Talk:And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda

message: It's Bob Kerrey, not "Kerry".
: No fixed, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I never understood this line to be questioning the commemoration of the war, as the article suggests. I think the song is far too insightful to offer such an iconoclastic and disrespectful slap in the face to war veterans who risked their lives for others. Rather, I always figured this lyric was suggesting that the veteran himself doesn't understand what the point of the war was. WWI in general, and the Gallipoli campaign in particular, are thought to be symbols of the imperial powers' callous disregard for their own citizens and subjects – the British commanders essentially used Australian soldiers as cannon fodder to gain proverbial inches. Hence, the veteran here wonders how all the horror could have been worth it. J21 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree. While the song raises the question of whether wars should be fought and glorified, there's nothing remotely anti-veteran about it. What strikes me about that last verse is that the protaganist lost his legs, his youth, and no doubt many friends to one of the bloodiest battles in Australian history, and the kids don't even know what it was about. That'd make any old man look back and wonder if it was worth it. Worth noting, I think, is that when Bogle wrote the song in 1972, the veterans of Gallipoli were all 75+ and not far from "someday, no one will march there at all". Its a very sad and beautiful song. The article could use further work, but since it is so closely tied to ANZAC Day, I'll leave to our friends down under. -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that text from commemoration of the battle etc. to a lament for the forgotten dead, including quotes from the song as the song's text makes the point more clearly than talking about what it is intended to mean.. : my edit User:Pedant 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly the text is sceptical about Anzac Day: what are they marching for? The politics of this has now changed, and people are far more supportive of Anzac Day and Australia's defence forces than they were in the 1970s. But that doesn't mean we should censor or manipulate the article to suit the current political mood.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "And I ask myself the same question" 

message: I don't know when Bob Kerrey sang the song, but (according to Wikipedia) he ran for presidantial candidacy in 1992. In 1988 he ran for the senate. Good song by the way...
: He definitely sang it when he won his campaign for Nebraska senator in the late '80s. I was there. Many a person got teary-eyed, though his son just looked terminally embarrassed. Fraid I don't have a proper citation, though. dao from the placebo 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kerrey's  rendition is now included and is supported by a WP:RS, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Kerrey

message: "Additionally, the reference to tin hats is anachronistic - they were in fact not issued until 1916."
I would dispute this fact, as the French introduced the steel helmet in 1915, and was followed by the British Empire shortly afterwards.  The German army were the only ones not wearing a steel helmet before 1916. Lwdjaymac 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well change it then!--172.203.2.68 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * The song refers to the Turks burying their dead. ("But the band played 'Waltzing Matilda' / When we stopped to bury our slain. / Well, we buried ours, and the Turks buried theirs / Then we started all over again.") The Turks neither buried their dead nor counted them, but are estimated to have lost as many as 200,000 men.The Battle of Gallipoli article gives a figure of 195,000 for the Ottoman casualties. This unofficial ANZAC history gives 86,692.  John McDermott sings this line as "Well, we burned ours, and the Turks burned theirs" -- this definitely did not happen.
Yes the Turks did bury their dead! It is well known that several cease fires occurred so that BOTH sides could bury there dead. 
The referred Wikipedia article in the footnote says that a truce was organized so both sides could bury their dead. In other words it says the reverse of what this passage claims while citing it. Odd contradiction, but clear cause for simply removing the passage. jackbrown (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Inaccuracy

message: The AIF never "...sailed off to Gallipoli."
A bit pedantic no?  They did sail off, they did arrive in Gallipoli, and the story is told with the benefit of hindsight and told as a recollection.  From the point of view of an individual member of the AIF, after training in Egypt they went to Gallipoli.
New to this though, so ignore if stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoblue (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the song is an anti war protest song. Factually incorrect in all aspects. It is a disgrace. 103.210.155.30 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies 

message: I'm not sure I agree that the song strongly implies that he was present at the start of the campaign (and therefore was not called up in 1915). The song, to me, more implies that he was present at the Landing at Suvla Bay in August, the planning for which started earlier in the same year, thus if the narrator was called up to support that, 1915 is perfectly logical. Thoughts? Rails (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "In 1915 the country said, son, it's time to stop ramblin', there's work to be done". So yes, quite the reverse. Our poor chap was still rambling in 1915, and not yet on his way to Galipolli. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be a mistake to try and to match small details of the song, such a names, with exact historical events. Yes, the song is based on the experiences of the Anzacs, but it's more concerned to give an overall impression of the campaign, rather than a strictly accurate chronology. Artist licence is only to be expected in any work of art. The links here will take the reader to those articles that describe the actual events with historical accuracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strongly implied" 

message: I'm not wholly convinced that the "synthesis" tag, even though it was there for over a year, was fully justified, as there were perfectly good references included. I think the removal of the section does the article a disservice and some effort might be reasonably expended in trying to improve it instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a useful section.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Factual inaccuracies 

message: I was going to be "Pommie-polite" and start this section with "In my opinion ...". But it isn't [just] my opinion, it is the shared opinion of a community consensus. So to be a little less polite ...
I am removing a  template from this article. Do not restore it until you have read this (yes all of it), and have reached a community consensus agreement about the reason you are abandoning and ignoring community consensus agreements.
=== What ===
As of 15 August 2017, this article's section entitled Content opens with the following sentence:
:The song is an account of the memories of an old Australian man who, as a youngster had travelled across rural Australia with a swag (the so-called Matilda of the title) and tent [citation needed].
I am removing the  template from that sentence because its inclusion contravenes at least two Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines. WP:MoS very explicitly and unambiguously states that a citation is not needed in this specific context. Furthermore, the editor's choice of shorthand name for this template  was particularly unfortunate ( in an article about a work of fiction).
Inclusion or exclusion of this very template appears to have been a primary component of a fairly recent "edit-war" (or possibly just a very convincing impersonation of an "edit-war"). A quick read of just one page in the WP:MoS suggests that the Content section of this article alone is in violation of a dozen guidelines. In light of that "edit-war" and in preparation for a more extensive edit, I will therefore show not only how one can determine that this template is not needed but also why. I know this will be an anathema to the casual reader of this discussion. I can only apologise by saying that the following is not intended for you (unless you" is you or you - and you know who you are), and more lengthy descriptions haven't yet achieved the result desired by the larger community consensus.
=== How: Determination of whether a citation is needed ===
Or more accurately "Determination of whether a  is needed.
1. The lyrics of this song are a work of fiction.
:If you are unsure or unconvinced of that, please read the Sydney Morning Herald interview with the composer Eric Bogle from 2002. When writing this song in 1971, Bogle originally had the then-ongoing Vietnam War in mind, but changed the context to the Australian experience in the then-56-year-old Battle of Gallipoli. He had lived in Australia for less than two years at the time.
:Source: This Sydney Morning Herald interview with Eric Bogle from 19 April 2002 (and published the following day).
2. Wikipedia's Manual of Style strongly encourages all articles about a work of fiction to have a section describing or summarizing the "plot".
:Specifically:
::"Whenever the original fiction itself is the subject of the article, all real-world information needs to be set in the context of that original fiction (e.g., by including a plot summary)".
:Source: MOS:PLOT (first paragraph, second sentence).
3. This article's "plot summary" is provided by the section entitled "Content".
:Source: The dictionary definitions of "plot summary" and "content" (as intended in this context).
4. According to WP:MoS, "plot summaries [...] should only present an obvious recap of the work".
:Source: The third sentence of this section.
5. The first sentence of the "Content" section (the plot summary) is:
::"The song is an account of the memories of an old Australian man who, as a youngster had travelled across rural Australia with a swag (the so-called Matilda of the title) and tent".
:This is entirely consistent with an obvious recap of the work because after the initial statement of context, all nine subsequent clauses of that sentence from the article are mentioned in the lyrics of the song.
:Source: Specifically ...
::The song is an account of:
:::(I really hope that much is not under dispute)
::the memories:
:::"Reliving old dreams of past glory"
::of an old:
:::"I watch my old comrades [...] the old men march slowly"
::Australian:
:::"they shipped us back home to Australia"
::man:
:::"my country said "Son, ..."
::who as a youngster:
:::"When I was a young man"
::"had travelled across rural Australia:
:::"From the Murray's green basin to the dusty outback, ..."
::with a swag (the so-called Matilda of the title):
:::"... I waltzed my Matilda all over".
::and tent:
:::"For to hump tent and pegs, a man needs two legs"
	
:Just in case there is anyone left on this planet who is not wholly conversant with 1890s Australian outback slang, a Matilda is a swag is a bedroll. Carrying a bedroll with, without or even nowadays incorporating a tent (and whether jolly or not) makes you a "swagman" by definition. Banjo Patterson (not Eric Bogle) made it clear in his original (later edited) version that the subject of his (Patterson's) 1895 song was a "rover". As Eric Bogle "sampled" those 1895 lyrics in 1971, it is equally clear that Bogle had a similar "rover" in mind.
	
6. And finally (phew), WP:MOS states:
::"the plot summary for a work [of fiction], on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary".
:Source: This section of the WP:MoS.
===Why===
===Who makes all those rules anyway?===
Did I already say finally? Steps 1-6 were the "how to determine" part. I also promised a "why" part. Here it is:
7. The second and third sentences of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY are:
::"Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules [and guidelines] themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected."
:The proper interpretation of this particular "written rule' is that the logic underlying the preceding six steps above were arrived at by community consensus. And it is that COMMUNITY CONSENSUS that forms the reason WHY this particular instance of the  template is .
ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this article's contentious { { citation needed } } is { { not needed } } 

message: Did I already say finally? Steps 1-6 were the "how to determine" part. I also promised a "why" part. Here it is:
7. The second and third sentences of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY are:
::"Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules [and guidelines] themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected."
:The proper interpretation of this particular "written rule' is that the logic underlying the preceding six steps above were arrived at by community consensus. And it is that COMMUNITY CONSENSUS that forms the reason WHY this particular instance of the  template is .
ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Who makes all those rules anyway?

message: I'm not suggesting at all that no Australians were present at Suvla Bay; in fact, it was I who pointed out the fact, whereas Bogle (probably) and Walsh (very clearly) weren't aware of the participation of the Bridging Train. Writing only in 2018, Walsh (p50) says, "Australian troops did not land in 'that hell they called Suvla Bay' (British troops did)." A small number certainly landed in Suvla Bay, though not in hell. That came later.
I'm not questioning the accuracy of anybody's accounts of Anzac deeds in the Gallipoli landings except the song's. Bogle acknowledges that he altered details that he knew (or, it now turns out, believed) to be true so as to accommodate a widespread misunderstanding. Let's examine the story:
If the protagonist in Bogle's song joined up in 1915, he can't have been at Anzac on April 25th, because the force that landed there left Australia in November 1914. Therefore, he must have been at Suvla, and therefore must have been in the Naval Bridging Train, the only Australian troops present. But there's no evidence that Bogle knew about them. He doesn't say to Walsh, "Ah, but there were Australians at Suvla."
He says, "I chose Suvla because of a couple of music hall songs that convinced most Aussies that that is where the Anzacs had landed. There was a particularly popular musical song at the time called "Suvla Bay." It's a tearjerker and it was THE song in Australia during WWI after Gallipoli. There were no songs about Anzac Cove . . . So even for the generation of Aussies that I shared the country with, Suvla was synonymous with Anzacs. Also, Suvla sort of rhymes with Australia, and I thought, I'll fudge it." He chose Suvla, believing it to be inaccurate.
So here's the song that caused Bogle to stray from the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68PjEsJ_zGA And here is the background to it:
A 1944 Australian copyright on a song called “Suvla Bay” is held by the otherwise unknown Jack Spade and three other songwriters. The 1948 sheet music advertises it as “Sung by Tex Morton Australia’s yodelling boundary rider.” In January, 1949, the Sydney Sunday Herald reported that the song had “suddenly become the rage in Britain,” and as of March, 2015, a century after the Gallipoli campaign it commemorated, a lush recent recording of Suvla Bay by Ray Kernaghan had received more than 17,000 hits on YouTube. That version includes a final stanza in which the soldier’s sweetheart happily weds one of his former comrades while never forgetting her first love. “Suvla Bay” may well have been composed anonymously during the First World War, but no pre-1944 publication record exists. That is despite latter-day assertions that the Australian government made its singing in 1915-18 “illegal.” Its broadcast popularity in Britain and Australia after World War II may have led to the simple updating of “Suvla” to “Dunkirk,” as in Wiggy Smith’s version, though the assigning of Dunkirk to the “autumn” is an error.  Souda Bay in Crete was the site of an Italian naval assault in 1941 that sank HMS York; Bill Scott, editor of the Second Penguin Book of Australian Folksongs, heard the Souda version in Brisbane in 1944.  Whenever “Suvla Bay” may have been written, its style is very much that of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century music hall.
But there is a further problem. This song says, "My love's asleep so far away. He played his part that April day, and now he sleeps on Suvla Bay." Suvla was in August. If he was killed in April, it must have been at Anzac. So that reference is anachronistic.
There are suggestions that "Suvla" became a general term for the Anzac operation at Gallipoli, but the site of the April landing was named "Anzac Cove" on the 29th, plenty of time between then and August for word to get back to Australia. We shall probably never know how the confusion came about.
It's just possible that Bogle opted for "Suvla" and then moved his entry into the army to 1915 so that the dates would allow for him to be there, but we've already established that he revealed no knowledge of the Bridging Train and that he fell into line with an existing misconception.
So Bogle's tale is of a man who in August 1915 lands under heavy fire at a place called Suvla Bay, and whose fellow Antipodeans suffer many casualties. The facts are that the landing at Suvla succeeded against light opposition and that the only force of which he could have been a part did not suffer any casualties during the landing. Bogle admits that he knowingly altered certain facts for reasons of convenience.
The other arguable inaccuracies lie in the lines: "Then in 1915, my country said son, it's time you stopped rambling, there's work to be done. So they gave me a tin hat, and they gave me a gun, and they marched me away to the war." The reference to a tin hat is without any doubt inaccurate. Walsh and others suggest that the lines 'my country said, Son, there's work to be done' and 'they marched me away to the war' imply compulsion - in other words: conscription, which was not introduced in Australia. On the other hand, the first part could simply mean that he responded voluntarily to his country's call, and the second just normal soldierly moaning about being marched around. I'd say that's a possible inaccuracy according to some sources.
So, in view of the above, I shall reinstate and improve the section on Historical Accuracy. Who knows?: Mr. Bogle or Mr. Walsh might read this and offer further information. Of course, that would be Original Research and therefore of no value whatsoever. Hengistmate (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that musical hall song should be mentioned at Landing at Suvla Bay? I'm surprised that you regard any further information offered by Mr. Bogle as being "of no value whatsoever". But I'm not sure we have any evidence that he's even aware of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I'd say that was very easy. That article has a section called "Commemoration", where "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" is already given pride of place, despite consensus that its mention of Suvla Bay is inaccurate. Now we have another song, but a probably contemporary one, which can be tracked to 1940s Australia and which "suddenly became the rage in Britain" in 1949. It may be wholly inaccurate as an historical account. But as a commemoration?  Or does it perhaps belong at ANZAC Cove? Sorry to have misread your sarcasm about Bogle and Walsh. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, quite. Who'd be a songwriter, eh? One tries to write a song, tied to a major historical event, attempting to convey a feeling, a message. Then commentators like us, start to rip it apart and show how it is riddled with factual contradictions and inaccuracies. But it's just a song, not an historical account. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Accuracy 

message: If there is going to be such a detailed article about a particular song, it would be nice to include the actual lyrics in the article, rather than just talking about the lyrics for several paragraphs.
Would also be nice to see an illustration of at least the main melody of the song, in music notation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics? 

message: Ep 4 of the series Something Undone has the song playing in the background of the pub scene. Credited as "Folk Song" performed by the Mainland Kitchen Band. 1.145.200.144 (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainland Kitchen Band