Talk:Gallipoli campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Trivia extra

There is a recurrent story about an Anzac private who was initially recruited as a stretcher bearer. He used his initiative to purchase a donkey so that he could evacuate cases with leg injuries too severe for them to walk to the first aid post.

The Turks became accustomed to the sight of the donkey carrying wounded men and frequently held their fire.

There is a legend that when this stretcher bearer was accidently killed by "friendly fire" the Turks agreed to a brief cease fire for his body to be recovered and sent over a message of condolence.AT Kunene (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is John Simpson Kirkpatrick.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Queries

1. I saw an awkward, deceptive pipe to "Australia", from the target Military history of Australia during World War II. It was inconsistent with the adjacent link-pipe to to "New Zealand", from the target Dominion of New Zealand. Also, shouldn't if have been WWI not II? I've corrected and added it to a new See also section. Is that the right move?
2. In my view, the squashy mess of pics at the top is dysfunctional. Is there no other way of displaying them? Just one pic in the infobox would have much more impact, I think.
3. I've enlarged and right-placed some of the other pics, which were at sizes that did them no juctice.
4. The "Popular culture" section is perilously close to the old "Trivia" sections that WP abolished some years ago. Much of it is unreferenced. I believe some of it trivialises what is a very serious topic to finish with references to album tracks. Heavy metal??? Could almost be making a joke of the fallen. Can this be trimmed way back? Tony (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Anzac Day is coming up, which provides the ideal reason to bring this article up to scratch. Gallipoli seems to have iconic significance for Australia, but although a lot of good work has been done in this article, it's badly under-referenced and the paragraphing is sometimes choppy and not conducive to logical flow. The paragraphing also makes the ambit of the referencing unclear at the moment. I'm leaving a note at the WikiProject Australia and MilHist. Tony (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea to remove the Pop culture section. I feel it triviliases the Gallipoli landings and is also unneccesary. It isnt present on other major military history pages so i have decided to remove it. If anyone has a problem with this please discuss it here prior to reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Stretcher bearers

Wasn't there a stretcher bearer used his initive to purchase a donkey so that he could bring in wounded who were unable to walk.

The Turks eventually became so used to the dokey braying that they used to hold their fire and allow the Allied wounded to be collected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

His page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Simpson_Kirkpatrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not First Significant Battle for Australia

I don't know about NZ, but the first significant battle for Australia was the capture of German New Guinea. It is arguably more significant than Gallipoli because its effect can still be seen the borders on Papua New Guinea today. I believe it was the heavy casualties that led to the commemoration of the landing.

It could be said that Gallipoli was the 1st significant battle for the ANZAC, but this is rather circular because the Corps only really existed for the Gallipoli campaign.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The capture of New Guinea involved only a single minor skirmish, so the original statement was correct. Two ANZAC (I ANZAC and II ANZAC) later served on the western front BTW. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The capture of German New Guinea also involved the loss of Australia's first submarine AE1. Nevertheless the Gallipoli campaign had immensely greater casualties. But it's not all about casualties. German New Guinea was a significant amount of territory that remained in Australia's hands until 1975, and is now incorporated in PNG. The consequences were significant, even if the casualties weren't, in WW1 terms. Hence I think the statement needed rewording.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What sources call the invasion of New Guinea Australia's first significant battle? The campaign was essentially unopposed (AE1 sunk in an accident) and is little-known today. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)"

How about Geoffrey Blainey?

As for the idea that the likely theatre of war was not in Australia's sphere of interest, the first Australian casualties were not at Gallipoli but in German New Guinea. We forget that Germany was a Pacific power with fortified harbours, the latest wireless stations and warships within steaming distance of Sydney, Perth and the crucial Torres Strait. Nearly every alert Australian knew that fact in August 1914. This book about Anzac should acknowledge that truth.["We weren't that dumb", The Australian, 7 April 2010, review of What's wrong with Anzac? by Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds.]

It is forgotten by most Australians, partly because of the emphasis given to Gallipoli, but that doesn't make it insignificant. It wasn't unopposed any more than Australia's operations in Afghanistan are unopposed - they just have few casualties and many of those are due to accident. As I said, it's the consequences that make it significant, not the fighting itself. I think "major battle" is better than "significant", though. However, the statement that it was the first major battle of the ANZAC remains rather meaningless. I think it was the first battle of any kind. The ANZAC wasn't involved in German New Guinea. In fact, in military terms "ANZAC" is rather meaningless. It was used to describe a transient formation in 1915. It was used again for 2 different transient formations (I and II ANZAC) which were formed in 1916 and disbanded in 1917. I don't think the significance of the Gallipoli campaign rests on whether this name was used. On the contrary the name has become significant because of its attachment to the campaign.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Also in this paragraph: "The significance of the Gallipoli Campaign is felt strongly in both New Zealand and Australia. ... This view is less common in New Zealand." Can we remove that last sentence? If anything, the view is more strongly held in New Zealand, but either way it sounds very opinionated and is not supported with a reference. New Zealand was a younger nation than Australia and Gallipoli really was our first foray into International warfare. Although we had sent men to the Boer War, the politics were British and the media reports were not so quick or frank. The significance of Gallipoli to NZers is that it was the first time we felt separate from our motherland Britain, as our politicians and population debated whether we ought to sacrifice our men in this way or have more control over their fates. Pn4Ls (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

PS Billy Hughes obviously felt it was significant, and campaigned in the League of Nations to be given German New Guinea through right of conquest. New Guinea was obviously of strategic importance to Australia, being an important battlefield in WW2, and was a source of minerals and tropical crops. I believe it was the first military engagement for the Australian navy ever, and perhaps the only time it acted independently in war...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Decision to attack

The "help for Russia" is fabrication inorder to attack the Ottomans. Ottomans have already asked to joint Allies. But England refused. Also, there were plans to share the Ottoman lands among the Allies. So, the "help for russia" should be noted as an excuse. --Kirov Airship (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We need a reference for this. The "Help for Russia" explanation makes sense. Russia was struggling, and the Black Sea was an easier supply route than the alternatives. The Gallipoli campaign was an attempt to capture the strait, not to wrest its empire from Turkey's grasp. The subsequent campaign did that.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It was also a legitimate area of operations as they were already at war.

• 2-November Russia declares war on the Ottoman Empire
• 2-November Serbia declares war on the Ottoman Empire
• 3-November Montenegro declares war on the Ottoman Empire
• 5-November France declares war on the Ottoman Empire
• 5-November Britain declares war on the Ottoman Empire

Note that's Britain not England. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Liman von Sanders

The article stated - under "Early Battles": However, Major-General Liman von Sanders has asserted that the British attack was repelled. It is not certain whether the source after the sentence following is supposed to cover the claim as well. Anyhow, the title is wrong. So, it must have been a shoddy source, if at all.

In general, I find the treatment of Liman von Sanders in the article strangely limited. After all, he is usually credited with re-building the Turkish military for World War I. And the treatment seems to be close to a bogey man - under "Ottoman preparations": This strategy drew complaints from Ottoman commanders, including Mustafa Kemal, who believed Ottoman forces were too widely dispersed and thus not in a position to drive the attackers immediately into the sea as soon as their invasion commenced. Quite a lot seems to be drawn from Mustafa Kemal [Atatürk], without any other being sources used. With this in mind, it is quite funny that it is not even mentioned that Liman von Sanders made Mustafa Kemal a commander in January 1915 as part of the preparation. -- Zz (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Zickzack, Liman von Sanders Pasha did not make Mustafa Kemal a commander. Kemal, who was left without a unit to command due to his rivalry with Enver, went to the Ottoman General Staff and asked for a unit to command. He tells in "Nutuk" the story in details how he was assigned to a force which consisted of a "practically empty" (soldiers on paper) Turkish and an Arab (who did not even speak Turkish) unit. He only went to see Liman Pasha for a courtesy call and to receive his orders; not that the latter granted him the command of anything. The appointment (designation) of M. Kemal was made from the Ottoman capital, Istanbul. --E4024 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

By the role Liman von Sanders had, there was no way someone would get a command Liman would not approve of. -- Zz (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox - Edit request

Why do we have the names of Germany and Austria-Hungary as belligerents in the infobox? Were there any forces from these two countries in that front? There were only some German officials who were advisors to the Ottoman Army and worked under its uniform. Liman von Sanders "Pasha" for example... See this article for a similar battle. On the one side only Germany and on the other side several belligerents. (Germany also had allies but they did not participate at the said battle, so no need to put them in the info box.) The same is valid here; no need for Turkey's allies in the infobox. --E4024 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with your opinion. Bright Darkness (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Title picture

The opening picture collection should have annotations describing what is going on in each of the pictures, like the one on the WW2 page has.Retrolord (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed

Many secitons require significant work on their citations and references. All such sections have been labelled with the {{refimprove section}} tag.Retrolord (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this article isn't in good shape. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A few editors have worked on this now, and there are only three to go. If I can't find refs for that information over the next week or so (I have some books on order), I will propose to remove it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Working towards a good article

I am attempting to turn this article into a good article nominee. At the moment, i feel there are a few issues which need to be worked on above all else.

• The August Offensive section is lacking any references.
• Should the Conditions section be removed?
• The Evacuation section is also desperately needing references
• The " Lord Kitchener was too popular to be punished, but he never recovered his old reputation for invincibility, and was increasingly sidelined by his colleagues until his death the following year." may contain original research, and if it doesn't it needs to be referenced
  • "was too popular to be punished but he never recovered his old reputation for invincibility, and was increasingly sidelined by his colleagues until his death the following year.". took this bit out and replaced with comment from Cassar whch seems to have more context. I don't question the Broadbent citation though so feel free to put it back if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • G'day, Keith, your change is good. I added the Broadbent citation earlier and had meant to reword the passage as he doesn't quite go so far as to say that, but didn't get around to it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• The military reprecussions section appears to be written in an unencyclopedic style

• Consider removal of this part "After the evacuation, Allied troops reformed and regrouped in Egypt. The Anzacs underwent a major reorganisation; the infantry battalions were increased and transferred to the Western Front, the light horse were reunited with their horses and formed into mounted divisions for operations in the Sinai and Palestine. At the Battle of Beersheba they would finally achieve the decisive break-through victory that had eluded the Allies at Gallipoli."

• Casualties section, I removed the part which noted famous dead, as due to the huge volume of casualties, i doubt these specific individuals warranted any special mention.

• Removed this bit as i felt it was original research, anyone who can reference it feel free to undo this "The victory at Çanakkale did more than any other event or person in creating Turkish nationalism."

If you find any other issuess barring this from being a good article, please list them here. When you feel a point hasw been addressed, please put a line through the writing but do not remove it. Retrolord (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Retrolord, I think most of these points have been addressed in some regard, either through rewording or the addition of citations. Are there any other things you would like to see addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference details

Back in 2009, with this edit, some text was added with a reference to "Kinross, 73". However, that was all the detail that was added - the full reference (year, title, etc) wasn't added as well. I'm inclined to remove the reference as it isn't of much value without bibliographical details, but a better option would be to fix it. :) So I was wondering if anyone knew what the reference was referring to? - Bilby (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day, it might be either Ataturk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal (1992) or Ataturk (2001) by Patrick Kinross: [1]. I am in the process of trying to add references to the article to improve it, so I will try to get these books out of the library. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not see how the result can be described as an Ottoman victory while Germany and Austria-Hungary are cited as belligerents next to the Ottomans. I propose either to remove the two countries from the infobox, which I see the most logical option, as Gallipoli is widely seen as a Turkish victory, the Germans and the Austrians having only participated to the latter stages of the campaign (the number of their troops isn't even mentioned) or to change the result to a "Central Powers victory".

Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Gday - as near as I can tell a small number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians actually participated in the campaign so I'm not too concerned about them staying in the infobox. I agree with you though that it is widely seen as a Turkish victory (as opposed to a German + Austro-Hungarian + Turkish victory), so maybe how it stands actually makes sense? Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for your response. Actually, I believe that it doesn't make much sense, as, by the standards in all military conflicts' articles on WP, the result reflects the side as a whole, and not only a part, even significant, of it. It may just be a mere opinion, but if we had to include on the infobox all the sides of the soldiers that actually fought during a war or a battle, it would not just make sense. Do you sincerely think that only the four parts of the British Empire that are cited in the infobox did actually take part in the battle? In this case particularly, Turkish troops form the overwhelming majority of the army that fought at Gallipoli. Personally, I think that it would rather make sense to call up their limited involvement in the article's body. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I accept their are times when limiting the number of belligerents listed in the infobox is req'd, but currently there are only three on the Central Powers side so it doesn't really seem onerous to list them all. In contrast there are 7 listed on the side of the Entente. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not sure of the best approach at this stage. From what I can tell, German involvement in the campaign came in the form of providing the overall commander on Gallipoli, and many other senior officers (about 500 advisors to the army and navy before the campaign) and a further 500 reinforcements after the start of the campaign. Austro-Hungarian involvement seems to be limited to the dispatch of two artillery batteries in November/December 1915, at least according to this website: [2]. I think we will need a more reliable source for these figures, though (I'm going to see if I can track down the "Jung 2003" reference that is included in the reference list). Whether this level of involvement requires inclusion in the infobox or not, I'm not sure. I'm in the process of working through the article with Anotherclown to add references/rewrite/expand etc, but at the moment, I intend to leave the infobox to the end of that process. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving the infobox fix after completing and improving the article, which is to my mind more important. I've read the source you've provided for the German involvement; it seems OK to me, as there is a list of the used sources at the end, which seem reliable. However, for the Austro-Hungarian one, it will just have to be checked out. To me, the Austro-German participation to the battle is not quite sufficient for including them in the infobox, as providing overall command and supplying only two artillery batteries out of dozens, or hundreds does not make them prominent participants to the campaign, as they have not deployed their actual military force, unlike the Ottomans. I believe that this is confirmed by the fact that the result is clearly an Ottoman victory, and not a Central Powers one, which, presumably, is not subject to change. Again, I am just expressing an opinion, and I'm leaving the eventual decision to both of you. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My two penn'orth is that four of the entries on the Allied side are redundant, since they were part of the British empire. On the Ottoman side, since German and Austro-Hungarian forces were involved and they were sovereign states, I'd leave them in. The involvement of Von Sanders and his advisors may have been small in number but vital to the Ottoman defence. Artillery and machine-gun units are also more tactically significant than a large number of infantry. The footnote quantifying the Austro-Hungarian contribution seems sufficient. OH G II states that the Turks owed much to his leadership – the no retreat order in late April and the stripping of Bulair of troops on August are given as examples that he was a "born leader of men" (485) and Tirpitz wrote after the landing at Suvla that if the Dardanelles fell Germany would lose the war and sent more submarines to the Mediterranean (p.375), so at least some of the German leadership considered the Ottoman empire to be vital to German strategy.Keith-264 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keith. All right, let's keep Germany and Austria-Hungary on the infobox, but how about giving them the role of supporters of the Ottoman war effort, as I've tried to do? (what they were actually). Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May I compliment Sir on a stylish and elegant solution. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate it Keith. ;) Bright Darkness (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like a good solution. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution to me too, thanks for your help. Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)