Talk:Gallipoli campaign/Archive 1

Untitled
An event in this article is a January 9 selected anniversary

Commanders
Strictly speaking, Von Sanders(An ottoman Pasha even before World War) was the Turkish commander. I only included Germany as a combatant because they provided machine gunners and artillery(*false batteries over gallipoli was built by Abdulhamit II). 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(Appeared as Hero of Anafartas, as an officer not a commander).


 * 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)

We also forget the Colonel Şefik Aker, Commander of the 27th Regiment --88.245.31.51 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 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 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)

Gallipoli should be a Campaign, not a Battle! As it is always called in Australia & New Zealand, while in Britain it is the Dardanelles Campaign (not Battle). While said to be against the Wiki naming policy, but the page dealing with the policy does not make any mention of Campaigns or Theatres in a War! Wiki has in WWI “the Sinai-Palestine Campaign” and in the American Civil War the Franklin-Nashville Campaign and the Trans- Mississippi Theatre. Are we going to call them the Sinai-Palestine Battle etc? Hugo999 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC) PS: this discussion started in 2004, why not do it!

Just to say that there is a little mistake in the introduction : in France, this battle has only been only known as the « Bataille des Dardanelles » (Dardanelles Battle) and Gallipoli has never been heard as a name for it. I let you change it in the article. Glotz 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the Commonwealth War Graves Commission leaflet (ie an official leaflet): the title is The Gallipoli Campaign, 1915. It starts with a paragraph on the Naval attempt to force the Dardanelles in March 1915. Fred Waite's The New Zealanders at Gallipoli just refers to Gallipoli, but has references to individual battles: Battle of Krithia, Sari Bair, Lone Pine. Hugo999 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with most that calling it the "Battle of Gallipoli" is a bit of a misnomer, considering the majority terms used in other countries who participated in the battles of that campaign. "The Gallipoli Campaign" would be more apropos than as such as it is referred to now. Firstly, when you refer to maps regarding the battle, the only sight of the word "Gallipoli" is the town on the western shores of the Dardanelles on the northern part of the peninsula; there was never a battle there during this particular campaign that made this particular event to be known as such. Secondly, the peninsula as a whole is referred to "Gallipoli" (though not shown by cartography), making 'campaign' the proper term for this region of conflict during of WWI. IF one really wants to be technical about it, maybe it should be called the "Gallipoli Peninsula Campaign", but I think "Gallipoli Campaign" would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * bump. one of the things i noticed reading this is that the spot marked gallipoli doesn't really seem to come up anywhere but the title.203.206.42.213 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Gallipoli campaign was just that - a 'campaign'. Not a battle. A campaign consists of many battles. Some of the battles fought during the Gallipoli campaign were 'The Landing', '1st Krithia', '2nd Krithia', 'Gully Ravine', 'Sari Bair' and 'Hill 60'. A battle could be further broken down into 'actions'. For example, during the Battle of Sari Bair, three well-known actions in Australia and New Zealand were 'Lone Pine', Chunuk Bair' and 'The Nek'. The 'Battles Nomenclature Committee' of the British government decided / decides on the names of battles, and to suggest that this aspect of history be overridden by Wikipedia guidelines seems presumptuous, to say the least. Hayaman (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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) Remarks are too subjective.. and it is not Gallipoly.. Gallipoli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.195.7 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"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 (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)


 * I agree here that using Turkish (really alluding to "Turks") is a bit of a misnomer and referring to the Peoples of the Ottoman Empire as "Ottomans" for this battle (or purpose of that time frame during the reign of the Ottomans) is appropriate. Turks were not just in this area, and go back as far as pre 600 CE in the larger but general (and not exclusively) Manchurian areas. Tommy6860 —Preceding comment was added at 23:13, 19 November 2007 (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)


 * There were at least two Arab regiments at Canakkale. This is well documented.  Arab regiments were fighting in the Ottoman Army as far as Russian front.  This is not unsual and unexpected at all.  This was an Empire.  Their fighting capability and skills were always found inferior to "Turkish" stock though (no offense intended), and one often runs into communications where Ottoman/Turkish officers demand more "Turkish" troops.--Murat (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2008 (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

The numbers above are the most accurate. --Murat (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * There were Arab divisions which were sent to Gallipoli as reinforcements but there are many legends about their effect on the war and at one point Atatürk said "Give me the Turks" because of the poor performance of the Arab troops both because of their poor will of fight and the unsuitable battleground for them (they were trained and fought in the Middle East, a totally different place than Gallipoli). Warriors from Anatolia won the Battle of Gallipoli. Deliogul 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There certainly were many Arab troops and officers throughout the Ottoman army almost at all fronts. There were also plenty Greek and Armenian officers.  My grandfather fought side by side with all of them.--Murat (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the German Wehrmacht, was it? Of course it consisted of various ethnic groups and minorities. Still it was the Turkish army, are you objecting to this? In tradition of previous Turkish states (like the Seljuk named after Selçuk Bey), Ottoman (Osman) is just the name of the bey who laid the foundations of the empire, it is not a name that signifies the unification of nations like "United Kingdom" or "United States of America". So what do you think you are actually doing by replacing Ottomans with Turks? What would you do if Turks didn't have such tradition, if it was just the Turkish Empire instead of Ottoman?--194.27.64.188 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually many young boys were sent from Istanbul itself, it is said that there was no family lef in Istanbul that did not send a son to the front. An Arab regiment I know is the 77th, that was supposed to cover the 27th and 57th of Colonel Şefik Aker and Mustafa Kemal but failed miserably in doing so. eae1983 --88.245.31.51 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish is the right word. Repeat, Turkish is the right word..

Let me repeat the third time it is not Ottoman, it is Turkish. People is the matter not the corrupt government.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.195.7 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Thechncially Ottoman is the right name, but it is no great sin to use "Turk" as most of Europe and the World referred them by that name also.--Murat (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed link - why?

 * Gallipoli: The Game - A satirical Lemmings-style computer game based on the ANZAC landings at Gallipoli, based on the open-source game Pingus

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)

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)

A dramatic if not convincing film, with David Jason, not in this article though! Hugo999 12:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220969/

No mystery here. These boys went too fast too far and were cut off. They chose to fight rather than surrender and all perished. A similar thing happened to a small Turkish unit too, having found themselves behind the French rear, fighting the cooks and the nurses, they managed to pull back in the "fog" of war with light losses.--Murat (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A book on this matter was published about 15 years ago, name and author totally escape me. I have the impression, perhaps wrongly+, that rather more than 200 men were involved. However, a couple of points stick in my mind. First both the CO and his son (a platoon comd) were killed. Second a handful of men survived and returned home after the war. They reported what would now be called a major war crime. The Turks took a lot of prisoners and executed them on the spot, the handful who survived were saved by the intercession of a German officer. Nfe (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the story is a conflation of two separate events: the loss of a large number of men on the 12th, and a fog on a consecutive day with a small number of casualties. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

The actual genesis for the campaign for the "Dardanelles" was, indeed, Churchill as a part of a very high-level, conceptual aspriation bold enough to break the stalemate that had been created by trench warfare late in 1914. However, nothing substantive occurred until Secretary to the War Council, Maurice Hankey, suggested that an attack on Constantinople via the Dardanelles by navy and army (75,000 troops) would do the trick. As to the assertion that Churchill underestimated Turkish troop strength, that seems misplaced. It was "Kitchner's confidence in Turkish weakness [that] was the decisive factor in all that followed". Up to that time, Churchill had been a avid supporter of a strong ground force to consolidate the gains he expected from the initial naval campaign. emesselt (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualty figures in the table on this page definitely don't add up on the total line. Why is there such an obvious error - that is inappropriate. It looks like there may need to be a range for the Turkish casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.189.181 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Consider it fourthed. The numbers in the box at the top right of the page seem idiotic. 700,000 turkish dead? 550,000 British empire and french dead? That cant be right. I thought it was about 10,000 apiece -- Will James 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the numbers. Here they are. I got that from this site - http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-gallipoli.html. I'm new to the whole wikipedia thing so I'd apprecate it if someone else did the adding of casualty information. Remember to cite it if you need to. --Will James 07:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Australia: 18.500 wounded and missing - 7,594 killed.
 * New Zealand : 5,150 wounded and missing - 2,431 killed.
 * British Empire (excl. Anzac) : 198,000 wounded and missing - 22,000 killed.
 * France : 23,000 wounded and missing - 27,000 killed.
 * Ottoman Empire (Turkey) : 109,042 wounded and missing - 57,084 killed.
 * Furthermore 1.700 Indians died in Gallipoli, plus an unknown number of Germans, Newfoundlanders and Senegalese.

The above seems to be the most realisitic. I do not think there is one resource that that gives all the figures accurately. France: 27K killed seems way too high, more likley 10K. 17K wounded. Newfoundland: 49 killed, 93 wounded. Ottomans: 57K battlefield dead, 18K more in the hospitals and disease, 92K wounded. From Turkish military archives. Actuals may be higher due to conditions of the country at the time. One day I will add all these up!--Murat (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think there are two issues: 1) What are the most accurate numbers, and 2) the sub(totals) in the table are wrong (the numbers do not add up). It should be easy to at least fix the second issue but perhaps someone should edit the table who's also been researching the right numbers? 212.186.105.130 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)dpk

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)

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)

we lost 4 million people again in our Independence war and our men population was 1 million and women population was 9 7 million when we got our independence.After all these Mustafa Kemal did great things to our country for our improvement.We are still here bacause of Mustafa Kemal.If he couldnt change the whole war in Gallipoli now you can see a British colonial empire and a republic of ottoman empire defeated by British Colonilization and emperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.81.104 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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)
 * trivia => wikia. Any links that actually have relevance should be shortened to a link under "see also" (such as reference books actually on the subject), the anzac dedication should be on the anzac (or the fsr separate anzac spirit, or anzac day) page, some of the cultural prose (ie the paras starting 'in australia..' and 'in turkey..') could be revised (there is a well-written paragraph under the gallipoli heading here - Military history of Australia, etc) and added to either the overview or 'political repercussions' (which irkn should be a subheading under aftermath btw) section, and the rest should be removed. The fact that something simply references gallipoli doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with the actual subject. eg PJ Harvey is neither a war historian or a ww2 vet.203.206.42.213 (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

Talk:Gallipoli --> Gallipoli, Turkey
There is a 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)

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)

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)


 * I'm surprised that it lasted so long there. I have removed this text from the article:


 * It is tempting to suppose the Gallipoli campaign could have had a different outcome by asking "What if?" certain events had followed a different course, whether through luck or leadership.
 * The Battle of Gallipoli was a finely balanced struggle with neither side able to exploit any slight advantage. When the Allies achieved a breakthrough, such as at Lone Pine or the second battle of Krithia, they lacked the reserves to continue the advance. Likewise when the Turks halted an Allied attack, their counter-attacks were unable to rout the enemy.


 * --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

ottoman etc.
I wouldnt use Turkish since there were many ethinical groups. I'd rather see Ottoman or even Muslim to be used in this article. I'v e been to the place and there were pakistani's etc.

Turkish is not just an ethnical definition dude. He, who is a Turkish Citizen, is Turkish. Battle of Gallipoli can said to be the most important section of the Turkish Independency War. And in fact, the commander of this battle was Mustafa Kemal who is honoured by Turkish nation with the name 'Atatürk' that means 'Father of Turks'. Battle of Gallipoli's why he is named so. Gundoganfa 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We were already independent!!! This was to stop The Allied force... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.22.224 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

mystery
The cloud was Allah's work. Also there was a cannon stil hot that was used in syria wich came in to help at Gallipoli. Its no magic alright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.53.211.52 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

hahahaha!!

"tragically"
I've restored the word "tragically" to this sentence. The Turks launched a major assault at Anzac on 19 May — 42,000 Turks attacked 10,000 Australians and New Zealanders — but the attack tragically miscarried.

An anon removed the word with the following edit summary: "Non neutrol POV - Inappropriate to say "tragically" - one side's tragedy is another side's victory.."

I don't agree with this. To my mind the use of the descriptive word is linked to the attack, not the campaign as a whole. Of course this attack was a tragedy for the Turks, just as the Nek assault was a tragedy for the Australians. NPOV doesn't mean that we have to excise all description or emotion from our writing. --Pete 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

i would say that the 42,000 turks (probably quite reasonably) assumed they would quickly overrun the smaller force, and that it was on this assumption that they charged into battle against the enemy. while it may be unreasonable to suggest that such a seemingly overwhelming attack was the product of hubris, the fact that it ultimately failed means that the assumption of superiority was unrealistic (due to a lack of equipment and initiative or the element of surprise, according to the rest of the paragraph; see also hamartia {and Talk:Tragedy}, and therefore tragic. I'm not going to change anything on the page, but i would say that the definitions of tragic and tragedy both on wiki (certainly the disambiguation page - "A tragedy is a literary work with an unhappy outcome") and the wider web fall short of the specific dramatic and general definitions i was taught in school - in general use, if something is tragic then it happened to someone as a result of something they (or an associated party) did, especially if that thing was something they (or the associated party) should have known not to do or could have prevented. eg your roof suddenly collapses and kills you - bummer, but an accident, not a tragedy; you think your ceiling is unstable so you poke it with a broom handle, and then it collapses on you - tragic. To apply that analogy to this battle, the Turks were very sure they had the right ceiling-poking tools, and that the ceiling wasn't particularly dangerous, but it turned out they didn't and it was - both a bummer and a tragedy, at least as far as they were concerned.203.206.42.213 (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clearly WP:POV, which might be defendable on the grounds that virtually everyone would agree, but worse than that, it's WP:SYNTHESIS, requiring as it does all that analyisis of and assumptions about Turkish expectations. Drop the adjectives and adverbs. They're not needed. Let the readers draw their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yes...i should not have said 'I'm not going to change anything on the page', rather and in retrospect that the edit was correct but that i generally agree with the use of the adjective

Constantinople or Istanbul?
By the time of the campaign, the capital had been named Istanbul for over four hundred years. Isn't that the name that should be used? Jontomkittredge 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Western Countries apparently kept referring to Istanbul as Constantinople until the 1930s, when the Turks pressed the issue, but the Turks had used the name Istanbul for a long time. (See: Names of Istanbul.) I suggest that the intro paragraph be changed to talk about the UK-France objective as being "Istanbul (which, at the time, was still called "Constantinople" in the European vernacular.)  Then the rest of the article can stand as-is, just because all of the contemporary western documents refer to it as Constantinople.  71.199.122.99 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed from trivia - sole example of truce
Someone with a less than encylopedic knowledge of history, much less this war, had this entry in the trivia section: A day's truce was arranged to facilitate the removal of the dead and wounded; this momentary contact led to a strange camaraderie between the armies, and courtesies not observed elsewhere in the war.

To which I can simply reply - "Uh, hello, Christmas truce of 1914?" RoyBatty42 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * you could have rewritten it under the camaraderie section that has been haphazardly plonked in the middle203.206.42.213 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Casualty figures
Do we have any reliable sources for the casualty figures? Baristarim 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a source for Ottoman casulties:


 * 55,000 killed
 * 21,000 dead from disease
 * 100,000 injured
 * 64,000 invalided out during the fighting
 * 10,000 missing

Andrew Mango, 1999. Ataturk. John Murray. p.156.

He gives a less detailed breakdown of Allied casualty figures at 213,980, citing Encylopedia Brittanica, 15th edn, XIX, 951. --A.Garnet 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I tried to raise the possibility of a FA push at WPMILHIST - I hope that they can get involved as well. Baristarim 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a problem here-Up at the top of the article it says casualties were slightly higher for the British forces then the Turks,then near the end of the article a different set of numbers has the British winning 2-1.Im not sure which is accurate,please make them conform.

Is it just me, or is the final total (533,527) underivable from the other numbers? Derek Chong 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These numbers are in serious error.

Reviewing various sources, my estimate for the Allies is a total casualty of 252K, and killed or lost 53K.

Turkish dead 75K (includes dead in the hospitals), 97K wounded. 55K battlefield loss from Mango seems close to 57K from other Turkish sources. Total casualties: 172K. Due to conditions of the day, actual losses may be higher. Men and lives were spent generously. These are from official Turkish military archives and from other sources. I think these are more accurate.

Why there is no clear and precise number for both sides is a mystery. What is not a mystery is that on either side killed were no more than 60K each.--Murat (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence is incorrect:

''Based on the figures in the table, France (37%), New Zealand (35%) and Newfoundland (34%) suffered the greatest percentage of dead per total force contributed. However, all nations at Gallipoli suffered losses of over 25%.''

The table merely gives the dead to wounded ratio of all casualties. To get the deaths to 'total force contributed', you need to have the number for the total force contributed. This is not included in the table. Michael - 6 Oct 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.164.131 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, those rates are very wrong. For instance, the New Zealand casualty rate was 87%, based on the figures here. I've deleted those sentences from the article.
 * I've also replaced the figures in the table of casualties with those recently published by the Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. Some are identical to the previous figures, and others are only slightly different, but the Turkish figures are much higher. I suspect none of these figures are as accurate as they imply, but at least now they are sourced. -- Avenue (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New sections
Three new sections should be added to this article: "Cultural Influence" (relating to the battle's notoriety among the general public, particularly in Australia, New Zealand and Turkey), "Political Backlash" (accounting for the immediate political consequnces of Gallipoli, the new cabinet, Churchill's sacking and the Dardenelles Commission) and "Conditions" (describing the notorious conditions suffered by both sides over the 10 months).Nwe 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10 months? GrahamBould 20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

8 months, now aren't you clever.Nwe 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Australia
Why does it list Australia under British Empire, Australia became independant in 1901. It also should mention Australia and NZ in the opening line. Unsigned comment at 11:06, 2 July 2007 by user:121.45.52.163


 * It didn't achieve independence in 1901: it became a largely self-governing dominion of the British Empire. Its soldiers served under British Expeditionary Force command and control. Australia continued to issue British passports to Australians until 1949. R OGER   TALK 12:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The truth is somewhere between the above two posts. The meaning of Dominion status changed significantly and rapidly over the years, and one could argue that it is almost meaningless as a description. Before 1931, the Dominions (as such) were independent in all matters except foreign affairs (including trade). Even in those, they could and did exercise informal independence. Their citizens were officially called "British", even though their citizenship, passports etc were controlled by the Dominion govts.


 * Therefore, in WW1 the declaration of war was made by the UK and covered the Dominions. However, the recruiting and deployment of armed forces was controlled by the Dominions. Hence the long and bitter debate in Australia about conscription, which was never implemented in Australia during WW1, unlike Canada. Cheers, Grant  |  Talk  10:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dominion" was the name given to all self governing member countries of the British Empire (later British Commonwealth) e.g New Zealand and Canada as well as Australia. Australia did become a self governing country (Federation) in 1901. However, full independance from Britain was a slower process. The Statute of Westminster (1934) which was finally ratified by Australia (the last Dominion to do so) in 1942 afforded a degree of legal independance but it was not until the Australia Act of 1988 that Australian citizens lost the right to appeal legal cases to the British House of Lords. As for conscription, this was also the policy of New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombat40 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kitchener
I feel this article is too easy on Lord Kitchener.It was clear he knew nothing of the terrain in the Dardanelles,had no proper plan if the navy did not succeed,appointed yes men(Hamilton),and did not even fully inform them properly on the plans. Even Hamilton in his diaries states "''My knowledge of the Dardanelles was nil;of the Turk nil; of the strength of our own forces next to nil. Although i have met K. almost every day during the past six months,and although he has twice hinted that imight be sent to Salonika, never once, to the best of my recollection had he mentioned the word Dardanelles." The only reason he was not blamed for the fiasco that followed,as many others were, was his popularity with the public.--Sandbagger 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I havn't read the article properly yet so I'm not sure how much it blames him. However, he wanted nothing to do with the campaign right from the start, and was only dragged in by Churchill's insistence on starting it off, with the notional idea that no army troops would be necessary. If he had been enthusiastic from the start then it might hve turned out differently, but he wasn't. In the sense he always thought and said it was a bad idea, was he to blame when it failed? He believed it a waste of resources, should he then honestly have voluntarily added more? It seems likely the landings could havebeen a success if handled differently, but that still begs the question of what would have heppened next? Sandpiper (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal?
Wasn't Mustafa Kemal relatively low-ranking back then? I'm 100% positive that he had some Turkish superior-in-command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe he had his own battalion. But I'm probably wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bryce (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A battalion would make him insignificant in a campaign of this size. In fact, he commanded a division and did play a significant part, albeit subordinate to Sanders. Grant |  Talk  10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC) this is really good for those children who are in secondary learning history it really help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.8.144 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk's CO was East Paşa, who reported to Liman Paşa. M. Kemal was only a Liutenant Colonel until June 1st 1915, when he was made a Colonel. He ended up taking over command of an area and resources that were way above his pay grade, but by that time most, inlcuding Germans and Enver, had recognized his talents.--Murat (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Decisive?
Why is this described as decisive?. Gallipoli was a failur but to descibe the battle as decisive is palpably wrong. The British defeated the Ottoman Turks during WW1. See Allenby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.102.105 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

yes but this is about the independence war of turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.224.112 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose the Ottomans lost anyway, but it still allowed them not collapse early on in the war. It also meant that the Allies could not send supplies to Russia as easily. Paper Toad (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
I'm afriad that I have quickfailed this for GA as it contains a severe paucity of references. There should be at least one reference per paragrpah and here there is no where near that quantity. There are also substantial prose and layout problems which would probably have prevented promotion, but at this stage there is no chance of the article passing without thorough referencing. Apologies and Regards, --Jackyd101 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we work on this? This article deserves better.--Murat (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

geographical inconsistancy
In the middle of the page, Anzac goes from being the name of the forces from down under, to a place which is not on any of the maps. It continues to be compared to geographically, which makes many of the battles hard to place. Thanks, 38.119.205.11 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Lyle Monster

There is no inconsistency. Both terms are used. 'Anzac' is a place - actually two places : the Anzac sector of Gallipoli, and Anzac Cove, a small inlet within the sector. It is also how the soldiers are referred to - 'Anzacs'. It is also the name of the holiday - 'Anzac Day' observed in Australian and New Zealand, and has a few other applications as well. I'm curious as to how you concluded that 'Anzac Cove' 'is not on any of the maps'. It's certainly on many maps I've seen concerning the campaign. Hayaman 00:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talk • contribs)

Badly Named Page - Galipolli Was Not A Battle.
Galipolli was not a battle it was a series of battles, over a period of time. More properly this is known as a campaign. Therefore this page should be named teh Galipolli Campaign, not the Battle of Galipolli. Any takers? Jtan163 (talk) I would suggest by comparison The Battle of the Somme, also known as the Somme Offensive, fought from July to November 1916,. I think traditionally it would be called the battle of the somme, despite taking 5 months. Some battles are slow. Sandpiper (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst the norm is to call it a battle, Jtan163 is perfectly correct to call it a series of battles. Wikipedia itself acknowledges this in their List of Battles article. Joe Deagan (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of this talk page I see this was already discussed and I don't understand why it was not changed to the Gallipoli campaign! Although I have already stated the norm is to call it a battle, I have also heard it referred to as a campaign, which strictly speaking is the correct definition. I am tempted to be Bold but will hold back and see if anyone can make me any the wiser as to the reason for not changing it. Joe Deagan (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Campaign in far more accurate. J M Rice (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Campaign it should be. GrahamBould (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember though that the Wikipedia convention is to use the most commonly recognised and used name in the public domain (see WP:Name). Which in this case is the Battle of Gallipoli. Another example of this kind of outcome is the Battle of Monte Cassino which was in fact 4 battles spread over 4 months. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, a Google search finds about 83,000 "Gallipoli Campaign" & about 42,000 "Battle of Gallipoli". GrahamBould (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Potato, potahto....Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gallipoli campaign was a series of battles on land and sea fought over a period of ten months in four widely dispersed geographic locations. Hayaman 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talk • contribs)

Calendar
Something that's only just occurred to me is that Turkey was still using the Julian calendar in 1915, which was 13 days behind the Gregorian. I presume that "25 April" was the date in the Gregorian calendar, and that the Turks called the same day "12 April". Can anyone confirm this? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

List of sources
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Name changed at last.
I have taken the bold but timely step of changing the article name. I have also moved all relevant articles into the new Category:Gallipoli Campaign. I still need to go through and rename the Category:Battle of Gallipoli Victoria Cross recipients and its subcategories. Minor changes to various articles to reflect the name change have also been completed. Glenn Sisson (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! GrahamBould (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good move! Jack forbes (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Glenn. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I've noticed that there is an enormous amount of vandalism going on recently on this article, can we get someone to protect the page? Kortaggio (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

German battlecruiser Roon
There is a photo captioned Heavy artillery from the German battlecruiser Roon, 1915 which to me is a little confusing. SMS Roon was only disarmed in 1916, so the dates don't fit. Also, if the dates are sorted out, & it's the same ship, then it might be interesting to put this information in the ship article. GrahamBould (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

<<< There was no German Battlecruiser called Roon. The Roon was an Armoured Cruiser. Edited the wording.

Bouvet
It says the French battleship Bouvet exploded under mysterious circumstances. If you click on the Bouvet though, the page clearly asserts what happened (a mine blew it up). This fact is cited and sourced. So could someone fix this error? Uberlieder (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you fix it? Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Preperations
It is stated that Ottomans while preparing for the defense of Gallipoli, supposedly decided that it was best to defend the high ground. Nothing could be firther from truth. Commanders on the ground had actually decided that it was best not to allow the attackers to land and gain a foothold in the first place. German general on the other hand, whom Enver trusted with the overall theater, decided that it was best to pull back to high ground and wait for the landings. To make matters worse, Liman Pasa made a very wrong bet on where the first attack would be. He kept most of the forces tied far from the main action, while a very thin line of Turkish defenders bore the brunt of the initial allied attacks and landings. As usual, the other side of the story is not well represented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.158.17 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Slim Dusty
Well, I added Slim Dusty to the musical part of the article, because he did these very distinct lines: a heritage was carved in blood / and the fighting man was born // on the rugged slopes of Gallipoli / where the digger earned his name / and the admiration of the Turk / Australia is his name. Very good song, by the way, released back in 1983. -andy 92.229.132.145 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Landings
I have tidied up the end of this section by mentioning that no real advance was made to take advance of the initial landing, allowing for Turk reinforcments to be brought up. I hope this is fine with everyone as i have made it so that it works in with the first battle (with Mustapha Kemal).--Willski72 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Extraodrinarily one sided POV
I will not attempt to edit the article, there are too many more knowledgable contributors close at hand. I will make the (for me) blatantly obvious remark that the treatment here is extraordinarily one sided: we learn much about British motives, allied advances and British defeats, not to mention the suffering of those soldiers who's homes lay on the other side of the world and who, thus, had no argument with the Turks. We learn far too little about the campaign's effects on Ottomans military policy, politics, etc. Remember there are two sides to every conflict. In this case you shortchange the narrative of victim in order to magnify the role of the aggressor.

--Philopedia (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might this be because WP:NOR requires contributions to be supported by published sources and the English language is short of sources covering these issues? If Philopedia is so upset by this he should not "not attempt to edit the article" and denigrate the good faith efforts of contributions made by editors so far but should find some sources and put the matter straight. Otherwise he is being just as POV as he claims the article to be. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's the aggressor and who's the victim. The Ottomman Empire declared War on the British Empire (note Empire) not the other way round, much more information is known on the British side, which is of course very in depth. Apart from the fact that it built up Mustafa Kemal (who would eventually become Ataturk) not many people know what effect it had on the turk side or the effect on the Ottoman Empire. It did divert Ottoman troops from the Egypt area giving British troops there a break but thats all i know.--Willski72 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, "not many people know" is exactly why it needs to be added to the article. I'm pretty sure Turkish historians "know" about it. Isn't Wikipedia a depository for all knowledge? However, that being said, Kirrage is right (of course, then this is a problem about policy). We must find English speaking authorities on the late Ottoman Empire. Paper Toad (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Philopedia, excellent observation and a few had tried to raise it before. This whole article certainly reads like a pure British history. 90K Turks died there defending their home against "lads" who traveled half way around the World to defend Colonial interests. It is true that there has been more archival info available on the Alled side.

Turks had no beef with UK, on the contrary, some intellectuals of the time and even including some in government sought a British mandate. Churchill was too hungry for the posessions of the sick man of Europe though. Confiscation of a cruiser built for the Ottman navy, paid by public donations, was the last straw. Enver took a gamble. In any case, I have already filled in many missing aspects of the Turkish story and historical details, from naval engagements to some key land battles.

This battle has a lot greater significance for the Turkish nation and state than what is suggested here. Much work is needed and now there is so much material. It will be done. This is a nice article. Deserves it.

Most definately it needs to focus more on the Turkish side of the affair. By "not many people know" i was backing up Kirrages who made the point about the fact that it is understandable that it is British orientated when you take into account who will read and contribute to this article. As Wikipedia is public and does not hire in professionals this is self-evident. However we must be careful to try and keep it neutral. The Ottoman Empire declared war on Britain, not the other way around. And the two countries were already fighting around Egypt and the Levant. The whole point of this campaign as espoused by Churchill was to quickly capture Constantinople and thus force the Ottomans to come to terms, so that the British Empire could focus its troops on the Western Front. It was nothing to do with splitting up the Ottoman Empire and keeping its provinces for British imperialism (this occurred through League mandates and went to France as well. And Russia had offered this before the Crimean War anyway). In a way this battle helped to forge the Turkish nation out of the old Ottoman Empire, possibly more than any other single event. However, unfortunately, we need an expert.Willski72 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to snipe at the British Empire, who 'who travelled half way around the World to defend Colonial interests' but that's completely wrong. The First World War began due to German expansions and invasion of Neutral Belgium and Austro-Hungary's advances in the Balkan states and the Ottoman Empire was on these two's side. The Ottoman Empire was the aggressor being that it declared war in the first place... Which clearly places it as the aggressor.

And it's not like the Ottoman's are the anti-Imperialist good guys, the Ottoman EMPIRE should give you a clue why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.56.58 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

hear, hear. good luck finding anything NPOV on this subject - it all stinks of BS to me.203.206.42.213 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try K. Fewster's "Gallipoli: The Turkish Story" published in 2003 by Allen & Unwin. Or you could visit the museum on the peninsular itself. It is full of information about the Turkish troops and the Turkish POV. Really if one hasn't even visited the area, or studied the POV and actual histories of each side, then you shouldn't be qualified to alter the main page. So much of this page is still, in 2012, unsourced or poorly cited.60.234.229.163 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Popular Influence
I'd like to suggest the addition of the novel "Birds Without Wings" by Louis de Bernières in which he depicts the Gallipoli Campaign from the Turkish soldiers point of view and does so with much truth and compassion. Chris McEvilly (chrlor@sympatico.ca) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.119.188 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminology: ANZAC / Anzac
For a discussion on when it is appropriate and when it is not to fully-capitalise the noun 'Anzac' see the discussion page on the 'Anzac Day' article.

I note in this article, within the Notes/Citations sections, the following:

6^ Bean, C.E.W. (1941) [1921]. Official Histories – First World War. Volume I – The Story of ANZAC from the outbreak of war to the end of the first phase of the Gallipoli Campaign, May 4, 1915 (11th ed.). Canberra: Australian War Memorial. Cover page.

The original title has the word 'Anzac' - referring to the geographic location on the Gallipoli Peninsula ('the Anzac sector'), within the title, NOT 'ANZAC' (referring to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). Bean (the author) never referred to ANZAC without 'the' preceding it, as in 'the A&NZAC').

28^ a b ANZAC Day 2008 - The Gallipoli Campaign, Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. Accessed 24 March 2009.

The link is broken, but observe: http://www.dva.gov.au/DVASearchResults.aspx?k=anzac%20day for the form of the word used by the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

34^ "'ANZAC Day' in London; King, Queen, and General Birdwood at Services in Abbey," New York Times. April 26, 1916.

Following the link to the actual original article reveals the reference to 'Anzac Day' ; Not 'ANZAC Day' as it is indicated here.

37^ "Aussies forget the NZ in ANZAC", AAP.com.au

As for the point above. Unless someone can present a convincing argument as to why these terms have to be altered and cannot be referred to as they were originally written, I intend to alter the links above accordingly. --Hayaman 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The casualties section still looks odd.
There is a extrange chart at the casualties section, from the  Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs, I have tried to look at the source itself but its a dead link. The chart claims that the allies suffered 141,000 casualties (Too low, most sources agree with 240K-260K figure). Could someone check this now, look for a "realiable source" and replace the chart or look for a updated link??


 * This still seems to be an issue as the columns don't add up either... I have no access to sources due to being overseas for work though. Can someone please look into this? Anotherclown (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lord Fisher's Renunciation of the Dardanelles Campaign
I think this deserves some revision and augmentation for clarification purposes, listed under the 'Prelude' section of the article:

"First Sea Lord John Fisher opposed the campaign and instead preferred a direct naval landing on the north coast of Germany, but Churchill won the argument."

This is far too simplistic and inaccurate. It implies that Lord Fisher was against the campaign from the beginning which is false and misleading. Lord Fisher was very much in support of the Dardanelles Campaign right up until the point when things began to go awry and thus proclaimed falsely to the War Council, shortly before his resignation as First Sea Lord and departure from the Admiralty, that he had been against the campaign all along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackWhirlwind (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is interesting and controversial. Do you have a source? Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to quote at length from a book, or is this A) a violation of copyright B) not considered a verifiable source or C) both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackWhirlwind (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on the author and publisher. If you quote enough here to convince editors that there was a controversy, it might be included as a minority view. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Change of name
I think the article name should be changed to the 'Dardanelles Campaign'. It is already referred to as such in the Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana. Thus I think the name should change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.245.55 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image
Any chance of a decent caption for the infobox image(s)? I'd add one myself if I knew anything about them, but unfortunately I don't (hence the problem). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest? Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Basic descriptions. Who are the men in the top picture? What's happening to the ships? What is the bottom right picture? The pics are pretty meaningless at the moment. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of the British fall of government
The article states "Fisher resigned in May after bitter conflict with Churchill over the campaign. The crisis that followed forced the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith to end his single-party Liberal Government and form a Coalition Government with the Conservative Party." While I do not dispute that Gallipoli had some influence on the change of government, I believe that the Shell Crisis was the driving force. Wikipedia's Shell Crisis of 1915 and Dan van der Vat's "The Dardanelles Disaster" (chapter 8) support this view. Contrary opinions are welcome. Cwelgo (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RE assumptions about potential Greek involvement at Gallipoli
I refer to the following statement: "However, an early proposal to use Greek troops to invade the Gallipoli peninsula was vetoed by Russia as its South Slavic allies would feel threatened by an expansion of Greek power and influence."

This statement underlies a couple of inaccurate or at least highly dubious premises, specifically;


 * Indented line

1. That Greece was willing in 1914-1915, to join the Allies. The Allies could not "use" Greek forces without a Greek declaration of war, and in 1915 Greece was still neutral. Around this time Greek politics was split between those who supported the German monarchy (lead by the pro-German King of Greece, Constantine I) and those who wanted to join the Allies. It was not until June 1917 - following the abdictation of Constantine I- that the Greek government finally declared war on Germany.


 * Indented line

2. That the Greek armed forces of 1914-1915 were sufficiently well-equipped and trained to engage in the Gallipoli campaign. I am of the opinion that the Greek Army of 1915 would not have been large or strong enough to have participated in a major military conflict against Turkey. The Greeks did not have a substantial navy either (in comparison to the other combatants involved at Gallipoli). It is also evident that when Greece actively went to war against Germany in 1918, Greek troops were provided with significant amounts of Allied War material (such as new weapons, French uniforms etc) and were provided with military training from the Allies.

If this statement is "true" (in some manner that is not clear to the casual reader) it needs to be explained. For instance, it may have been possible that the author of this statement was referring to Greek mercenary troops or Greek volunteers, rather than actual Greek government troops. Further, if Russia did vetoe Greek involvement, might it have been for another reason than for fear of expanding Greek influence (e.g. trade agreements?)

Can anyone clear this matter up with the facts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illdz (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the line in question pending explanation and some sources. Rumiton (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom listed below British Empire?
the way the United Kingdom is listed on this looks a little wierd. France is listed above Frech West Africa, so shouldn't the UK be listed above it's colonies also? And the flag for Newfoundland is wrong Voucherman (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Australia, NZ and Newfoundland (I think) were independent countries in 1914. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Australia and NZ were internally self governing, but they didn't gain independence until the 1931 statute of Westminster, which established the dominions equality with the United Kingdom. So the UK still had control over their foreign affairs and they were still subordinate to the UK parliament in 1914. The way the belligerents is set out, makes them look politically equal to the UK, which was incorrect at that time. Newfoundland didn't gain independence until 1949. Voucherman (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * During the WWI, the foreign policy of Canada, NZ, Australia, Newfoundland, ect. was decided by the UK. This meant all were automatically at war when war was declared. However, their level of participation was entirely up to them. So they were not entirely subordinate to the UK parliament. One correction, Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The British Empire was still ruled from London, the Commonwealth did not exist for at least another 10 years, and not formally until 1931. So the way it's listed is simply inaccurate. These dominions were still subordinate to the British parliament, whether you like it or not. imo they should be listed separately or the UK at the top, because the current way make the british empire look like a community, not an empire, which is false history Voucherman (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Anzac is not a place
There are a couple of references to Anzac as if it were a place, e.g. "launched an offensive at Anzac...", "5 miles north of Anzac..."

I don't know enough about the subject to correct it, but this is surely an error that must be corrected...

92.104.81.253 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC) David Crutchley
 * Possibly referring to ANZAC Cove, but I am not an expert either.--Charles (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article explains it here . "This sector of the Gallipoli Peninsula became known as Anzac." Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Burial practise
Does anyone know anything about this public domain image of Turkish bones? If it is casualties from the campaign maybe it can be incorporated into the article. It certainly is striking, but I is seems like a very odd burial practice--Stor stark7 Speak 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)?


 * Accounts by Australians who visited the Anzac Cove area after World War I often note that many Turkish corpses weren't buried during or after the battle, and there were still large numbers of bones on the former battlefields years after the war. Further bones were unearthed whenever it rained and as a result of coastal erosion. I've never read it, but the account of the Australian official historian CEW Bean and his assistants during their visit to Gallipoli in 1919 is online here and may have something on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am almost positive this picture has little to do with Gallipoli. Turkish practice, and it is the Islamic tradition, burial within a day. Given the transportation conditions and capacity, most were buried near where they fell. Making a pile of skulls? Against all possible norms in that part of the world no matter who they belong to I think. Many of the Turkish dead were lost and not recovered from the battle ground I think. It was not possible to reclaim the bodies by anyone later and the whole place was/is a park so all was left as is. For a long time anyway. I am not even sure if there was tag system then for the Turkish soldiers then. Maybe that explains it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.246.10 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

military analysis section
on my casual understanding of the subject the gallipoli campaign, particularly the invasion, was considered a series of incredibly monumental f-ups on both sides even by contemporary military wisdom, and if a military analysis section could be done encyclopedically, with references and maps etc, it would add to the reader's understanding of both this subject and military strategy generally. also on the subject, this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Battle_of_Gallipoli, needs to be looked over. the dates at least may be worth keeping, but since there doesn't seem to be any references it will all have to be redone anyway.203.206.42.213 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Mistakes are made in all wars.In this case the major British issues were: 1 The campaign was a side show from the start. 2 The lines of supply were very long.(for the first week the ANZACs had very little water.) 3 The allied forces did not have sufficient troops to overcome a dug in opposition.Normally 3:1 advantage is accepted. 4 In the Anzac cove area the Australian troops were landed in the wrong place by the royal navy.-Not surprising as the maps were 2 degrees out and they then had to scale steep crumbling cliff slopes instead of landing on a flat beach. 5 Security in Egypt was non existent-thousand of troops knew where and approx when they were going.(was talked about in letters home several weeks prior to the start).The campaign was refered to in the media.Cairo was crawling with spies. 6 The British overestimated the effect of a naval bombardment which was pretty haphazard(though they did try to use aircrft to direct the fall of shot-but coms were primative, the planes very slow and when they flew low they were often hit by Turkish guns. 7 There was a big shortage of suitable artillary and the ammunition for guns as the Western Front had priority. 8 Virtually no planning was done to take care of casualties.The British actually discouraged nurses initially.The French had a good hospital set up and later the people of NZ sent a fully equipped hospital ship complete with nurses and doctors. 9 During the most important attack at Gallipoli the Wellingtons actually got to the summit of Chunak Bar but Malone and other were then killed by shells being fired from British warships.The British troops, who relieved them, were soon driven off by a Turkish counter attack. 10 The planing staff was about 10% of what would be considered the correct size in later amphibious operations and they had no experience to draw on. 11 Planning time was ridicilously short -only 6 weeks. 12 The British underestimated the Turkish soldiers who, by and large, were far more experienced in combat than the British-especially the Anzacs,(most of the older Turkish soldiers had served through a brutal 2 year campaign)even though the Turkish basic eqipment (boots and clothing)were poor.The Turks did have good rifles and plenty of rifle ammunition and "bombs"(hand grenades)which were used to good effect at Anzac Cove as the ANZAC soldiers were invariably below the Turks. 11 The amphibious part of the operation was very primitive-troops at Gallipoli were usually towed by steam pinnace to about 1 mile from the shore and then they had to row-average speed about 4mph.Sitting ducks .However at least the Australian commander insisted on landing in the dark-whereas the southern landing was in broad daylight .Elsewhere soldiers had to exit via a hole in the side of a ferry-the Turks just lined up MGs on the hole to slaughter the troops. 12 It is telling that before the campaign started many senior British officers said it has no chance of success. 13 The Turks had a lot of technical assistance from German advisors.They had a reasonable time to prepare camps ,tracks roads,wire,mines and MG strong points. They were familiar with the landscape,they had mobile reserves,they had the advantage of height, their lines of communication and logistics were short, and they were defending their homeland (for the second time in a few years). With 20/20 hindsight it wasn't one of Winston's better ideas-and he paid the price. The long term effect was that Britain could not supply the Russian forces with the modern supplies they desparately needed -they fought on gamely but by 1917 were on the point of collapse.It is intersting to ponder what would have happened had the straits been forced and the British maintained a flow of supplies to the Tsar's forces-no communist victory? No surrender? No transfer of German troops for the massive and nearly succesful attack on the Western Front? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.34.4 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

POV comment about Gallipoli film being POV?
We are told "The film Gallipoli (1981) featuring Mel Gibson described the experiences of two Australian sprinters who volunteered and fought at Gallipoli but gave a fairly misleading impression of the roles of the British Armed Forces."

Nothing more. No source. Seems quite a POV statement. I don't know if it's true, but nor will any other reader. I believe we either need a source (and I wouldn't know where to look) or deletion of the words from "but..." onwards. HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's basically accurate (the film blames British officers for some bad decisions which were actually made by Australian officers), but I can't remember where I read this (though it was a RS). Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot has been written about this. The consensus I have seen is that the film was very accurate, with meticulous attention to detail re orders, uniforms and accents etc, but was largely misinterpreted because audiences didn't know the differences between British Army and Australian Army kit. The officer who gave the orders to keep attacking at the Nek was an Aussie and was portrayed as such, but the actor has been mistaken for a Brit. I saw the consultant who advised on the uniforms etc interviewed on the ABC some years ago, and he was aghast at the commonness of the error, after all his careful work. Rumiton (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Gallipoli is not accurate at all. For a start the British were not "sitting on the beach dringking tea" accoriding to the film, it was the British who were landing and dying at Sulva Bay to cover an Australian attack. The Gallipoli film is a piece of Australian nationalistic propaganda and an insult to the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who fought and died during WW1.
 * It was the British army who was the largest contingent at the Gallipoli campaign, did the most fighting and took the largest amount of casualties.Ben200 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/08/the-real-case-against-mel-gibs
 * http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Brits-made-major-Gallipoli-sacrifice-too/2005/04/20/1113854234288.html


 * You can't just list two newspapers and expect a comment like that to be credible. The POV referred to above, which precedes the film, has been both hinted at and blatantly detailed in worthy, hefty and official accounts of the campaign such as, "New Zealanders at Gallipoli" by Fred Waite, the respective regimental histories and "Gallipoli" by Christopher Pugsley. 60.234.229.163 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this conversation has stretched out over time. Just referring back to my post that started the thread, my suggestion of "deletion of the words from 'but...' onwards" has been implemented. It allows the film to stand on its own. As for the POVness of the film, I suspect every country makes movies that make its own forces look good in war, and it's probably true of this one. Hardly controversial. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Period Maps
As an FYI. I've uploaded a number of high quality maps that were online at the AWM, in both PNG and JPG formats. They include Ottoman and Entente maps, a couple of which are trench map. See Category:Maps of the Battle of Gallipoli at the commons.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)