Talk:Gallipoli campaign

message: I'm unsure whether this is patriotic mythologising, or whether it is simply an error overdue for correction, but the article lists ANZAC casualties for the first day as "around 2,000". 
Although this figure can be derived from the official casualty statistics published both by New Zealand History and the Australian War Memorial, both government organisations tasked with the preservation of factual war history, the actual statistics provided by both governments list this number as the total casualties across a five day span (April 25-30, 1915) and not isolated only to the landing itself. 
In other words, this article and its solitary source is in conflict with official statistics, unless the assumption is made that the ANZACs suffered no fatalities after April 25, and only on the May 1 did the fatalities resume.
I also have a broader concern about the word "casualties". Although historians correctly understand that casualties include both the number killed in action and non-lethal battlefield wounds, many people assume the word casualties is a synonym for "killed". I think it might be helpful to break down respective categories of "casualties" when data is available to do so and it is not too cumbersome. Officially, about 1,000 ANZACs were killed in action during the first five days of the campaign, inclusive of the landing. At least half of the casualties stated in this article therefore survived their wounds but no mention is made of this.
I'm not going to change anything to the article. I've been burned by Wikipedia's editing wars before and by the territorial brittleness of the editing culture (12 years ago I updated an entry on the evening an election was called and all the updates were reverted almost instantly despite the result being clear and corroborated across major media carriers; for at least 12 hours, maybe even a day or so, the Wikipedia article reported totally false information about who was in government and my investment of time to amend the article was discarded like trash). So I now flatly refuse to contribute to any article even when I spot palpable errors. So maybe someone else would like to tackle the casualty statistic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.97.247 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation of First Day casualties 

message: Gallipoli Campaign is not the article for arguing on "Ottoman entry into World War I." That argument may have a position in Battle of Odessa (1914), but too many things happened before Gallipoli Campaign. A small reference to Ottoman entry into World War I is quite explanatory. The section in this article is quite big in content. Includes many non-factual claims (arguments); statements like "the Ottoman Empire's geographic position meant that Russia and her allies France and Britain had a significant interest in Turkish neutrality in the event of war in Europe." is not factually-correct, but I guess there is a reference for that, surely there is a reference for everything on the internet! Arguing on these issues beyond the scope of the Gallipoli Campaign. If there is a need for fully developed section, this section needs to be factual, correctly supported, not a collection of POV statements, even if it is cited. :User:Anotherclown  Either let the Gallipoli Campaign link to Ottoman entry into World War I page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654423093&oldid=654422409 or let the correct information be included https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654420494&oldid=654337465 --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Gday - thanks for starting the conversation about this, much appreciated. Given the close links b/n the issue of Turkey's entry into the war and the Gallipoli Campaign I think there is a need to cover the issue in some detail in this article, but using summary style so as not to provide it undue weight (hence the reason for the state of this section as it currently is). Indeed most works on the topic (i.e. the Gallipoli Campaign) cited here seem to cover the background to the Turkish entry into the war and that is probably the reason why it was included in the first place (otherwise the article would not adequately summarise the campaign). You proposal seems to be either removing the section altogether and replacing with a very short paragraph - per your edit here , or covering in detail per your alternative edit here . As I said in my edit summaries though there are issues with both, firstly the short summary you replaced the existing text with wasn't referenced, whilst the second edit was too detailed. Consequently I don't think either of your proposals are workable in their current form, although obviously other editors may disagree with me. IRT the other aspect of your comment, you obviously have concerns about the factual content currently included (although only mention one example above). As you state though all the information here is referenced to reliable sources so I don't think calling them POV statements is really accurate. Perhaps more might be gained by listing the concerns you have with the current content and providing a source for an alternative interpretation and then discussing on that basis rather than wholesale deletion of content, or replacing it with text that meets your interpretation / understanding of the events? Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think it is one or two problems of the current summary. These are from the first paragraph. Using two references: "Young Turks seized power in Constantinople and installed Mehmed V as a figurehead Sultan." It was 31 March Incident not Young Turk Revolution (seized power!) replaced the sultan. Who ever typed that misrepresented the source, or source is... Without a reference "the French, British and Germans had offered financial aid" is totally non-true. They were the debt collectors, not providers. That is nonsense. There are three sources behind the claim "A pro-German faction influenced by Enver Pasha" It is well known that Enver Pasha resented the German military mission. The fact that Ottoman government outreach got response only from Germany linked Enver to Germany. That is not being influenced, but cornered. Cornered argument brings the "Great Game" into this article. That is a paragraph by itself. With a reference: "Russia and her allies France and Britain had a significant interest in Turkish neutrality" In 1912, Russia "kind of" declared war. The note said change the governors or I will occupy you. They replaced the governors. But Russian military began planning for occupation in 1913. You can read these under Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). Just to follow your position; the clarification of the first paragraph, as you stated to adding other positions, I'm going to add 3-4 paragraphs just for the first paragraph. I believe there are other missing points. I just want to remind that you also have a position of "too long." I sincerely believe a short summary to articles would be a better solution. You did not like my summary. So, write a "three line summary" and replace these three paragraphs to the links Ottoman entry into World War I, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and for political events to Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). If you want to argue when the Sultan changed, how much dedt the Empire had, or if Russia really wanted to be neutral, the articles already established. It is not like we would be deleting content. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately I'm struggling to understand a lot of the issues that you are attempting to raise, as I'm assuming English is a second language for you. I'll try but you may need to break your concerns down into smaller, more concise statements. So far you have mentioned some concerns with the first paragraph. Whilst I don't have access to all the sources used there (Haythornthwaite, Aspinall-Oglander, or Fewster, Basarin & Basarin), I was able to spot check Howard (2002) The First World War, p. 51 which states: "...power had been seized in 1908 by a group of young officers (the original 'Young Turks') set on modernizing the archaic political and economic system and restoring national prestige'." That would seem to be faithfully used here in this article in my opinion, although again others might disagree. Perhaps either  or  might be able to check the other references used here if they have access to them? The pending spot check aside though I get the feeling that your objection isn't so much a case of the sources used being interpreted incorrectly but that you have a different understanding of the events being discussed than those in the sources used. I'll ask again do you have any references that you can point to for these interpretations that you can present here? So far you haven't provided any. Given the language issues we seem to be having I'll try to state my position as clearly as possible: I remain unconvinced by your proposal to reduce this section to a "three line summary", and I do not agree with adding "3-4 paragraphs" to it either. Certainly what is here can be corrected where / if there are found to be errors in it; however, I support doing this only if you can back up your concerns with verifiable references to reliable sources, not statements like "It is well known...". Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

text:  Young Turks seized power... -> That is Young Turks and they sized the power with Young Turk Revolution (July 1908). ...and installed Mehmed V Mehmed V (Reign: 27 April 1909 – 3 July 1918) Young Turk Revolution did not remove Abdul Hamid II, just opposite "On 24 July 1908, Sultan Abdul Hamid II capitulated and announced the restoration."  The removal of Abdul_Hamid_II#Countercoup.2C_1909 was in 1909 and nothing to do with Young Turk Revolution. I do not even see why this article is the place of all this jazz. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can't help much with the sources as I am interstate for a while. Definately agree, though, that these changes should be discussed first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

text: At a glance I'd certainly support the view that the section could be pruned and the details left to the linked main article. I'll have a look in Strachan later.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  On spot checking Haythornthwaite p. 6 mentions this did indeed occur in 1909 and states: "The new Sultan then installed was Mohammed V, Abdul the Damned's younger brother, but he was merely a figurehead: all power was concentrated in the hands of the instigators of Abdul's overthrow, the 'Young Turks'. Google Book preview here . I've tweaked the current text to reflect this - pls see my change here . I will discuss the proposal below separately for continuity. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman entry into World War I 

message: The article mentions that Germany "offered two cruisers, SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau to the Ottoman Navy". While the Breslau was indeed a Magdeburg-class light (4,500 ton) cruiser armed with 10.5 cm (4.1") guns, the Goeben was a 23,000 ton Moltke-class battlecruiser armed with 280 cm (11") guns that threw a 302 kg (666 lb.) shell, heavy enough to sink the British battlecruiser HMS Indefagitable at Jutland. Cruisers and battlecruisers are not the same thing; the latter -- originally a brainchild of Admiral Jackie Fisher -- were vessels built for cruiser speed but with battleship armament --Death Bredon (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I've tweaked the wording to remove the word "cruisers". Does this work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The German "cruisers" Goeben and Breslau 

message: On 22 March 2016 there was much media attention in New Zealand regarding a revision of the recognised number of NZ troops involved in the Gallipoli Campaign.  ( http://www.mch.govt.nz/new-research-dramatically-increases-numbers-new-zealand-soldiers-gallipoli and http://www.mch.govt.nz/sites/default/files/ENUMERATING%20NEW%20ZEALAND%20EXPEDITIONARY%20FORCE%20SERVICE%20INTERIM%20REPORT%20MARCH%202016%20%28D-0651931%29.PDF#overlay-context=new-research-dramatically-increases-numbers-new-zealand-soldiers-gallipoli )
I accept that this is unproven, and potentially subject to debate, (it's history!) so I shouldn't have changed this page.  Sorry for that and thanks for the 'undo'.
So let's debate.  Should we change the infobox?
The source seems authoritative - NZ Defence Force and NZ Ministry of Culture and Heritage.  Surely unlikely to have a bias and ultra cautious against any risk of losing face through undertaking substandard research or unsafe conclusions.   The research was undertaken by the Chief Historian of MCH, and included relevant folk from NZDF, Archives NZ and Statistics NZ.  The findings are plausible and in fact address some problems with other numbers, often quoted, if not here.  The assumptions seem reasonable.
I propose that the Infobox 'Strength' number for New Zealanders be changed to 17,048.  This is the best number available at this date.Toothpickdog (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Gday Toothpickdog, thanks for starting this discussion. I agree that the source you have provided is a reliable one so I have included this information in the body of the article now with this edit  (although I haven't amended the infobox). As far as I can tell the figures in the infobox are probably "peak strength" not the total number of personal that served over the entire campaign (or at least I'm assuming this is the case). Please note for instance that the infobox currently lists 20,000 Australians; however, a total of 50,000 + Australians actually served during the entire campaign - many being reinforcements or replacements for casualties etc. The figure of 20,000 refers to the initial commitment. I'm unsure about the rest of the figures for other nationalities however (e.g. Britain etc). The MCH source seems to be referring to total personnel (i.e. including reinforcements and replacements etc) and not peak strength so it would probably be out of place with the rest of the figures in the infobox if it were changed in isolation.  - do you recall if the figures in the infobox are all meant to be "peak strength" or total figures? Anotherclown (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're totals but I'm not sure.Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are, there wouldn't have been 460,000 British ashore at once. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok thanks Keith, yes that is a fair point. Given then that most of the figures in the infobox are totals (not "peak strength" like I suspected) both the New Zealand and Australian figures need to be changed to be consistent with them. As such with this cleared up I support Toothpickdog's proposal to do this. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made this change now . Given the difference b/n Green (14,000) and MCH (17,000) for NZ figures I thought we should include both. I am open to other suggestions of how to acknowledge this difference though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a good solution to me. Thanks, all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  Me too.  Thanks!  Toothpickdog (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Gday Nick. Good points - the bit from McGibbon re "a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula" seems to be explained by the MCH source as the initial NZ strength so I have slightly reworded it to (hopefully) be consistent with the previous change - pls see my edit here . Also I have now identified both the AS and NZ figures in the infobox as approximates. I am of cse open to further rewording in the text though if you feel the possible statistical issues with the revised NZ figures needs to be more explicitly acknowledged (or a note if you think that would be a better solution). Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ Troop Numbers 

message: It used to be succinct reportage of events and their significance, now it reads like journalism. 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I also have concerns about the changes and have reverted them. Dbachmann: could you please outline your rationale here so that the proposed changes can be discussed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a nod towards Oz, NZ and Turkish creation myths is right but not treating them as if they were what the campaign was for. I'll try to step back a bit though, because I'm in enough trouble already. Regards ;O))  Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's happened to the lead? 

message: Tidied references and changed ; to  as apparently readers for people who can't see, can't deal with a semi-colon. Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day. Unless there is objection to it I'd like to keep Bean's 2nd volume in the further reading as we only use his 1st volume as a reference and its still considered a fairly important work on the topic in this part of the world (even if dated). Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Apols Another', I thought it was a duplicate, which is why I got rid, quite happy for rvKeith-264 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

text: PS I abbr US states but didn't notice I'd only abbr NSW in Oz locations....Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

text: 
I put this into a note as it seemed a dubious claim (Who didn't have enormous casualties at Gallipoli?) and I wasn't sure about its placement. Apropos, does anyone have the page number? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying this. Sorry I don't have the page number for that. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I've replaced this with West, which I was able to view on Google books with a page number. Moved Orr to the Further reading section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sorting that. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gallipoli Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://https
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608013850/http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/modern_history/research/gallipoli_centenary_research_project/ to http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/modern_history/research/gallipoli_centenary_research_project/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What was Russian contribution to Gallipoli campaign? 82.46.64.88 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia listed as a combatant? 

message: Did a little tidying up, revert as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Around 50.000 ethnic Albanians fought in this war , somebody better put that in the list of combatants also there is proof of this just check the canakkale monument .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.93.6 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @77.28.93.6 albania was not even part of the ottoman empire at that time lol 94.109.150.222 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanians ? 

message: Apols, I've trodden on someone else's edits; if I can help reinstate them, pls let me know. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I've resolved it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apols, another edit conflict....Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Think I've put it right; I'll lay off for the rest of the day to let everyone else have a clear field. Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: pls check - added text & refs for 7 Sep 1915 Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove & 'Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915' CenotaphZbunyip (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding those references, however, I am concerned that the level of detail you are adding breaches WP:UNDUE. It might be okay to include that sort of detailed coverage in the article about the memorial itself, but this article deals with a much larger topic, that needs to remain focused without going into too much detail. Adding several paragraphs on a single, local memorial seems like it places undue emphasis on a minor aspect, which is arguably inappropriate for this article. Please establish consensus for your change before continuing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wattle Grove

message: There should be some mention of the SA event in Gallipoli Campaign article, but happy to have that mention link to a longer text & refs transferred to a new article. In fact there's loads more info for the first and subsequent years which was deliberately left out to try and minimise the SA additions so as not to be WP:UNDUE.
However removing all of Adelaide Park Lands, South Australia 7 September 1915 Gallipoli Landing commemoration event and its inauguration of the first Australasian memorial to Gallipoli and ANZAC would make Victoria / Queensland and UK WP:UNDUE by suppressing fact of historically significant earlier South Australia event  which Australia's Governor-General stated was the first in the Commonwealth. The article would be biasing towards Victoria, Queensland and UK.
In fact the South Australian event was internationally significant, as the Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915 monument is also the earliest known ANZAC memorial to New Zealand Corps landing at Gallipoli. 
Have not been able to identify any earlier NZ ANZAC memorial - the Auckland Harbour Board Beacon (which is not national, but in memory of employees from that organisation) was not lit until Dec 1915.
In addition to official role of Governor-General and Lady Munro Ferguson, the references evidence that it was not only locally reported in SA, but also in West Australian and Victorian newspapers, however the Australian Wattle Day League also had 'branches' in the UK, not only in other Australian states, and William Sowden, who presided over the 7 Sep 1915 event was the Australian Federal President as well as the SA Branch President.
As such some mention of the Australian Wattle Day League's 7 Sep 1915 inauguration of the Commonwealth's first national memorial to the 25 April 1915 Gallipoli Landing would not be WP:UNDUE. How much would you like to reinstate and would you help link and transfer the rest of the information to a new Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove article?Zbunyip (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Commemorations are events in themselves so If you want that much detail, i think you'd do better to write an article on them and link with this one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A single, short sentence would seem sufficient to me here. Or, including mention of Adelaide in the sentence that is already there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove and Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915 Cenotaph, Adelaide Park Lands, South Australia

message: Is everyone happy with the size of the pictures? I altered them to upright 1.0 to standardise them and having looked again, think they are a little large. Would upright 0.75 be better? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I don't have any dramas with that change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment the images do look a little big on my screen so I wouldn't have any issues if you want to reduce them a bit Keith. I'm a bit of a numpty with the "upright" markup though otherwise I'd have a go at it myself. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I gather that their appearance depends on the size of your equipment (ooh-er). I'll have a tinker.Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes very probably. Anyway those changes look fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture size 

message: What do people think of keeping this edit which has been removed? --27.99.52.82 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice sought 

message: In the Naval Campaign section (probably under Attempt to force straights) I think it would be nice to have an image that shows the locations of Ottoman mines and submarine defenses in the straights. I was thinking something like this image from the USMA Atlas. I think only the lefthand side of the image is relevant to the section. Any thoughts?
Jdazzle95 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's public domain I can't see how we can keep it out. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Showing Ottoman Naval Defense 

message: Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign says 17 February 1915, the main infobox of this page says 25 April 1915. Timeline of the Gallipoli Campaign says 19 February. starship.paint ~ KO 13:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, the dates in the infobox are for the land campaign. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

text: * - okay, could we also list the naval campaign's dates as well? Since it is the same campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 10:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seems reasonable to me.  thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Since the article refers to the naval campaign and the invasion was to facilitate the naval attack towards Constantinople, why not? They were means to the same end. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes seems logical to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I propose changing the infobox (and lead) dates to "17 February 1915 – 9 January 1916". Would this work for all concerned? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I've no issue with that proposal. We will also need to amend the dates in the lead. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: *I have changed the dates in the infobox and the lede as the article is submentioned at WP:DYK now. starship.paint ~ KO 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did this start? Feb or April 1915? 

message: Greetings, curious as to why you've changed — to –? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use one or the other in the text – see— generally, MOS:DASH. (Thanks for the note about 20 ems for sfns—I'll keep it in mind.)  – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: foi uma vitoria teuto turca a influencia alemã nos armamentos e resto é geralmente minimizada pois se pra turquia era estrategico continuar controlando as duas margens pra alemanha o era mais ainda pra continuar seu plano de via directa pro indico sem canal ingles e embora hitler tenha reconhecido os esforços turcos e se baseado algo nele tambem temos de ver que na altura turquia e russia eram potencias menos industriais e mais atrasadas a nivel tambem de caixa mesmo a frança tava ficando pra tras os grandes poderes eram anglos e alemães por zonas estrategicas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.154.77.70 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon comment

message: While we're on the subject of inappropriate "big picture" I see we have a subsection on why Turkey was in the war, with details about events going back several years. Seems to me, it should be moved and integrated into Ottoman entry into World War I, replaced here by a summary paragraph. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. That will teach me a lesson about reading the existing talk page before mouthing off. I'll be pleased with a relevant counteragument either here or above. The argument that the reference books handle it that way is true enough, but this is an encyclopedia, where readers can quickly click to the explanation of events months before the campaign. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman entry into World War I, reprised 

message: Causalities are wrong, fix it. There's even no source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.233.237 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean casualties, these are cited to "Erickson2001a", which is  DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causalities 

message: I have taken this from the lead: "However it had the long term effect of galvanizing national identity for Australia and New Zealand, whose soldiers suffered proportionately heavy casualties". This partly duplicates information in the second paragraph and is therefore misplaced. And it really overstates the case in a number of ways, going beyond what is said in the body of the article. I'm not sure that Australian and NZ casualties were so much different from UK casualties. And I don't see a source which says that the casualties suffered were the key factor. The Anzac spirit article barely mentions casualties, for example. As to "galvanizing national identity", this sentence states this as a fact, while the rest of the article merely says that some people have said something like that. I think it is hard to argue this is a serious non-partisan sense: that Australia did not have a fully-fledged national identity at Federation, for example.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite agree with the excisions and suggest that "national identity" is a myth and an invented tradition. Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's just duplicating stuff which is already discussed in a more nuanced way in the intro and elsewhere. The role of Gallipoli in Australian national memory deserves a full treatment, though. I just stepped in to correct blatant error, ie. a claim that most of the casualties were ANZACs. Although I suspect a lot of Australians probably imagine that to be the case. I was wrong about Fromelles in my edit summary though - it looks like somewhat fewer Aussies were killed there than at Gallipoli, although it was in much the same ballpark.Paulturtle (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia and New Zealand 

message: Tidied lead; is para 2 really the place to bruit Arab involvement in the campaign? It seems a bit recondite for introductory remarks. The citations don't inspire much confidence either.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, Keith. Agreed, it probably shouldn't be in the lead, IMO, as it seems a minor point and breaks up the flow of the current paragraph. There is potentially a place for it elsewhere, though. Maybe in the Ottoman defensive preparations section? Agreed also, though, that the sources presented may not be the best. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Does anybody have any material about how and why the decision was taken to land at Helles and ANZAC (or rather the spot near ANZAC where they were supposed to land)?
To the layman looking at a map, Bulair at the neck of the peninsula looks like the obvious place to invade, so I'd always assumed that there must have been a good military reason why they didn't, e.g. steep cliffs rather than invadable beaches. However, the RND division conducted some decoy activity there on D-Day (Freyberg swimming ashore and lighting some flares etc - mentioned in the article). So there must have been at least a possibility of landing there.
A book I'm reading at the moment on the Asquith family (Arthur Asquith was in the RND) says that the top brass decided not to land at Bulair precisely because the Turks were expecting it and the area was defended by two divisions. I'm sure the writer copied that claim from somewhere rather than inventing it, but it probably ought to be sourced to a more heavyweight military history.Paulturtle (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, Harvey Broadbent's Gallipoli: The Fatal Shore (pp. 44-45) mentions "Hamilton's plan for achieving this, however, was uncannily similar to that anticipated by von Sanders, except that it dismissed a landing at Bulair on the Gulf of Saros. Hamilton considered Saros too far from the main objectives, the forts on the Dardanelles. Instead Hamilton...opted for a dummy landing at Bulair - a demonstration at the neck o the Peninsula". Probably doesn't help, though. I will have a look through some of my other books. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's quite noteworthy how these decisions were still made by "the man on the spot" - Hamilton in this case. In WW2 such a decision, with so much riding on it, would have been signed off on by the chiefs of staff, defence ministers and heads of government of the countries involved.Paulturtle (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

text: According to David French's study of British War Strategy 1914-16 (p.108) in June 1915 the Dardanelles Committee (which was full of "laymen looking at the map" like me) toyed with the idea of making the second landing at Bulair to cut off the neck of the peninsula. Hamilton urged against this, on the grounds that the beaches were unsuitable, it was too far away from the Helles bridgehead for mutual support and it would be vulnerable to Turkish attacks from both north and south. So Suvla was chosen instead.Paulturtle (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Planning & Choice of Invasion Sites 

message: Photo and short text added to the 'Graves and memorials' section is something I considered worth salvaging from the recently deleted article about John Hancox. Meticulo (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: John Hancox grave

message: Isn’t this an invasion? If it is, why isn’t it named that way? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 21:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, do you mean the article's title, or are you referring to the wording in the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

text: G'day, the article briefly mentions the advantage in terms of naval artillery (although this diminished throughout the campaign), but it also highlights that the Allies were unable to concentrate sufficient land-based artillery. In regards to your query, do you have a proposal for what should be mentioned and where you would propose this be added, as well as sources that support the proposed addition? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Not dubious at all since it's based on scholarly work on Gallipoli published by the Oxford University. You want to claim it's dubious since I always added a source from Al Jazeera. 
Wikipedia is not a tool for propaganda. Is good to detail the ethnic composition of the Ottoman defense. 
First you proposed to remove it from the header, very well. Although I do believe it should be added to the Ottoman defenses. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BRD This is Mickey Mouse nonsense, what does the geographical origins of Ottoman soldiers have to do with the Gallipoli campaign? Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These were Ottoman Troops consisting of many ethnic backgrounds which need to be highlighted as it's very important to really understand the dynamics of the campaign and the defenses. I will undo your edit. As you can find me proof that the 9th division consisted of any other troops. I'm all for breaking down all divisions on the page and what they consisted of. Stop removing invaluable data. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Make your case here that the geographical origins of Ottoman troops makes a difference to the Gallipoli Campaign. Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, in its current form the information lacks context and potentially it may be too much detail for this article, which should be a summary, and should point to daughter articles to explain things in more detail. I'd suggest, though, that potentially some of the information could be added to where the 19th Division is first mentioned in the article. It should be done in a way that doesn't break up the narrative flow too much, though. For instance, perhaps . The topic could then be covered in more detail on the article about the division itself and also potentially the Ottoman Empire during World War I article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Something on the structure of the Ottoman army won't go amiss and I've found enough for a paragraph or two in Erickson. It could explain why the 19th and 9th divisions were there. If there is significance in their areas of recruitment it would fit in a passage like this although we don't often go into such things with the other polyglot armies. If the troops were fighting a long way from home that could be worth a mention. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *  In 1914, the defence of the Dardanelles was the responsibility of the Dardanelles Fortified Area Command (DFAC), which oversaw the forts and an artillery brigade with one heavy and two medium regiments. The forts and guns were concentrated at the mouth of the Dardanelles and along the narrows with skeleton peacetime garrisons. North of the peninsula, the III Corps had its headquarters at the garrison town of Tekirdag, comprising the 7th, 8th and 9th divisions, the 9th Field Artillery Regiment, the 3rd Cavalry Brigade and support elements. The III Corps had been the only corps of the Ottoman army to emerge relatively intact from the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The III Corps received its mobilisation order on 2 August 1914; the peacetime establishment of the 7th Division was 200 officers, 5,021 men and 724 animals and the other two divisions had similarly low establishments. III Corps was the only one in the army to meet the mobilisation schedule and by 21 August had incorporated 28,945 men and 7,402 animals. On mobilisation the 9th Division was attached to the DFAC as its mobile reserve; the Command found difficulty in filling its specialist posts but by 17 August had put the heavy artillery on a war footing and by the end of the month the commander of the 9th Division had begun discussions with the fortress command to devise a defence scheme. In September the 9th Division began to move into the peninsula and the 7th Division joined the 9th Division at the end of October; III Corps headquarters moved to Gallipoli on 4 November, the 8th Division being ordered to transfer to the Sinai Desert in Palestine, to be replaced by the mainly Syrian 19th Division.
*  Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Composition 

message: The caption is wrong. There were no units of Artillerie Coloniale present during the Gallipoli campaign.) Those men who are manning the 75mm are from the metropolitan army of France. The word "colonial" should be removed from the caption. Keith H99 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for picture of French gunners 

message: Change “Captain Faik in charge of the of the 27th Battalion located there verified it with his binoculars and immediately informed his commanding officer, Ismet Bey, at Kabatepe.” to “Captain Faik in charge of the 27th Battalion located there verified it with his binoculars and immediately informed his commanding officer, Ismet Bey, at Kabatepe.” The heatmiser (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Please next time don't copy the whole sentence (it made me look for a change elsewhere needlessly); just the relevant bit... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Somebody needs to check the original source (or you need to provide a more precise one) but given the military rank the above seems logical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021 

message: In the casualties and losses section, change 'New Zeeland' to 'New Zealand'. 115.189.99.226 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, tks. Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021 

message: The word 'repulsed' needs to be changed to 'repelled' throughout the article. Spellingandgrammarchecker (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done: Cambridge Dictionary - repulse: "to push away or refuse something or someone unwanted, especially to successfully stop a physical attack against you." Enough said... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021 

message: {{subst:trim|1=
25.000 Albanian volunteers need to be added on Ottoman's side which died in battle. 
25.000 Albanian volunteers need to be added on Ottoman's side which died in battle. There are many sources and facts which prove that.
Source:
^ "ÇANAKALA, THE BATTLE WHERE 25 THOUSAND ALBANIANS WERE KILLED FOR TURKEY". Zani and Malsise. Valmir Kuci. Retrieved April 2, 2017
CuriousHistorian (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now. The reference you refer to is apparently this, which is a blog, and given the amount that's been written on the subject I'd personally prefer something more reliable. Curiously, I can find no trace of it or anything with that title being cited on Wikipedia, despite you apparently providing a retrieval date. Further discussion welcome. FDW777 (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021 

message: The box gives these casualty totals:
*British Empire
**31389 killed
**9708 missing and POWs
**78749 wounded
**78494 evacuated sick
**198340 total
*France
**9000 killed and missing
**18000 wounded
**20000 evacuated sick
*Australia
**7594 killed
**18500 wounded
*New Zealand
**3431 killed
**4140 wounded
*Total 300,000 including 51,000 killed
Why are the Australian and Kiwi deaths counted twice?  Or why are they excluded from the Imperial total?  64.203.186.112 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty statistics in box 

message: Good day: wish to submit a book of personal observations by one in attendance of this battle. "Trenching at Gallipoli" written by (Alonso, he dropped this first name) John Gallishaw (1890-1968), a Newfoundlander. He incorrectly reports the Aussie deaths at 10k but this anecdotal account is at least interesting and First Person as he was there. His credentials as a writer are impressive. He was badly wounded and wrote this sometime before 1917. http://ngb.chebucto.org/NFREG/WWI/ww1-add-gallishaw1369.shtml
Thank you and regards, Philip S. Webster Psw808 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: New items go at the bottom, regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Could be listed in "Further Reading" before: Gatchel, Theodore L. (1996). At the Water's Edge: Defending against the Modern Amphibious Assault. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-308-4.
Gallishaw, John (1916). Trenching At Gallipoli``2nd Edition. 3. World War, 19114-1918, Personal Narratives, Canadian. St. John's, NL-Canada: DRC Publishing; D568.3G3 2005 940.4'26    C2005-900571-8
p.IV
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psw808 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Suggestion