as well as Scouting New Zealand, GirlGuiding New Zealand and other uniformed community service groups including in most places the local pipe band to lead or accompany the march, and sometimes a brass band to accompany the hymns.

Anzac Day now promotes a sense of unity, perhaps more effectively than any other day on the national calendar. People whose politics, beliefs and aspirations are widely different can nevertheless share a genuine sorrow at the loss of so many lives in war.

Paper poppies are widely distributed by the Returned Services Association and worn as symbols of remembrance. This tradition follows that of the wearing of poppies on Remembrance Sunday in other Commonwealth countries.

The day is a public holiday in New Zealand. Shops are prohibited from opening before 1 pm under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. A prior act passed in 1949 prevented the holiday from being Mondayised (moved to the 26th or 27th should the 25th fall on a weekend), although this drew criticism from trade unionists and Labour Party politicians. In 2013, a member's bill introduced by Labour MP David Clark to Mondayise Anzac Day and Waitangi Day passed, despite opposition from the governing National Party.

Commemoration at Gallipoli

In Turkey the name ANZAC Cove was officially recognised by the Turkish government on Anzac Day in 1985. That year, a monolith installed at Ari Burnu Cemetery (ANZAC Beach) was inscribed with a quotation attributed to Kemal Atatürk in 1934:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives ... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours ... You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

The words also appear on the Kemal Atatürk Memorial, Canberra, and the Atatürk Memorial in Wellington. However despite the common attribution to Atatürk by governments and politicians from Australia and Turkey, historians have found no direct evidence that Atatürk ever spoke these words. A version of the quote first appeared in 1953 from a Turkish journalist with the later inclusion of the phrase "There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets" emerging in 1978.

In 1990, to mark the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing, government officials from Australia and New Zealand (including Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and New Zealand governor-general Paul Reeves ) as well as most of the last surviving Gallipoli veterans, and many Australian and New Zealand tourists travelled to Turkey for a special Dawn Service at Gallipoli. The Gallipoli Dawn Service was held at the Ari Burnu War Cemetery at Anzac Cove, but the growing numbers of people attending resulted in the construction of a more spacious site on North Beach, known as the Anzac Commemorative Site in time for the year 2000 service.

A ballot was held to allocate passes for Australians and New Zealanders wishing to attend Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli in 2015. Of the 10,500 people who could be safely, securely and comfortably accommodated at the Anzac Commemorative Site, in 2015 this comprised places for 8,000 Australians, 2,000 New Zealanders and 500 official representatives of all nations involved in the Gallipoli campaign. Only those who received an offer of attendance passes attended the commemorations in 2015.

Antarctica

 * Scott Base holds a ceremony honouring the fallen on Anzac Day. Americans from the nearby McMurdo Station are often invited.

Belgium

 * In Ypres, Belgium, a dawn service is held at the Buttes New British Cemetery in Zonnebeke; there is a 9:30 am service at the Tyne Cot Cemetery; a procession from the Ypres Cloth Hall to Menin Gate begins at 11:10 am and the Wreath-laying ceremony at the Belgian War Memorial takes place at 11:35 am. In addition, the nightly Last Post Ceremony takes place at the Menin Gate at 8 pm, when buglers from the Last Post Association sound this act of homage as they have every night since 1928.
 * In Comines-Warneton, The Ploegsteert Toronto Avenue Cemetery Commemoration Service takes place at 4 pm.

Brunei

 * In Muara, a pre-dawn service is held on 25 April at the Brunei-Australia Memorial as a remembrance of the servicemen and women of Australia and New Zealand. The commemoration is held on Muara Beach, the site where the Allied forces led by Australia's 9th Division landed in Brunei on 10 June 1945 as part of the campaign to liberate Borneo from the Japanese.

Canada

 * In St. John's, Newfoundland, the Gallipoli offensive is commemorated each year on 25 April by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, which was the only unit from North America to fight on Gallipoli, who hold a march from Government House through the streets ending at the National War Memorial. Members of both the Australian and New Zealand armed forces are invited each year to participate in the march and wreath laying ceremonies.
 * In Ottawa, Ontario, a service starting at 9 am is held at the Canadian War Museum.
 * In Toronto, Ontario, Anzac service is held at the Armour Heights Officers' Mess, Canadian Forces College.
 * In London, Ontario a dawn service starting at 5:45 am was held in 2017 at the Worseley Barracks.
 * In Winnipeg, Manitoba Anzac Day was commemorated by the Down Under Club of Winnipeg on Saturday 29 April 2017 from 6 pm until 10 pm at the Scandinavian Cultural Centre.
 * In Calgary, Alberta, a Cenotaph Service is held annually at Central Park with participation from the local military, held in the evening.
 * In Edmonton, Alberta, Anzac Day ceremonies have been held since 2009.
 * In Vancouver, British Columbia, Anzac service is held at Victory Square, Vancouver.
 * In Comox, BC, Vancouver Island Anzac Day is held on the Sunday closest to 25 April. Hosted by the HMCS Alberni Museum and Memorial, the ceremony is held in various locations each year on Vancouver Island.

Cyprus

 * In Nicosia, a dawn service is held at the Wayne's Keep Military Cemetery. The ceremony is attended by officials of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the Australian High Commissioner.

Egypt

 * In Cairo, Egypt, Anzac Day is remembered by the expatriate New Zealand and Australian communities with a dawn ceremony held at the Cairo Commonwealth War Memorial Cemetery, Abu Seifen Street, Old Cairo. New Zealand and Australian Embassies rotate hosting the service.

France

 * In the town of Villers-Bretonneux, the Australian government holds an annual dawn service. For decades, the commemoration was organised by French locals (on the next closest weekend to Anzac Day) until the Australian government took over the organisation of an Anzac Day dawn service at the Australian National Memorial, Villers-Bretonneux. Historian Romain Fathi has explained that several factors contributed to this "commemorative take-over", such as the need to have an official service in France, a deteriorating relationship with Turkey in the mid-2000s that jeopardised access to Anzac Cove, and associating Anzac Day with victory on the Western Front, rather than defeat at Gallipoli. Indeed, in the Australian narrative of Second Villers-Bretonneux, the town was re-taken on 25 April 1918, a symbolic anniversary. In fact, that operation was not finished until 27 April.
 * The town of Fromelles holds an annual service at Pheasant Wood Military Cemetery where a few hundred lost Australian soldiers were reburied after being discovered nearby. The ceremony is attended by representatives of the Australian government and French military. The Battle of Fromelles, an important battle for Australians, happened near the town.
 * In France services are also held in the towns of Le Quesnoy and Longueval. Since the 1990s, an Anzac Day service has also been held at Bullecourt, organised by local French authorities.
 * In French Polynesia, Anzac Day has been commemorated with an official ceremony held in Papeete since 2006. The 2009 ceremony was attended by French Polynesia President Oscar Temaru, who praised the "courage and liberty" of Australian and New Zealand soldiers in a statement.

Germany

 * In Germany, Anzac Day is commemorated in Berlin, at the Commonwealth Kriegsgräber, Charlottenburg. (Commonwealth War Graves).

Greece

 * In the Greek capital of Athens, Anzac Day is commemorated at the Phaleron Allied War Cemetery.
 * Since 1998, Anzac Day has also been commemorated in the island of Lemnos, which served as an Allied base of operations during the Gallipoli campaign, and where there are two Allied cemeteries, at Mudros Bay and at Portianou.

Hong Kong

 * In Hong Kong, a simple dawn commemorative service is held at The Centotaph in Central, with a member of the Hong Kong Police Band playing the Last Post and Reveille from the balcony of the nearby Hong Kong Club.

India

 * On 25 April 2019 a wreath-laying ceremony was held for the first time in the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery, Kolkata. The Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Kolkata is housed inside the Bhawanipur Cemetery and houses over 700 war graves, including those of four Australian and two New Zealand soldiers, all of whom died in World War II. The ceremony was headed by Australian high commissioner to India Harinder Sindhu and Australian consul-general in Kolkata Andrew Ford. Also present were Australian and New Zealand cricketers and support staff, who were in the city for the Indian Premier League (IPL).

Ireland

 * In Dublin, Anzac Day is remembered by the expatriate New Zealand and Australian communities. In the absence of an official World War I remembrance, and in honour of Irish soldiers who fought and perished in the Dardanelles and elsewhere, Anzac Day commemorations are also attended by members of veterans groups and historical societies, including the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, ONET, the Royal British Legion, and UN Veterans. Since the mid-1980s, an evening service has been organised by the New Zealand-Ireland Association, which currently takes place in St Ann's Church, Dawson St, Dublin 2. For the 90th anniversary in 2005, a daylight service was held for the first time in the re-furbished Grangegorman Military Cemetery, Dublin 7. A Turkish Hazel tree, planted by the ambassadors of Australia, New Zealand and Turkey, commemorates this occasion. It can be found to the south of the limestone Memorial Wall. Since this date, a dawn service has been held at this location.
 * At the Ballance House in County Antrim, the official New Zealand centre in Northern Ireland, an afternoon commemoration takes place.

Israel

 * In Israel, a commemorative service is held at Jerusalem British War Cemetery on Anzac Day, attended by the ambassadors of Australia and New Zealand. It is also remembered at the Be'er-Sheva Anzac Memorial Centre and the ANZAC Memorial in Negev.

Italy

 * In Italy, a commemorative service is held at the Rome War Cemetery, attended by high members of the military and various embassies associated with the conflict. The service is in English and Maori language. A mass of remembrance is also held.

Malaysia
The Australian Borneo Exhibition Group organises annual trips for ANZAC veterans and students to commemorate World War II in the states of Sabah and Sarawak.
 * In Kuala Lumpur and Sandakan, Anzac Day is a memorial day to honour the Australian, British, New Zealand and local soldiers who perished during the Second World War. A commemorative service will be held like dawn service and gunfire breakfast.
 * In Kota Kinabalu, a ceremony is held on 26 April at Jalan Tugu (Monument Street) to honour and remember the sacrifices of all freedom fighters including the contribution of Australia and New Zealand to the state of Sabah.
 * In Kuching, a commemorative service was held at the World War II Heroes Graves Memorial in Jalan Taman Budaya (Culture Park Street) on 25 April.
 * In Labuan, a commemorative service of Dawn and Twilight service are held on 25 April at the World War II Memorial, the final resting place of some 3,908 war heroes from Australia, Britain, New Zealand, India, Malaya along with those from Borneo and the Philippines who died during the occupation of British Borneo by the Japanese.

Malta

 * Anzac Day has been commemorated in Malta since 1916. Since 1979 the service has been held at the Pietà Military Cemetery, as it contains the highest number of ANZAC war graves in Malta.

Pacific Ocean island nations

 * Anzac Day is observed in the Cook Islands, Niue, Pitcairn Islands, and Tonga.
 * It was previously a national holiday in Papua New Guinea and Samoa. Until 1981 Papua New Guinea commemorated its war dead on Anzac Day; however, since then Remembrance Day has been observed on 23 July, the date of the first action of the Papuan Infantry Battalion against the Japanese at Awala in 1942 during the Kokoda Track campaign.
 * In Kiribati, Anzac Day is commemorated at the Coast Watchers' Memorial on the islet of Betio in South Tarawa, the site of a massacre by beheading of New Zealand military and civilian coastwatchers by Japanese forces prior to US landings in 1943.
 * See Anzac Day above for French Polynesia.

Poland

 * In Warsaw every year, a joint ceremony is held with Australian, New Zealand and Polish representatives at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Piłsudski Square.

Singapore

 * In Kranji, an Anzac Day dawn service is held by the Australian and New Zealand communities in Singapore on 25 April at the Kranji War Memorial to commemorate the landings at Gallipoli during the First World War against the Ottoman Empire. Memorial services are also held annually at the Kranji War Cemetery to commemorate those who died during the occupation of Singapore by the Japanese.

South Sudan

 * In South Sudan Australian Defence Force members and fellow peacekeepers serving with the United Nations Mission commemorated Anzac Day in 2018.

Thailand

 * In Kanchanaburi, Thailand, a dawn service is held at Hellfire Pass, a rock cutting dug by allied prisoners of war and Asian labourers for the Thai-Burma Railway. This cutting is where the greatest number of lives were lost during railway construction. The dawn service is followed by a gunfire breakfast. At 10 am or 11 am a second ceremony is held at the main POW cemetery in the city of Kanchanaburi. In addition to this, in 2018 the Australian consulate-general held a dawn service in Phuket at 5.45 am at Phuket Yacht Club, Soi Phon Chalong. The closest Saturday to Anzac Day also sees an Australian rules football match between the Thailand Tigers Australian rules football club and a team invited from neighbouring countries. In 2018 the Thailand Tigers and the Vietnam Swans played their first ever Anzac Day home and away series over two weekends.

Timor Leste

 * In the capital city Dili, in the Australian Army peace keeping base, a dawn service is held each ANZAC Day.

United Kingdom

 * In London a 5 am dawn service is held, alternating between the Australian War Memorial, and the more recently constructed New Zealand War Memorial, both of which are at Hyde Park Corner. The day is also marked by a 9 am wreath laying ceremony and service at the Gallipoli Memorial in the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral and an 11 am Wreath Laying Ceremony and Parade at The Cenotaph, Whitehall, both of which are attended by official representatives and veterans associations of Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other countries. The wreath laying ceremony at the cenotaph is directly followed by a service of commemoration and thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey. The dawn service, ceremony at the cenotaph and the service of commemoration and thanksgiving are usually attended by a member of the Royal Family representing the monarch, and by the high commissioners of Australia and New Zealand. Anzac Day has been officially observed in London since 1916, when King George V and Queen Mary attended the first commemorative service at the abbey.
 * In Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England, a March is held on the nearest Sunday to Anzac Day. A march followed by a service is held in Leighterton Cemetery, which has several war graves of servicemen from Australia and New Zealand. Veterans and cadets from the local ATC squadron attend.
 * In Oxford, Oxfordshire, England, an Anzac Day service is organised by the Oxford University Australia New Zealand Society. In 2015 the service was held at the University Church on 25 April, followed by dinner in Somerville College Hall. Representatives of the Australian and New Zealand high commissions attend and Australian, New Zealand, and Turkish students are all involved in the service.
 * A service of remembrance to commemorate Anzac Day and Gallipoli is held at the National Memorial Arboretum in Alrewas, Staffordshire. This commences with a service in the chapel followed by wreath laying at the Gallipoli memorial.

United States

 * At the Los Angeles National Cemetery, the New Zealand and Australian consulates-general host the service, held at 9 am. The largest expatriate community of New Zealanders and Australians were in Southern California as at 2001.
 * In San Francisco, there is an 11 am service at the Log Cabin in the Presidio on the Sunday nearest 25 April. Dignitaries from Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, the United States and the United Kingdom attend. It is followed by a BBQ picnic.
 * In Santa Barbara, California, Anzac Day is remembered by the expatriate Australian and New Zealand communities. In the absence of an official World War I remembrance, several dignitaries from many countries including Australia, New Zealand and the US attend an 11.11 am morning service held at the Elings Park Veteran's Memorial Walk on 25 April of each year.
 * In New York City, a memorial is hosted by the Australian and New Zealand Consuls-General at the Vietnam Veterans Plaza, and a commemorative service is held on the nearest Sunday to Anzac Day in the roof garden of the British Empire Building in Rockefeller Center; it is an annual tradition that has been held at this locale since 1950.
 * In Washington, D.C., Australian and New Zealand servicemen and women observe Anzac Day at a dawn service at the Korean War Veterans Memorial on 25 April and there is also a Washington National Cathedral commemorative service.
 * In Honolulu the Marine Corps hosts an Anzac Day ceremony at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, known as The Punchbowl.
 * In Fort Novosel (formerly Fort Rucker), a dawn service is held on 25 April led by the senior Australian liaison officer at the fort's memorial garden adjacent to the aviation museum.
 * Commemoration services are also held at Bloomington (Indiana), Boston, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Leonard Wood, Houston, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, San Diego and Seattle.

Commercialisation
From the beginning, there has been concern to protect the Anzac tradition from inappropriate use. In Australia, use of the word Anzac is regulated under the Protection of Word "Anzac" Act 1920. The Protection of Word 'Anzac' Regulations 1921 state that: "no person may use the word 'Anzac', or any word resembling it, in connection with any trade, business, calling or profession or in connection 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, or any building without the authority of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs". The maximum penalty is 12 months imprisonment, or $10,200 for a person and $51,000 for a corporation.

Over recent years, some historians and commentators have raised concerns over what they see as the increasing commercialisation of Anzac Day. In 2015, historian Carolyn Holbrook stated that companies were seeking to associate themselves with Anzac Day as "Anzac is the most potent and popular brand going around in Australia today." Questionable Anzac marketing campaigns included Woolworths' Fresh in Our Memories campaign in 2015, which provoked a strong public backlash. According to Holbrook, Anzac Day is more sacred than Easter or Christmas to many. Historian professor Joan Beaumont, researcher Jo Hawkins and historical commentator David Stephens have argued that the federal government has not been sufficiently enforcing regulations which limit the extent to which companies can refer to Anzac Day, or use the word Anzac, in their marketing. There has been widespread public opposition to the more blatant attempts to commercialise Anzac Day, which has led to some products being withdrawn from sale. Many of the products associated with the centenary of the Gallipoli landings were also commercial failures.

A notable exception is the manufacture and sale of the Anzac biscuit, originally home made to published recipes from about 1920, and for many decades manufactured commercially for retail sale in both Australia and New Zealand. Commercial manufacture and sale of the biscuits is explicitly exempted from restrictions on the use of the word Anzac.

Criticism of some commemorations
For decades, there have been concerns that the participation of young people in Anzac Day events has injected a carnival element into what is traditionally a solemn occasion. The change was highlighted by a rock concert-style performance at the 2005 Anzac Cove commemoration during which attendees drank and slept between headstones. After the event the site was left strewn with rubbish. In 2013, historian Jonathan King said that "escalating commercial pressures threaten to turn the centenary [of the landing at Gallipoli] into a Big Day Out".

Digital change has been the focus of recent concern. The centenary commemoration of Anzac and the First World War has coincided with the emergence of a mature internet and comprehensive use of social media. According to Tom Sear, a new era of "digital commemoration" of Anzac Day has begun. Anzac Day selfies, memes, virtual reality Anzac avatars, Facebook posts and tweeting are part of a new participative, and immersive experience of the day. Digital media have personalised the experience of Anzac Day, focusing on sharing the activities online. In a time when the line between being online and offline is increasingly blurred, there has been a turn towards commemorative activities that seek to generate empathy and connection between contemporary audiences and historical subjects through digital media. Leading news organisations such as the ABC and News Corp live tweeted and made Facebook posts about the original Anzac landings in 2015. These online forums, and their capacity for personalised feedback, have disquieted some historians, who are concerned about the distance, solemnity and critical perspective of traditional Anzac Day commemorations being lost. Equally others emphasise how, particularly young people, using these technologies of the present, play a role in connecting wider communities of Anzac Day commemorators.

Criticism of Anzac Day
At its inception, Anzac Day faced criticism from the Australian labour movement, and in the country at large, there has been opposition to political exploitation of what was seen as a day of mourning. One controversy occurred in 1960 with the publication of Alan Seymour's classic play, The One Day of the Year, which dramatised the growing social divide in Australia and the questioning of old values. In the play, Anzac Day is critiqued by the central character, Hughie, as a day of drunken debauchery by returned soldiers and as a day when questions of what it means to be loyal to a nation or empire must be raised. The play was scheduled to be performed at the inaugural Adelaide Festival of Arts, but after complaints from the Returned Services League, the governors of the festival refused permission for this to occur.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, related to Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war and other issues, Anzac Day not only sank in popularity but was the focus for the expression of much dissent. (See )

Anzac Day has been criticised in recent years by a number of Australians and New Zealanders, as, for example, "a day that obscures the politics of war and discourages political dissent". In October 2008, former Australian prime minister Paul Keating stated that he believes it is misguided for people to gather each year at Anzac Cove to commemorate the landing at Gallipoli, because it is "utter and complete nonsense" to suggest that the nation was "born again or even, redeemed there". Kevin Rudd, the Australian prime minister at the time, rejected Keating's views, saying the Gallipoli campaign is "part of our national consciousness, it's part of our national psyche, it's part of our national identity, and I, for one, as Prime Minister of the country, am absolutely proud of it".

Some critics have suggested that the revival in public interest in Anzac Day amongst the young results from the fact that younger Australians have not themselves experienced war. Critics see the revival as part of a rise of unreflective nationalism in Australia which was particularly fostered by the then Australian prime minister John Howard. Some historians believe Anzac Day events are now on the decline, although it is likely there will continue to be smaller dawn services and official events in the future. Martin Crotty thought that perhaps it was now a ritual for older, traditional Australians, with old values of mateship and loyalty and even as a "reaction against globalisation"; however, Carolyn Holbrook disagrees, arguing that young people are responsible for the resurgence, and among older people there is a big group of sceptics, Baby Boomers who were influenced by Vietnam War protests.

Other criticisms have revolved around a perceived overzealousness in Australian attachment to the event, either from participants unaware of the loss or when the focus is at the expense of remembrance of the contribution of New Zealand. In 2005, John Howard was criticised for shunning the New Zealand Anzac ceremony at Gallipoli, preferring instead to spend his morning at a barbecue on the beach with Australian soldiers. In 2009, New Zealand historians noted that some Australian children were unaware that New Zealand was a part of ANZAC. In 2012, a New Zealand journalist caused controversy following comments that Australian World War I soldiers were bludgers and thieves.

title: Anzac Day


text:
Talk:Anzac Day

Anzac Cove monument destruction 2017
Anyone know if the destruction of 2017 is allready restored ? I can't find references for restauration.Skaldis (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Music
There is a trend toward ticket and recording sales around new music, tasteful perhaps, but commercial nonetheless. American singer Burl Ives and 'Suvla Bay' come to mind. For some reason, the department of Veterans affairs recommend English hymns for commemoration of ANZAC Day dawn services. Commemoration services can and do change. For example "God save the queen" is no longer played at most services. There is an enormous collection of out-of-copyright music written by Australian composers on suitably patriotic subjects, preserved by Australian libraries and vintage music curators, but these are sadly neglected and very seldom played. Some were written by returned servicemen whilst on duty in Gallipoli and France. Some examples Tradimus (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jack Lumsdaine
 * Reginald Stoneham
 * Frederick Septimus Kelly
 * Michael Heming - no copies - "Threnody for a soldier killed in action" performed abroad KIA El Alamein
 * Pte. George Hurst - 1912 Orchestral Intermezzo - no copies KIA 1917
 * F. Purcell-Warren KIA 1916 five piano miniatures
 * Pte. Albert J Smith https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C209909
 * Ms. May Summerbelle 'So Long' and 'Shrine of Remembrance'
 * 'Now is the hour' by pseudonym Clement Scott - probably civilian Albert Bokhare Saunders
 * Musical Setting of "Austral Hymn" by Gallipoli Correspondent John Sandes
 * 'ANZAC March' and 'Wallabies March' by Alex Lithgow

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Anzac Day


text:
Talk:Ontology

"Types of theories" redundant?
It seems to mostly restate stuff from the previous section, the individual terms are important but it seems like the article would flow better with all of it in one section, yay or nay? Orchastrattor (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Hello and thanks for bring up this issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't find most of the claims in the section "Types of ontologies" in the section "Overview". The overview section provides an overview of many of the different concepts used by ontologists. The types section explains what ontological theories there are. Some theories employ the concepts explained earlier but do not just repeat their definition. Another factor would be that both sections are already quite long. so merging them into one even longer section might not be a good idea Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the "types" are mentioned by name, like categoricalism or bundle theories. It's redundant in the sense that splitting them up creates this effect where reading through section by section it brings up all of the basic concepts for one field of ontology or another under "overview", then moves on to different field, only to have to bring it up again for the "types" a section later. Merging could actually make the overall length shorter by working the actual discourse and history into the main topics. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned about redundancy, I think the better approach would be to make some changes the other way round. For example, you could take the short passage on bundle theory in the subsection "Properties and relations" and use it to expand the subsection "Constituent ontologies vs blob theories". I'm not sure that there are other cases like this. As I see it, categoricalism is a theory of the nature of properties rather than a full-blown ontology. I would suggest to keep it in the subsection "Properties and relations". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Native American Ontologies
@Phlsph7 Hi there, I added the Native American Ontology section under history because I found that if sections like Greek or Hindu could be included under the page then it would also apply to Native Americans. The anthropology subpage was not correctly sourced and didn't properly represent Native American ontologies. Most of the scholars that I have sourced are not anthropologists, and source 115 comes from Glen Coulthard who is in fact a philosopher. Barkiechaser (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello! This is a very high-level article, and representation of topics should reflect their representation in the whole body of reliable sources. This does not rule out additional material relating to Native American ontologies, but one would have to demonstrate a change in proportionality. There is certainly room for improvement on the subpage like you describe, and it would be very much appreciate if the improvements could be made there.  Remsense  诉  00:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for the work you have put into writing these paragraphs. The problem is not that they lack sources but that the sources fail to establish the importance of this topic to the wide field of ontology in general. For example, I had a look at two overview sources of ontology (The entries "Ontology" in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Oxford Companion of Philosophy) and they don't even mention them while they include a detailed discussion of the ancient Greeks. This indicates that a detailed discussion of Native American ontologies does not fit into this article. I added a sentence to the subsection "Anthropology" to at least mention Native American ontologies and give the reader a high-level impression. You might consider adding more detailed information to articles more closely associated with this particular tradition, like Native American religions or Native American studies. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good morning, thank you guys both for the quick and clear responses. I understand the issues with proportionality and the weight given to Native Americans under this section, especially since the other sections aren't given the same amount of detail on a page meant for a wider overview of ontology. I think it would be fair to still include Native American Ontologies within the history section, but limit the information included and summarize it better. With that being said, I don't think an encyclopedia from 60 years ago should indicate or be a justification for what should or should not be included within this page. I don't want to imply that the encyclopedia is invalid simply because it's slightly dated, also considering that the Oxford Encyclopedia is from the 90s. But by the same logic, Hindu ontologies should also be removed from the page as neither Encyclopedia mentions them in any detail.
 * It is not surprising to me that both Encyclopedias go into extensive detail about Greek philosophies, seeing as they have been very influential to European/Western ideas of thinking. My biggest motivation to create this section is to express that ontology should not be limited to Western thought and represent Native American thought, which has been historically silenced and not properly represented anywhere else on Wikipedia. I think removing all information on Native American ontologies, and placing them under pages which are centered around Native Americans, would exacerbate these silences.
 * Furthermore, I don't think the anthropology subsection does an adequate job of representing Native American thought. Even with the addition you made, reducing Native American thought to simply "animism" paints a skewed picture of complex and long-existing ontologies. Including Native American thought under anthropology feels demeaning especially considering its location within the page. Source [199] only mentions the word “indigenous”  4 times, all of them have specifically to do with animism and the way it relates to cartesian dualism. “Native” or “Native American” isn’t mentioned, and all references to “Indigenous” aren’t specific to one specific indigenous community. Source [200] doesn’t mention the term “indigenous” or “native” once. It only serves as a reference to the ontological turn, which is mentioned but doesn’t go any further into indigenous or Native American perspectives on ontology.
 * Sorry for the long message, I wanted to make sure I was clear about my intentions and justifications with these edits, and why I think they're important to mention within the page. I suggest a middle ground where the anthropology subsection is removed for the reasons listed above, and the Native American Ontology section is condensed with regard to Wikipedia's rules on proportionality. Barkiechaser (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about what you mean with 60 years ago and the 90s. The works I was referring to were published in 2006 and 2005, as cited in the article. Apologies if that was not clear. The corresponding ISBNs are 0-02-865787-X and 0-19-926479-1 in case that helps. Which "Oxford Encyclopedia" are you referring to? Given that we now have 2 high-quality overview sources that speak against a substantial inclusion of Native American ontologies, are there any high-quality overview sources that speak in its favor? There are many indigenous ontologies besides Native American ontologies and even more non-indigenous ontologies. This means we have to be picky and follow reliable sources rather than original research in deciding what to include. On a short look, the sources [199] (Heywood 2012) and [200] (Ludwig & Weiskopf 2019) seem to support the claims they are used for. I'll look into them in more detail when I get the time. I don't understand why you regard it as "demeaning" for Native American thought to be discussed in the section "Anthropology". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the article
I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article has 6 unreferenced paragraphs and the following maintenance tags: 1x More citations needed, 1x Cleanup, 1x page needed, 6x citation needed. I think it needs more information on various topics that are either not discussed or only in passing. The overview section should have a subsection on the concept of being itself, including the contrast with non-being. The different branches of ontology should also be explained somewhere, like applied ontology, formal ontology, social ontology, and metaontology. The discussion of different ontological theories in the section "Types of ontologies" should probably be expanded to include ontological deflationism, monism vs dualism, materialism vs idealism, platonism vs nominalism, en- vs perdurantism, and modal realism.

There have been various ontological turns in different fields that should be mentioned somewhere, like science and technology studies, geography, and sociology. The methods of ontologists should also be discussed somewhere, not just philosophical methods but also ontological engineering in computer/information science. Other topics to be considered include the connections between ontology and logic, theology, and the natural sciences.

The article is already long as it is so these new topics can't be explained in much detail and some of the current contents would need to be shortened by summarizing. This pertains specifically to the section "Other ontological topics", which contains an assorted collection of subsections, many of which focus on minor topics. The history section is quite long; it could be split into its own article "History of ontology" while retaining a shorter summary here.

Various smaller adjustments are needed but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ontology


text:
Saul Kripke

Saul Aaron Kripke (November 13, 1940 – September 15, 2022) was an American analytic philosopher and logician. He was Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and emeritus professor at Princeton University. Since the 1960s, he has been a central figure in a number of fields related to mathematical and modal logic, philosophy of language and mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, and recursion theory.

Kripke made influential and original contributions to logic, especially modal logic. His principal contribution is a semantics for modal logic involving possible worlds, now called Kripke semantics. He received the 2001 Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy.

Kripke was also partly responsible for the revival of metaphysics and essentialism after the decline of logical positivism, claiming necessity is a metaphysical notion distinct from the epistemic notion of a priori, and that there are necessary truths that are known a posteriori, such as that water is H2O. A 1970 Princeton lecture series, published in book form in 1980 as Naming and Necessity, is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. It introduces the concept of names as rigid designators, designating (picking out, denoting, referring to) the same object in every possible world, as contrasted with descriptions. It also contains Kripke's causal theory of reference, disputing the descriptivist theory found in Gottlob Frege's concept of sense and Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions. Kripke is often seen in opposition to the other great late-20th-century philosopher to eschew logical positivism: W. V. O. Quine. Quine rejected essentialism and modal logic.

Kripke also gave an original reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein, known as "Kripkenstein", in his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. The book contains his rule-following argument, a paradox for skepticism about meaning. Much of his work remains unpublished or exists only as tape recordings and privately circulated manuscripts.

Life and career
Saul Kripke was the oldest of three children born to Dorothy K. Kripke and Myer S. Kripke. His father was the leader of Beth El Synagogue, the only Conservative congregation in Omaha, Nebraska; his mother wrote educational Jewish books for children. Saul and his two sisters, Madeline and Netta, attended Dundee Grade School and Omaha Central High School. Kripke was labeled a prodigy, teaching himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, reading Shakespeare's complete works by nine, and mastering the works of Descartes and complex mathematical problems before finishing elementary school. He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at 17, and had it published a year later. After graduating from high school in 1958, Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude in 1962 with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. During his sophomore year at Harvard, he taught a graduate-level logic course at nearby MIT. Upon graduation he received a Fulbright Fellowship, and in 1963 was appointed to the Society of Fellows. Kripke later said, "I wish I could have skipped college. I got to know some interesting people but I can't say I learned anything. I probably would have learned it all anyway just reading on my own." His cousin is Eric Kripke, known for creating the TV show The Boys.

After briefly teaching at Harvard, Kripke moved in 1968 to Rockefeller University in New York City, where he taught until 1976. In 1978 he took a chaired professorship at Princeton University. In 1988 he received the university's Behrman Award for distinguished achievement in the humanities. In 2002 Kripke began teaching at the CUNY Graduate Center, and in 2003 he was appointed a distinguished professor of philosophy there.

Kripke has received honorary degrees from the University of Nebraska, Omaha (1977), Johns Hopkins University (1997), University of Haifa, Israel (1998), and the University of Pennsylvania (2005). He was a member of the American Philosophical Society and an elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in 1985 was a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. He won the Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy in 2001.

Kripke was married to philosopher Margaret Gilbert.

Kripke died of pancreatic cancer on September 15, 2022, in Plainsboro, New Jersey, at the age of 81.

Work
Kripke's contributions to philosophy include:

 * 1) Kripke semantics for modal and related logics, published in several essays beginning in his teens.
 * 2) His 1970 Princeton lectures Naming and Necessity (published in 1972 and 1980), which significantly restructured philosophy of language.
 * 3) His interpretation of Wittgenstein.
 * 4) His theory of truth.

He has also contributed to recursion theory (see admissible ordinal and Kripke–Platek set theory).

Modal logic
Two of Kripke's earlier works, "A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic" (1959) and "Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic" (1963), the former written when he was a teenager, were on modal logic. The most familiar logics in the modal family are constructed from a weak logic called K, named after Kripke. Kripke introduced the now-standard Kripke semantics (also known as relational semantics or frame semantics) for modal logics. Kripke semantics is a formal semantics for non-classical logic systems. It was first made for modal logics, and later adapted to intuitionistic logic and other non-classical systems. The discovery of Kripke semantics was a breakthrough in the making of non-classical logics, because the model theory of such logics was absent before Kripke.

A Kripke frame or modal frame is a pair $$\langle W,R\rangle$$, where W is a non-empty set, and R is a binary relation on W. Elements of W are called nodes or worlds, and R is known as the accessibility relation. Depending on the properties of the accessibility relation (transitivity, reflexivity, etc.), the corresponding frame is described, by extension, as being transitive, reflexive, etc.

A Kripke model is a triple $$\langle W,R,\Vdash\rangle$$, where $$\langle W,R\rangle$$ is a Kripke frame, and $\Vdash$ is a relation between nodes of W and modal formulas, such that:

 * $$w\Vdash\neg A$$ if and only if $$w\nVdash A$$,
 * $$w\Vdash A\to B$$ if and only if $$w\nVdash A$$ or $$w\Vdash B$$,
 * $$w\Vdash\Box A$$ if and only if $$\forall u\,(w\; R\; u$$ implies $$u\Vdash A)$$.

We read $$w\Vdash A$$ as "w satisfies A", "A is satisfied in w", or "w forces A". The relation $$\Vdash$$ is called the satisfaction relation, evaluation, or forcing relation. The satisfaction relation is uniquely determined by its value on propositional variables.

A formula A is valid in:

 * a model $$\langle W,R,\Vdash\rangle$$, if $$w\Vdash A$$ for all w ∈ W,
 * a frame $$\langle W,R\rangle$$, if it is valid in $$\langle W,R,\Vdash\rangle$$ for all possible choices of $$\Vdash$$,
 * a class C of frames or models, if it is valid in every member of C.

We define Thm(C) to be the set of all formulas that are valid in C. Conversely, if X is a set of formulas, let Mod(X) be the class of all frames which validate every formula from X.

A modal logic (i.e., a set of formulas) L is sound with respect to a class of frames C, if L ⊆ Thm(C). L is complete with respect to C if L ⊇ Thm(C).

Semantics is useful for investigating a logic (i.e., a derivation system) only if the semantical entailment relation reflects its syntactical counterpart, the consequence relation (derivability). It is vital to know which modal logics are sound and complete with respect to a class of Kripke frames, and for them, to determine which class it is.

For any class C of Kripke frames, Thm(C) is a normal modal logic (in particular, theorems of the minimal normal modal logic, K, are valid in every Kripke model). However, the converse does not hold generally. There are Kripke incomplete normal modal logics, which is unproblematic, because most of the modal systems studied are complete of classes of frames described by simple conditions.

A normal modal logic L corresponds to a class of frames C, if C = Mod(L). In other words, C is the largest class of frames such that L is sound wrt C. It follows that L is Kripke complete if and only if it is complete of its corresponding class.

Consider the schema T : $$\Box A\to A$$. T is valid in any reflexive frame $$\langle W,R\rangle$$: if $$w\Vdash \Box A$$, then $$w\Vdash A$$ since w R w. On the other hand, a frame which validates T has to be reflexive: fix w ∈ W, and define satisfaction of a propositional variable p as follows: $$u\Vdash p$$ if and only if w R u. Then $$w\Vdash \Box p$$, thus $$w\Vdash p$$ by T, which means w R w using the definition of $$\Vdash$$. T corresponds to the class of reflexive Kripke frames.

It is often much easier to characterize the corresponding class of L than to prove its completeness, thus correspondence serves as a guide to completeness proofs. Correspondence is also used to show incompleteness of modal logics: suppose L1 ⊆ L2 are normal modal logics that correspond to the same class of frames, but L1 does not prove all theorems of L2. Then L1 is Kripke incomplete. For example, the schema $$\Box(A\equiv\Box A)\to\Box A$$ generates an incomplete logic, as it corresponds to the same class of frames as GL (viz. transitive and converse well-founded frames), but does not prove the GL-tautology $$\Box A\to\Box\Box A$$.

Canonical models
For any normal modal logic L, a Kripke model (called the canonical model) can be constructed, which validates precisely the theorems of L, by an adaptation of the standard technique of using maximal consistent sets as models. Canonical Kripke models play a role similar to the Lindenbaum–Tarski algebra construction in algebraic semantics.

A set of formulas is L-consistent if no contradiction can be derived from them using the axioms of L, and modus ponens. A maximal L-consistent set (an L-MCS for short) is an L-consistent set which has no proper L-consistent superset.

The canonical model of L is a Kripke model $$\langle W,R,\Vdash\rangle$$, where W is the set of all L-MCS, and the relations R and $$\Vdash$$ are as follows:

 * $$X\;R\;Y$$ if and only if for every formula $$A$$, if $$\Box A\in X$$ then $$A\in Y$$,
 * $$X\Vdash A$$ if and only if $$A\in X$$.

The canonical model is a model of L, as every L-MCS contains all theorems of L. By Zorn's lemma, each L-consistent set is contained in an L-MCS, in particular every formula unprovable in L has a counterexample in the canonical model.

The main application of canonical models are completeness proofs. Properties of the canonical model of K immediately imply completeness of K with respect to the class of all Kripke frames. This argument does not work for arbitrary L, because there is no guarantee that the underlying frame of the canonical model satisfies the frame conditions of L.

We say that a formula or a set X of formulas is canonical with respect to a property P of Kripke frames, if

 * X is valid in every frame which satisfies P,
 * for any normal modal logic L which contains X, the underlying frame of the canonical model of L satisfies P.

A union of canonical sets of formulas is itself canonical. It follows from the preceding discussion that any logic axiomatized by a canonical set of formulas is Kripke complete, and compact.

The axioms T, 4, D, B, 5, H, G (and thus any combination of them) are canonical. GL and Grz are not canonical, because they are not compact. The axiom M by itself is not canonical (Goldblatt, 1991), but the combined logic S4.1 (in fact, even K4.1) is canonical.

In general, it is undecidable whether a given axiom is canonical. We know a nice sufficient condition: H. Sahlqvist identified a broad class of formulas (now called Sahlqvist formulas) such that:

 * a Sahlqvist formula is canonical,
 * the class of frames corresponding to a Sahlqvist formula is first-order definable,
 * there is an algorithm which computes the corresponding frame condition to a given Sahlqvist formula.

This is a powerful criterion: for example, all axioms listed above as canonical are (equivalent to) Sahlqvist formulas. A logic has the finite model property (FMP) if it is complete with respect to a class of finite frames. An application of this notion is the decidability question: it follows from Post's theorem that a recursively axiomatized modal logic L which has FMP is decidable, provided it is decidable whether a given finite frame is a model of L. In particular, every finitely axiomatizable logic with FMP is decidable.

There are various methods for establishing FMP for a given logic. Refinements and extensions of the canonical model construction often work, using tools such as filtration or unravelling. As another possibility, completeness proofs based on cut-free sequent calculi usually produce finite models directly.

Most of the modal systems used in practice (including all listed above) have FMP.

In some cases, we can use FMP to prove Kripke completeness of a logic: every normal modal logic is complete wrt a class of modal algebras, and a finite modal algebra can be transformed into a Kripke frame. As an example, Robert Bull proved using this method that every normal extension of S4.3 has FMP, and is Kripke complete.

Kripke semantics has a straightforward generalization to logics with more than one modality. A Kripke frame for a language with $$\{\Box_i\mid\,i\in I\}$$ as the set of its necessity operators consists of a non-empty set W equipped with binary relations Ri for each i ∈ I. The definition of a satisfaction relation is modified as follows:

 * $$w\Vdash\Box_i A$$ if and only if $$\forall u\,(w\;R_i\;u\Rightarrow u\Vdash A).$$

Carlson models
A simplified semantics, discovered by Tim Carlson, is often used for polymodal provability logics. A Carlson model is a structure $$\langle W,R,\{D_i\}_{i\in I},\Vdash\rangle$$ with a single accessibility relation R, and subsets Di ⊆ W for each modality. Satisfaction is defined as:

 * $$w\Vdash\Box_i A$$ if and only if $$\forall u\in D_i\,(w\;R\;u\Rightarrow u\Vdash A).$$

Carlson models are easier to visualize and to work with than usual polymodal Kripke models; there are, however, Kripke complete polymodal logics which are Carlson incomplete.

In Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic, published in 1963, Kripke responded to a difficulty with classical quantification theory. The motivation for the world-relative approach was to represent the possibility that objects in one world may fail to exist in another. But if standard quantifier rules are used, every term must refer to something that exists in all the possible worlds. This seems incompatible with our ordinary practice of using terms to refer to things that exist contingently.

Kripke's response to this difficulty was to eliminate terms. He gave an example of a system that uses the world-relative interpretation and preserves the classical rules. But the costs are severe. First, his language is artificially impoverished, and second, the rules for the propositional modal logic must be weakened.

Kripke's possible worlds theory has been used by narratologists (beginning with Pavel and Dolezel) to understand "reader's manipulation of alternative plot developments, or the characters' planned or fantasized alternative action series." This application has become especially useful in the analysis of hyperfiction.

Intuitionistic logic
Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic follows the same principles as the semantics of modal logic, but uses a different definition of satisfaction.

An intuitionistic Kripke model is a triple $$\langle W,\le,\Vdash\rangle$$, where $$\langle W,\le\rangle$$ is a partially ordered Kripke frame, and $$\Vdash$$ satisfies the following conditions:
 * if p is a propositional variable, $$w\le u$$, and $$w\Vdash p$$, then $$u\Vdash p$$ (persistency condition),
 * $$w\Vdash A\land B$$ if and only if $$w\Vdash A$$ and $$w\Vdash B$$,
 * $$w\Vdash A\lor B$$ if and only if $$w\Vdash A$$ or $$w\Vdash B$$,
 * $$w\Vdash A\to B$$ if and only if for all $$u\ge w$$, $$u\Vdash A$$ implies $$u\Vdash B$$,
 * not $$w\Vdash\bot$$.

Intuitionistic logic is sound and complete with respect to its Kripke semantics, and it has the Finite Model Property.

Intuitionistic first-order logic

Let L be a first-order language. A Kripke model of L is a triple $$\langle W,\le,\{M_w\}_{w\in W}\rangle$$, where $$\langle W,\le\rangle$$ is an intuitionistic Kripke frame, Mw is a (classical) L-structure for each node w ∈ W, and the following compatibility conditions hold whenever u ≤ v: Given an evaluation e of variables by elements of Mw, we define the satisfaction relation $$w\Vdash A[e]$$: Here e(x→a) is the evaluation which gives x the value a, and otherwise agrees with e.
 * the domain of Mu is included in the domain of Mv,
 * realizations of function symbols in Mu and Mv agree on elements of Mu,
 * for each n-ary predicate P and elements a1,...,an ∈ Mu: if P(a1,...,an) holds in Mu, then it holds in Mv.
 * $$w\Vdash P(t_1,\dots,t_n)[e]$$ if and only if $$P(t_1[e],\dots,t_n[e])$$ holds in Mw,
 * $$w\Vdash(A\land B)[e]$$ if and only if $$w\Vdash A[e]$$ and $$w\Vdash B[e]$$,
 * $$w\Vdash(A\lor B)[e]$$ if and only if $$w\Vdash A[e]$$ or $$w\Vdash B[e]$$,
 * $$w\Vdash(A\to B)[e]$$ if and only if for all $$u\ge w$$, $$u\Vdash A[e]$$ implies $$u\Vdash B[e]$$,
 * not $$w\Vdash\bot[e]$$,
 * $$w\Vdash(\exists x\,A)[e]$$ if and only if there exists an $$a\in M_w$$ such that $$w\Vdash A[e(x\to a)]$$,
 * $$w\Vdash(\forall x\,A)[e]$$ if and only if for every $$u\ge w$$ and every $$a\in M_u$$, $$u\Vdash A[e(x\to a)]$$.

Naming and Necessity
The three lectures that form Naming and Necessity constitute an attack on the descriptivist theory of names. Kripke attributes variants of descriptivist theories to Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and John Searle, among others. According to descriptivist theories, proper names either are synonymous with descriptions, or have their reference determined by virtue of the name's being associated with a description or cluster of descriptions that an object uniquely satisfies. Kripke rejects both these kinds of descriptivism. He gives several examples purporting to render descriptivism implausible as a theory of how names get their references determined (e.g., surely Aristotle could have died at age two and so not satisfied any of the descriptions we associate with his name, but it would seem wrong to deny that he was still Aristotle).

As an alternative, Kripke outlined a causal theory of reference, according to which a name refers to an object by virtue of a causal connection with the object as mediated through communities of speakers. He points out that proper names, in contrast to most descriptions, are rigid designators: that is, a proper name refers to the named object in every possible world in which the object exists, while most descriptions designate different objects in different possible worlds. For example, "Richard Nixon" refers to the same person in every possible world in which Nixon exists, while "the person who won the United States presidential election of 1968" could refer to Nixon, Humphrey, or others in different possible worlds.

Kripke also raised the prospect of a posteriori necessities—facts that are necessarily true, though they can be known only through empirical investigation. Examples include "Hesperus is Phosphorus", "Cicero is Tully", "Water is H2O", and other identity claims where two names refer to the same object. According to Kripke, the Kantian distinctions between analytic and synthetic, a priori and a posteriori, and contingent and necessary do not map onto one another. Rather, analytic/synthetic is a semantic distinction, a priori/a posteriori is an epistemic distinction, and contingent/necessary is a metaphysical distinction.

Finally, Kripke gave an argument against identity materialism in the philosophy of mind, the view that every mental particular is identical with some physical particular. Kripke argued that the only way to defend this identity is as an a posteriori necessary identity, but that such an identity—e.g., that pain is C-fibers firing—could not be necessary, given the (clearly conceivable) possibility that pain could be separate from the firing of C-fibers, or the firing of C-fibers be separate from pain. (Similar arguments have since been made by David Chalmers. ) In any event, the psychophysical identity theorist, according to Kripke, incurs a dialectical obligation to explain the apparent logical possibility of these circumstances, since according to such theorists they should be impossible.

Kripke delivered the John Locke Lectures in philosophy at Oxford in 1973. Titled Reference and Existence, they were in many respects a continuation of Naming and Necessity, and deal with the subjects of fictional names and perceptual error. In 2013 Oxford University Press published the lectures as a book, also titled Reference and Existence.

In a 1995 paper, philosopher Quentin Smith argued that key concepts in Kripke's new theory of reference originated in the work of Ruth Barcan Marcus more than a decade earlier. Smith identified six significant ideas in the New Theory that he claimed Marcus had developed: (1) that proper names are direct references that do not consist of contained definitions; (2) that while one can single out a single thing by a description, this description is not equivalent to a proper name of this thing; (3) the modal argument that proper names are directly referential, and not disguised descriptions; (4) a formal modal logic proof of the necessity of identity; (5) the concept of a rigid designator, though Kripke coined that term; and (6) a posteriori identity. Smith argued that Kripke failed to understand Marcus's theory at the time but later adopted many of its key conceptual themes in his New Theory of Reference.

Other scholars have subsequently offered detailed responses arguing that no plagiarism occurred.

"A Puzzle about Belief"
Kripke's main propositions about proper names in Naming and Necessity are that the meaning of a name simply is the object it refers to and that a name's referent is determined by a causal link between some sort of "baptism" and the utterance of the name. Nevertheless, he acknowledges the possibility that propositions containing names may have some additional semantic properties, properties that could explain why two names referring to the same person may give different truth values in propositions about beliefs. For example, Lois Lane believes that Superman can fly, although she does not believe that Clark Kent can fly. This can be accounted for if the names "Superman" and "Clark Kent", though referring to the same person, have distinct semantic properties.

But in his article "A Puzzle about Belief" (1988) Kripke seems to oppose even this possibility. His argument can be reconstructed as follows: The idea that two names referring to the same object may have different semantic properties is supposed to explain that coreferring names behave differently in propositions about beliefs (as in Lois Lane's case). But the same phenomenon occurs even with coreferring names that obviously have the same semantic properties: Kripke invites us to imagine a French, monolingual boy, Pierre, who believes that "Londres est jolie" ("London is beautiful"). Pierre moves to London without realizing that London = Londres. He then learns English the same way a child would learn the language, that is, not by translating words from French to English. Pierre learns the name "London" from the unattractive part of the city where he lives, and so comes to believe that London is not beautiful. If Kripke's account is correct, Pierre now believes both that Londres is jolie and that London is not beautiful. This cannot be explained by coreferring names having different semantic properties. According to Kripke, this demonstrates that attributing additional semantic properties to names does not explain what it is intended to.

Wittgenstein
First published in 1982, Kripke's Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language contends that the central argument of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations centers on a devastating rule-following paradox that undermines the possibility of our ever following rules in our use of language. Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date", and that Wittgenstein does not reject the argument that leads to the rule-following paradox, but accepts it and offers a "skeptical solution" to ameliorate the paradox's destructive effects.

Most commentators accept that Philosophical Investigations contains the rule-following paradox as Kripke presents it, but few have agreed with his attributing a skeptical solution to Wittgenstein. Kripke himself expresses doubts in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as to whether Wittgenstein would endorse his interpretation of Philosophical Investigations. He says that the work should not be read as an attempt to give an accurate statement of Wittgenstein's views, but rather as an account of Wittgenstein's argument "as it struck Kripke, as it presented a problem for him".

The portmanteau "Kripkenstein" has been coined for Kripke's interpretation of Philosophical Investigations. Kripkenstein's main significance was a clear statement of a new kind of skepticism, dubbed "meaning skepticism": the idea that for isolated individuals there is no fact in virtue of which they mean one thing rather than another by the use of a word. Kripke's "skeptical solution" to meaning skepticism is to ground meaning in the behavior of a community.

Kripke's book generated a large secondary literature, divided between those who find his skeptical problem interesting and perceptive, and others, such as Gordon Baker, Peter Hacker, and Colin McGinn, who argue that his meaning skepticism is a pseudo-problem that stems from a confused, selective reading of Wittgenstein. Kripke's position has been defended against these and other attacks by the Cambridge philosopher Martin Kusch, and Wittgenstein scholar David G. Stern considers Kripke's book "the most influential and widely discussed" work on Wittgenstein since the 1980s.

Truth
In his 1975 article "Outline of a Theory of Truth", Kripke showed that a language can consistently contain its own truth predicate, something deemed impossible by Alfred Tarski, a pioneer in formal theories of truth. The approach involves letting truth be a partially defined property over the set of grammatically well-formed sentences in the language. Kripke showed how to do this recursively by starting from the set of expressions in a language that do not contain the truth predicate, and defining a truth predicate over just that segment: this action adds new sentences to the language, and truth is in turn defined for all of them. Unlike Tarski's approach, however, Kripke's lets "truth" be the union of all of these definition-stages; after a denumerable infinity of steps the language reaches a "fixed point" such that using Kripke's method to expand the truth-predicate does not change the language any further. Such a fixed point can then be taken as the basic form of a natural language containing its own truth predicate. But this predicate is undefined for any sentences that do not, so to speak, "bottom out" in simpler sentences not containing a truth predicate. That is, " 'Snow is white' is true" is well-defined, as is " ' "Snow is white" is true' is true," and so forth, but neither "This sentence is true" nor "This sentence is not true" receive truth-conditions; they are, in Kripke's terms, "ungrounded." Gödel's first incompleteness theorem demonstrates that self-reference cannot be avoided naively, since propositions about seemingly unrelated objects (such as integers) can have an informal self-referential meaning, and this idea – manifested by the diagonal lemma – is the basis for Tarski's theorem that truth cannot be consistently defined. But Kripke's truth predicate does not give a truth value (true/false) to propositions such as the one built in Tarski's proof, since it is provable by induction that it is undefined at stage $$n$$ for every finite $$n$$.

Kripke's proposal is problematic in the sense that while the language contains a "truth" predicate of itself (at least a partial one), some of its sentences – such as the liar sentence ("this sentence is false") – have an undefined truth value, but the language does not contain its own "undefined" predicate. In fact it cannot, as that would create a new version of the liar paradox, the strengthened liar paradox ("this sentence is false or undefined"). Thus while the liar sentence is undefined in the language, the language cannot express that it is undefined.

Saul Kripke Center
The Saul Kripke Center at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York is dedicated to preserving and promoting Kripke's work. Its director is Romina Padro. The Saul Kripke Center holds events related to Kripke's work and is creating a digital archive of previously unpublished recordings of Kripke's lectures, lecture notes, and correspondence dating back to the 1950s. In his favorable review of Kripke's Philosophical Troubles, the Stanford philosopher Mark Crimmins wrote, "That four of the most admired and discussed essays in 1970s philosophy are here is enough to make this first volume of Saul Kripke's collected articles a must-have... The reader's delight will grow as hints are dropped that there is a great deal more to come in this series being prepared by Kripke and an ace team of philosopher-editors at the Saul Kripke Center at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York."

Works

 * Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. ISBN 0-674-59845-8
 * Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: an Elementary Exposition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982. ISBN 0-674-95401-7.
 * Philosophical Troubles. Collected Papers Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. ISBN 9780199730155
 * Reference and Existence – The John Locke Lectures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. ISBN 9780199928385

Awards and recognitions

 * Fulbright Scholar (1962–1963)
 * Society of Fellows, Harvard University (1963–1966).
 * Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Nebraska, 1977.
 * Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1978–).
 * Corresponding Fellow, British Academy (1985–).
 * Howard Behrman Award, Princeton University, 1988.
 * Fellow, Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaea (1993–).
 * Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, Johns Hopkins University, 1997.
 * Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Haifa, Israel, 1998.
 * Fellow, Norwegian Academy of Sciences (2000–).
 * Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy, Swedish Academy of Sciences, 2001.
 * Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Pennsylvania, 2005.
 * Fellow, American Philosophical Society (2005–).

title: Saul Kripke


text:
Route

Route or routes may refer to:

 * Air route, route structure or airway
 * GPS route, a series of one or more GPS waypoints
 * Route (gridiron football), a path run by a wide receiver
 * Route (command), a program used to configure the routing table
 * Route, County Antrim, an area in Northern Ireland
 * Routes, Seine-Maritime, a commune in Seine-Maritime, France
 * Routes, a 2003 video game by Leaf

title: Route