Talk:Landing at Suvla Bay

message: :Image:LateOttomanFlag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LateOttomanFlag.png

message: I've changed the order of the list of combatants to reflect the percentages, in particular moving Australia to the bottom. Before anyone goes up in the air, remember this: There were only about 350 Australians at Suvla, from one unit, the Royal Australian Naval Bridging Train. No infantry, nothing else. That is not to belittle their contribution, but there is much popular confusion about the campaign. Even in Australia, there are those who confuse Suvla, Anzac Cove, and Gallipoli in general. Eric Bogle observed the phenomenon in the 1970s, when he was writing And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda, and then reinforceded the misapprehension by in his song moving the scene of the fighting to Suvla. Some think that the whole campaign was fought exclusively by Australians, on the instructions of incompetent British Generals, and others don't realise that the name Anzac Cove should be a giveaway. Therefore, I think that putting Australia at the top of the list tends to perpetuate the misconception that "Gallipoli was fought by Australians." I'm sure that anyone who is puzzled by Australia's position in the table can quickly discover and appreciate the reason. Hengistmate (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants 

message: This article does really take the British perspective, and sort of assumes that the reader is cheering on the British offensive. E.g. 'It was an inauspicious start' ... or auspicious, if you're an Ottoman soldier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.9.69 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I've attempted to reword the specific sentence you've highlighted, but am not in a position to work on the article further at this time. As such, I will have to leave further work to others. I note that the Prelude section should probably also explain the context of the landing a bit more clearly, and that the article is largely unreferenced. If you are keen to get involved, and you have access to relevant sources, I would encourage you to correct any other issues that you can see. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective 

message: I agree that it is an assumption that the Sydney referred to is Sydney, Australia. However, the first 500 Newfoundlanders sailed on the S.S. Florizel from St. John's in Newfoundland. Sydney is in Nova Scotia. Is there any evidence of its being the point of departure? The Florizel sailed to Great Britain, not Egypt, and the men trained in a number of locations, including Scotland. Whether reinforcements sailed from Sydney, Nova Scotia I cannot say, but it would need a source if that is what you maintain. 
As regards the song, then since Newfoundlanders took part in the landing, it is not correct, strictly speaking, to describe it as a British operation. And we also know that a small number of Australians took part. Are they the men from Sydney?
If you have sources, please direct us to them. In the meantime, I suggest we say only what the known facts permit us to say. Hengistmate (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dreadnoughts' Song.  

message: What issues in particular are causing concern? Hengistmate (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research, Multiple Issues, Jan 2022. 

message: Perhaps I am expecting too much from Wikipedia, but did the battle go on much longer than is implied in the article? I read on the last page of 'Letters from a Field Hospital' by Mabel Dearmer, edited by Stephen Gwynn, that her son Christopher died of his wounds at Suvla Bay on October 6th 1915. 
ixo (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 

message: Are these accurate? They don't seem to tally with the final casualty count, and are also unsourced. It would seem unlikely to me that only 3,000 troops were present at the end when my understanding from the same source the 1,500 number is from is that Liman Von Sanders sent five divisions there at the end; undoubtedly more than 3,000 men. Have changed this to '5 divisions' as a result, but if anyone knows how many men an Ottoman division is, I'd appreciate it being added. Alooulla (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman strength figures