Talk:Battle of Gallipoli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Gallipoli article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
More information...
 This article has failed an A-Class review.
Related task forces...
 Australian military history task force
British military history task force
Canadian military history task force
French military history task force
New Zealand military history task force
World War I task force
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
WikiProject Turkey This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

An event in this article is a January 9 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Commanders

Strictly speaking, Von Sanders was the Turkish commander. I only included Germany as a combatant because they provided machine gunners and artillery. Also submarines, I guess, plus the German crews remained on the Breslau and Goeben even once they became Turkish vessels. Perhaps Germany's role in Gallipoli isn't big enough to warrant a "combatant" tag. If we include them, we probably should include Newfoundland and Malta and the Zion Mule Corps and so on for the Allied side. Gsl 06:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Von Sanders was not in Turkish side,he was infact dieing on the other. He have made many "mistakes" like moving troops inner fields at the beginning of the invasion. So the allied forces have landed easily to Gallipoly. It is obviousy an evidence of exceptional stupidity for a costal war. But in fact it wasn't the stupidity.
He aimed to make war longer to lighten Allied forces for Germany. That made the Turks pay much higer price for the victory.
utku 15:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Von Sanders did NOT even care about Turks nor İstanbul. The real commander and hero of the battle is Mustafa Kemel Atatürk.
Ah, such a fanatism.Nobody can say this.Von Sanders can have mistakes but was an honourable soldier. Aozgen54@yahoo.com
Atatürk was the hero. His leadership was inspired, unlike virtually everybody else present. (I'll reserve comment on von Sanders; I'm unaware of his actions.) Trekphiler 05:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hamilton's leadership was distant & incompetent, & the ANZACs were little better. They went ashore against trivial opposition & stopped, evidently not aware (or concerned) their objective was to link up & defeat the Turks. Something needs to be said about this. Something also needs to be said about the poor planning & co-ordination that hamstrung the troops when they did land. Trekphiler 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The problem with this article is that the campaign is never called "the Battle of Gallipoli" in any of the combatant countries. In Britain it is called the Dardanelles Campaign and in Australia and New Zealand it is simply called Gallipoli, or sometimes the Gallipoli Landings. I don't know what it's called in France. I will note this in the intro para, but perhaps this title ought to be redirected. Adam 05:42, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's called "Battle of Gallipoli" to comply with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles guidelines. Gsl 06:02, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but that doesn't make it the name of the battle. Is an encyclopaedia required to conform to reality or vice versa? Adam 06:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is also just "Gallipoli" in Canada (well, Newfoundland), if that helps. Adam Bishop 06:15, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Replace the existing Gallipoli entry? As far as I am concerned, Gallipoli is a place, not a battle and the Battle of Gallipoli is a battle, not a place. As you point out, the battle is known by a number of names. Which one do you want to use for the final entry? I didn't create this entry, I'm just trying to complete it. Gsl 06:19, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree it is an awkward choice. I said "perhaps" it ought to be redirected, but perhaps also it ought not. Adam 06:23, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the current Gallipoli page becomes "Gallipoli (disambiguation)". Entries about the Gallipoli townships become "Gallipoli, Turkey" and "Gallipoli, Italy". Gallipoli (1981 movie) stays as it is. Battle of Gallipoli moves to "Gallipoli" and "Battle of Çanakkale" and "Dardanelles Campaign" are redirects to "Gallipoli". Personally I like it the way it is - I don't know that most people would want the amount of detail that's in the Battle of Gallipoli page - but I've got no problem is someone wants to rearrange it. Gsl 00:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no problems with amee foxs suggestion, but I think on further thought that the problem is that Gallipoli wasn't a "battle" at all, it was a campaign lasting several months, with a series of engagements but no single "battle." I could therefore argue that the Battle of Gallipoli article be dropped and its content shifted to Gallipoli (military campaign) or something like that. Adam 02:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of month-long "battles" made up of a series of smaller engagements, for example the Battle of the Somme (1916) ("Somme Offensive") and Third Battle of Ypres ("Flanders Offensive"). That said, I agree "Battle of Gallipoli" isn't the conventional name here however I favour the consistent "battle of" nomenclature for the main entry, though I seem to be in the minority. Unless someone wants to make an executive decision, I guess we assemble the alternatives and run a vote. Geoff 23:25, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Adam. Gallipoli campaign or Gallipoli (campaign) or something similar. It isn't called "the Battle of Gallipoli" by anyone, and it wasn't a battle, it was a whole series of them. From the point of view of link-friendliness, most people will want to just link it as Gallipoli, so Gallipoli (campaign) allows the pipe trick. On the other hand, Gallipoli campaign looks better. Or even (shock horror) Battle of Gallipoli? Whichever way you look at it. it's a curly one. Tannin 02:58, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles says to use "Battle of" unless the battle is most commonly known under a different name. In this case plain Gallipoli is the most common, but we should use Gallipoli campaign because the former is also the place. Gdr 09:00, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Perhaps a poll is in order, although that would require me to make a decision. After eight months of editing it, I am quite comfortable with Battle of Gallipoli. Geoff/Gsl 07:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is "the Dardanelles Campaign" the official British designation (for example, for battle honours)? This Briton would call it "Gallipoli", and I expect most other Britons would too (although I would know what "the Dardanelles Campaign" meant). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me "Battle of Gallipoli" is inappropriate. It wasn't a single action, as "battle" implies, but a campaign. I agree, it's rarely called "Dardanelles Campaign", which would be correct; I'd suggest retitle the page & redirect via Gallipol links (the most common usage) from pages that are concerned with it. Others I'd say should go to a disambiguation page. Trekphiler 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

May I just point out that I think this is a rather good article? :) Barneyboo 11:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Of all of Wikipedia's Battle pages, this one is exceptionally well written. Anon 8:29 02 Jun 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Turkish"

It is an very good article; however, I think it would be more historically accurate to use the word Ottoman wherever possible, instead of "Turkish", except in relation to specific individuals (etc). That is to say, it's possible that two thirds of the Ottoman forces were Arab conscripts. Obviously there were many other ethnic groups in the empire as well. Check this interesting article at al Jazeera's website: "The forgotten Arabs of Gallipoli", by Jonathan Gorvett, 14 January 2004[1] (By the way, the article doesn't mention that some Arabs -- Egyptians -- served as labourers with the Allied forces.) What do others think? Grant65 (Talk) 11:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

There was only one arab regiment at Gallipoli at the beginning(in 19.Division) then as far as I know it has taken back.But there was individual Arab officers. Aozgen54@yahoo.com

The history of my grandfather's unit (which was at Gallipoli, Sinai, Palestine, Syria) uses "Turk|Turkish|Turkey" an even 100 times; there's no use of "Ottoman". The first chapter of Vol VII (Sinai & Palestine) of the Aus. official history is called "The Turks Invade Egypt" and uses "Turk|Turkish|Turkey" throughout (9 times on the first page, 0 for "Ottoman"). It quotes Enver Pasha as saying "Turkey has defeated the British Navy." Picking any page in Vols I, II or VII the usage is invariably "Turk*". It's the same in Keegan's "The First World War" -- once he gets over introducing it as the "Ottoman Empire", he uses "Turk*". Likewise turning to any random page in Carlyon's "Gallipoli". Even a conference article I've got, "The impact of the Ottoman Empire in the German strategy of 1915", uses "Turk*" almost exclusively.
Against such a weight of material, I'm not brave enough to say that "Ottoman" is more historically accurate than "Turkish". Geoff/Gsl 04:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the use of "Ottoman". If you wish to use "Ottoman" instead of "Turkish", please make the changes consistent through the entire article rather than in one isolated section. Also make the changes in all the sub-articles and the articles of the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Geoff/Gsl 00:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geoff, my apologies for not responding sooner. I disagree strongly with you on this matter; just because the Ottoman Empire forces are commonly referred to as "Turks" or Turkish", it doesn't mean that is correct. It's like the usage of "British", when the correct term would be "British Commonwealth"/"British Empire"; or "American" when the correct term is "Allied". This a common problem in Wikipedia military history articles. Grant65 (Talk) 00:49, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I don't agree (for the reasons I stated above) but will respect your wishes to make the changes. I only ask that if you insist on making the changes, you do it consistently throughout the article, rather than in just one section. Geoff/Gsl 00:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Make it Ottoman throughout. It strikes me as arrogant to use Turkish, just as it would be to use "British" when Can & Oz forces were numeous (common as that is in histories...). Recall coverage of the PacWar: you'd be hard pressed to find mention of RAAF & RNZAF, even tho they were pretty important in SWPA; it's all "American"... Trekphiler 05:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A single website does not convince me about the number of ethnic Arabs in the Ottoman army. That speculation should be removed until someone comes up with more credible references. Basarcenik 14:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable citation for the figures? Turkish Army now seems to say that the 253,000 figure includes all losses and the number of dead is around 60,000. Here's a link to an article discussing this (in Turkish): http://www.canakkale1915.com/sehitsayisi.htm

Arabs dind't fought at WWI for Ottoman empire. They joinned the British! see Lawrance of Arabia

[edit] Removed link - why?

Look, if you don't think the link should be there, fine, take it out, but please indicate why in the edit comment. A simple "revert" just isn't appropriate for something that's not actually vandalism. --Andrew 10:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. "Revert spam" I should have said. Geoff/Gsl 04:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The army kidnapped by a mysterious cloud

There are some rumours about a mysterious cloud, which should have kidnapped the 5th Norfolk on August 12th, 1915.

I've heard of that before... but it's too "paranormal" for a serious article like this. It might be deserving of its own, small, article. edgeworth 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC).

Nothing so exotic. A unit of a couple of hundred soldiers were seen to push on against weak opposition, became cut off and none returned in a campaign where most Allied dead were not identifed. The Graves Commission found the bodies in 1919. Reason the incident was more well known than other incidents was most of them were employed by the English Royal Family at the Sandringham Estate. See http://user.online.be/~snelders/sand.htm

Herne nz 09:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed

"The Ottoman Empire had been dismissed by Tsar Nicholas I of Russia as "the sick man of Europe" but after victory over the Allies at Gallipoli, Turkey's visions of the empire were renewed." It seems absurd to call turkish military operations as "visions of empire", especially in an article about a british millitary operation in the ottoman territory.

Note - before checking the changes to this talk page I reverted an edit of blatant vandalism (insertion of the words 'prostitute' and 'pimp' etc., but moved two versions back, not having seen any justification for the removal of the paragraph. Feel free to re-remove the para from aftermath if considered justified, but be careful not to switch back to the vandalised version. Is there a source for this para? it sounds like a quote. dramatic 08:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill

Can somebody identify who actually conceived the operation? It's credited to WSC, here; he didn't actually come up with it, only championed it (& I'd correct it if I knew more...). Trekphiler 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Why are there inconsistent casualty figures at the top and bottom of this page? The figures under casulaties look more plausible Nickhk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)nickhk

I have to agree... I was very confused while reading the article. can anyone clarify this and make all numbers equal?

Ah, yes, I'll third the confusion... Samgra 08:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can this template go on this page?

Template:New Zealand Army

  • Where on the page should it go, and why should it go into this page?--Adam (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 6.000 BULLETS FOR EACH SQUARE METER!

Japanese Minister:

“The war which 6,000 bullets fell on each square meter,Turks were the victorious.You succeed an really impossible.You showed to all world the belief is victorous by challenge the latest technology and rigging.Moreover,the enemies were not one.Entente Powers were 72 nations who fighted with you.”

Note :More than 500,000 people lost their lives and Turkey lost all her quality labours.Therefore,Turkey couldnt close her quality labour needs for years and it influenced economy a lot...Inanna 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

Please see Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Rename? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

I added a trivia section about this campaign.. It can be a ".. in popular culture" section too.. --Jack o lantern 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

I noticed an inconsistency in the article: in the intro, it is mentioned that an estimated 500 000 soldiers died, but in the table near the end of the article, it says no more than 130 000 soldiers were killed. Since the number of wounded troops is quite similar in the intro and in the table, I would tend to believe the number of deaths would be roughly 130 000. Plus, rare are the battles leaving more dead than wounded.

[edit] Talk:Gallipoli --> Gallipoli, Turkey

There is a Wikipedia:Requested move to move the page Gallipoli to Gallipoli, Turkey because there is a Gallipoli, Italy. I am opposed to the move because I think Gallipoli Turkey is the primary usage of the word and does not need the country postix. If you would like to express an opinion on this please follow the link to Talk:Gallipoli --Philip Baird Shearer 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Traubert's Blues

I removed the trivia entry that stated Tom Traubert's Blues by Tom Waits is about the Gallipoli campaign. This entry seems totally unsupported by even a cursory review on the internet. Nor is it supported by the lyrics themselves--as ambiguous and rambling as they may be.Schaddm 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a big fan of alternate history, but ...

Can the extensive "What if?" segment that opens the Aftermath section really be considered anything other than original research and thoroughly unencyclopaedic? If someone simply wants to say "X was a significant factor in the failure of the operation," then that statement should be made at the time the factor is discussed. Binabik80 02:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal reports in this battle?

I heard a LOT of paranormal reports about this one battle... like the on posted somewhere above me about the 5th Norfolk. Also I heard that there were supposebly bombs either fired from the ships or dropped by British bombers, not sure which one, that never hit the ground! As I remember these were actual reports by soldiers in the battle! Anyone know anything about this?

Calengurth 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Gallipoli_bbd5.html"