Talk:Gallipoli campaign/Archive 3

Casualties
I made an amendment to the infobox since the British Statistical volume had the number of missing and prisoners but rather than jump in and change things willy nilly I've decided to put material here due to the differences between sources. http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67888

Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 - Volume Vol 2 Volume II – The Story of ANZAC from 4 May, 1915, to the evacuation of the Gallipoli Peninsula (11th edition, 1941) Author: C E W Bean P.909 The Australian force had lost in all 26,094 men in Gallipoli, and the New Zealanders 7,571 ; of the Australians 7,594 were killed, of the New Zealanders 2,431. (fn) The total British loss was 119.696, and that of the French 27,004. That of the Turks is given by Liman von Sanders as about 218,000. some 66.000 of there being killed (Funf Jahre Turkei p.135).Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Keith, I'm currently working with a couple of other editors to try to rework/expand this article and we will definately try to do something about this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The OH for Gallipoli is sparse on casualties and refers to the Medical History, which probably differs from the "Statistics" volume.Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OHGal' II has p.484 43,000 British killed, POW, missing, died of wounds or disease of a total casualties (including evacuated sick) of 205,000 (taken from "OH Medical Services: Casualties and Medical Statistics"), [in a fn 115,000 killed, missing and wounded, 90,000 evacuated sick, many only lightly wounded and minor ailments due to lack of facilities at Gallipoli.] French 47,000, Turkish 251,000 (Turkish OH) and 350,000 by other Turkish authorities. The Naval history "Naval Operations III", p.258 adds a snippet from Sanders p.135 of 218,000 Turkish casualties, 66,000 dead and only 42,000 wounded returned as "likely to be fit for further service".

The OH volumes have more detail for particular engagements, e.g. pp.180–181 Lone Pine attack and next two days of 1,700 and estimated Turkish casualties of 5,000, pp.356 Sari Bair (over four days) 12,500 of 37,000 Anzac: 5,500 13th Division, 1st Aust & NZ & Aust Division: 5,800 and 1,200: Indian and 29th Brigades, 10th Division. Sickness and disease reduced the Corps to 23,000 by 21 August. Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * http://archive.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/2/gallipoli/pdf_files/French.pdf gives French fatalities as "up to 15,000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.222.64 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

CE
"The Zion Mule Corps also landed at Helles on the 25th," OH G I has this on the 27th.Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, please feel free to change this. My sources don't mention it. Thanks for all the work you've done so far, by the way. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.
 * I think favours are loans so it's been a good opportunity to pay a few back. It also makes a pleasant change from the lonely furrow I plough on 1917. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Copy edited most of the text by mistake (clicked the wrong edit button), please feel free to change it as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking this article further
Thanks to all who have worked to try to improve this since late April. I believe that the article is in a lot better shape now. There are still a couple more "citation needed" tags I'd like to deal with (either by finding a ref or removal). It may even be possible to take this article to GA with a bit more effort, although I'm not sure whether I will have the time for that in the near future due to work. But anyway, in this regard I have a few suggestions: Does anyone have any thoughts on these points, or further suggestions? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC) I've done a fairly brief OOB - Gallipoli Campaign order of battle. Would be good if we could add force strengths. I'm a bit unclear on these though. Anyone got this info ready to hand with some refs? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some of the less reliable citations removed or replaced, e.g. the Encarta ref and some of the websites can probably be replaced;
 * should more be said on the German influence?
 * should topics like Simpson and his donkey and the "mystery" surrounding the loss of the Sandringhams be mentioned? (these may or may not be too much like "pop culture", but I welcome opinions);
 * how do we want to handle the casualties section?
 * prior to GA, I think peer review might be a good way to get a wider community opinion;
 * Gday. Fully agree we should try and replace the Encarta refs and most of the websites with WP:RS. Happy if you would like to include ref to Simpson and the Sandringhams as I think a lot of our readers would expect this information to be present. Just need to be mindful of WP:UNDUE (so maybe a sentence on each wikilinking to the relevant articles if they exist)? Casualties section is a nightmare - firstly lets use better refs. Will probably need to give upper and lower figures for all. Lastly the table needs to be completely reworked to reflect the prose (bin the ref to DVA and use WP:RS for each line perhaps)? Agree with peer review. Other suggestions I have for this article is a separate order of battle article, rework the infobox to clean it up a little (rm some of those extra flags), and the lead needs to be reworked to actually summarise the events. At the moment it mainly talks about the significance of the campaign. There is still a little bit on submarine operations I intend on trying to work into the article today. Still quite a bit of work to go but would be good to strive for GA at least. Would like to see if we could enlist some more support though as I have only been able to devout time to this recently and will no doubt be busy again next week. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, all good ideas. I will probably try to insert only a sentence or two relating to the Sandringhams and Simpson and his donkey in the relevant sections. Agree completely that we need to be careful of adding too much weight. Agree also that more help would be great. I'd also like to have the article copy edited once all the content and referencing issues have been sorted. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only looked at the citation needed banners but I'll look through the other references tomorrow and see what I can do. I haven't found anything to cite the difference between Kemal and Sanders (the newest source I've got is Travers which like the OH treats Kemal as a minor figure at that point) but they treat Sanders's changes as a conventional response to the threat of attack by large forces rather than a personality clash. I can have a look in the N OH for detail on subs if you let me know what you need. I thought the page was as good as it could be, with the limited number of sources previous editors had at their disposal and your changes have considerably improved it. As usual I looked at the linked pages and thought that if they were all B class, much of the detail on the main page could be transferred but I expect that's a long way off.Keith-264 (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work putting that together, BTW. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandringhams
OH G II p. 318 has casualties increasing after the advance had gone half a mile and it was a mistake to move in daylight as most came from long-range fire from Kidney Hill on the left and also on the right flank, there was very little oppostion from the front. On the right part of the 1/5th Norfolk pressed on, 265 men were not seen again. The advanced troops fell back to their start line and by night only 800 men could be found to hold it. Isle of Wight Rifles 308 losses, 1/5th Norfolk 372. I'd put the facts in the text and the rest in a note.Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of divisions
G'day, there seems to be some discrepancy between the text and the infobox in regards to the number of divisions both sides deployed. For instance, the text says: "Hamilton's original five divisions increased to 13 divisions, against 16 Ottoman divisions, increased from six at the start of the campaign" and then also "Many casualties were anticipated from the embarkation of 14 divisions", but the infobox says "Allied 5 divisions initial; 16 divisions final" and "Ottoman 6 divisions initial; 15 divisions final". What is correct? I have a journal article Strength Against Weakness by Edward Ericson which says that the Allies had 15 divisions at the end, so I suspect that the infobox figures should be Allies 5 (initial) and 15 (final). Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If I wrote the text it will be from the OH, which seems reliable. Could it be that other authorities have included or excluded according to a difference of emphasis (Ottoman units on the Turkish mainland being discounted after the first landings)?Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. I added the quote above - "Hamilton's original five divisions increased to 13 divisions, against 16 Ottoman divisions, increased from six at the start of the campaign", which is from Carlyon. Travers lists 15 Allied divisions at the height in August 1915 - see Gallipoli Campaign order of battle. Think infobox should be amended to say allies 5 division initial; 15 divisions final, and Ottoman 6 divisions initial, and 16 divisions final. Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Travers (2001) pp.373–375 has 4 British and 1 French for April 1915 and pp.377–385 has 13 British and 2 French in August 1915 (August looks like a copy of OH G I pp.487–495).Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, gents, I had a go at rewording. Does this work for everyone? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a ref to support this. Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Grandiose claim
Grey's claim that Beersheba in October 1917 achieved a breakthough is not supported by the evidence.
 * The Ottoman defenders continued to hold Khuweilfe, Sheria, and Gaza along with Tank and Atawineh redoubts until 7 November.[Keogh 1955 p. 161]
 * This is supported by the Map of Southern Palestine from Falls official British history of the campaign which shows the position of the antagonists 24 hours after the capture of Beersheba, at 18:00 on 1 November. There is no breakthrough on the scale Grey claims.
 * Even more strongly this point is made, again by the official British history of the campaign, by the map of the situation at 18:00 on 6 November - still no breakthrough. --Rskp (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, it is possible that Grey has been misinterpreted as he doesn't actually use the word "breakthrough", so it is probably best not to brand it as his claim. The word was used in this article (as written by an earlier contributor) before the citation was added by me (so if anything it probably my mistake, not his). His exact wording is: "Gaza was captured at the beginning of November after the mounted charge of the light horse at Beersheba, and this success unlocked the whole Turkish defensive position in southern Palestine". (p. 117) I have reworded the paragraph to remove mention of the breakthrough, but if you feel it needs further work, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Coulthard-Clark 2001, p. 134 ascribes a similar importance to Beersheba, writing: "The dramatic fall of Beersheba opened the way for the whole Turkish defensive line to be outflanked and rolled up from east to west." I've added this now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rskp - constantly adding dubious tags to something that is referenced without continuing to discuss it really isn't helpful. Both AR and I have provided references for what is written, so it is hardly dubious. Obviously Beersheba on its own didn't result in a breakthrough, and that isn't being claimed. It merely allowed the subsequent events to occur and that is backed up by the references provided. Coulthard-Clark and Grey are both well known and respected historians so I don't see what your issue is. Were there other actions other than Beersheba that aren't mentioned in this text? Yes of course, but it is meant to be a very brief summary. No doubt these matters are already extensively covered in the articles that you have written on this topic. This is getting tiresome to say the least. Anotherclown (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You quote two very general accounts of the campaign which result in dubious claims for the victory at Beersheba resulting in the capture of Jerusalem. The roll up was mentioned by Allenby in a letter to his wife of 6 November "We've had a successful day. We attacked the left of the Turkish positions, from N. of Beersheba, and have rolled them up as far as Sharia." [in Hughes 2004 p. 75] This limited sense is the only way the word should be included. Please reinstate my edit cutting the EEF's further campaigns. I agree the EEF campaign is relevant to a history of the Middle Eastern theatre in general, but is not relevant to this Gallipoli Campaign article, in particular --Rskp (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign#Southern_Palestine_Offensive looks like a good summary, well sourced. Worth a look.Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rskp - like I said previously Grey and Coulthard-Clark are highly respected and widely published historians, no idea what your credentials are (and I don't care) but I doubt the opinion of an amateur Wikipedia historian really stacks up against this. Both are indeed general accounts which cover the key points and this is exactly what is being attempted in this paragraph (so they are probably more appropriate than the highly detailed official history). You seem to agree with most of the points in the paragraph in contention anyway but make purely pedantic "tweaks". The only sources you provide is your interpretation of a few maps and a letter from Allenby (both primary sources as usual). How do these compare to analysis from professional historians? Quite simply it doesn't. Regardless from the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article I quote:
 *  "A number of historians have claimed the offensive which led from the capture of the Gaza to Beersheba line to the capture of Jerusalem and the Megiddo operations were similar. Firstly, that they were both a cavalry envelopment of the Ottoman flank. And secondly, that the breakthroughs were the reverse of the other; at Gaza–Beersheba, because the breakthrough occurred at Beersheba instead of the expected Gaza at the eastern end of the front line, while at Megiddo the breakthrough occurred on the Mediterranean coast at the western end of the front line when it was expected across the Jordan.  " 
 * Not sure if this paragraph was added by you but I suspect it was. If so it is inconsistent with most of the concerns you have raised. Indeed it specifically mentions a breakthrough occurring at Beersheba. Even more confused by your objections now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OH E&P II/1 p.63 calls the capture of Beersheba a necessary preliminary and a complete operation. Subsequent hill-fighting was part of the attack on the Sheria position by XX Corps. The timing of the attack on the Gaza defences were determined by Beersheba.Keith-264 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Another weird claim - what does Grey actually say?
It is now claimed Grey describes an advance taking place "through out 1917, through Palestine" BEFORE the capture of Beersheba. This is extremely dubious. The only advance in 1917, took place after the Battle of Rafa, when the EEF advanced a few miles north to Gaza, where they fought to unsuccessful battles, staying on until 31 October. --Rskp (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not label claims as "weird" and "dubious" as it does not promote collaboration. Grey's exact words are: "After Sinair and the Canal Zone had been secured in operations at the end of 1916, the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) had commenced the offensive into Palestine, only to receive several checkes before Gaza...Gaza was captured at the beginning of November after the mounted charge of the light horse at Beersheba, and this sucess unlocked the whole Turkish defensive position in southern Palestine". (p. 117) If you feel it needs to be reworded, please outline what you propose it needs to say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have reworded a bit to reflect Grey a little more closely here. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Headings
I altered the title of the exposition of Allied reasons for a Dardanelles campaign to "Allied strategy", which left me wondering why there isn't a similar one for the Ottomans/Central Powers - why the Ottomans rejected Britain's attempt to buy them, what strategic choices faced them once they took the plunge and where the Dardanelles were in those calculations. Does anyone have any Ottoman or Turkish sources for a section on them?Keith-264 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, Haythornthwaite's Gallipoli 1915 has some information that I will look to add about the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war and Erickson's Strength Against Weakness outlines some of the preliminary planning. I will look to write something over the next week or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look in OH G I which has some exposition (amidst a certain amount of racist condescension) but I an look in Travers if that will help.Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal to Egypt
Rskp. I've reverted the most recent addition to this paragraph for several reasons: Pls discuss your proposed edits and get a consensus rather than continuing to make these irrelevant changes. Anotherclown (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The grammar and punctuation is of poor qlty (and every time I attempt to fix it you change it back); and
 * 2) There is far too much information being added to this (as a campaign that occurred after Gallipoli it only needs to be summarized as it is covered in great detail elsewhere). There is no requirement to list every division involved per WP:UNDUE.
 * Previously you tried to delete the paragraph, now you seem to believe its not big enough. Which is it? Anotherclown (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

" ''
 * What are the grammar and punctuation problems with "while Jaffa was occupied on 14 November following the Battle of Mughar Ridge."? What is the problem which "temporary stalemate" fixes, when Stalemate in Southern Palestine sits perfectly well? --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All the divisions I added fought at Gallipoli and also fought at Romani, and etc. yet these have been cut. They are not "every division involved," in the Sinai and Palestine campaign, only those who, like the light horse, had fought at Gallipoli. They were added for balance, after all this is not an Australian Gallipoli Campaign article. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * POV tag added to "Withdrawal to Egypt" subsection, as only Australian units mentioned. --Rskp (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Early in the morning of the 7th, the 21st Corps attacked and took the place, with very little opposition."[Allenby letter to Wigram intended for the King 7 November 1917 in Hughes 2004 p. 78] Allenby would not have written this if Gaza had been occupied during the evening of 6/7 November. For clarity, balance and accuracy my edits should be reinstated. --Rskp (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your sudden concern about POV to be hilarious given you wrote most of this paragraph in some form, then tried to delete it. Regardless will discuss your suggested wording, in your most recent edit to this paragraph you wrote:
 * In an attempt to improve the article I added the British infantry which fought at Gallipoli and during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Your cut made the article POV. The only funny part about this sad chapter was your obvious lack of knowledge about the British infantry serving in both campaigns. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Got nothing to do with anyone's knowledge, its about undue weight. Pls try to remain professional in your responses. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  "Meanwhile, the Australian 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade were remounted and formed into the Anzac Mounted Division. Remaining in Egypt to successfully defend the Suez Canal, with the 52nd (Lowland) Division at the Battle of Romani in August 1916, the EEF subsequently made a fighting advance across the Sinai Peninsula at the beginning of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Following victories at the battles at Maghaba in December and Rafa in January, the last Ottoman garrisons in the Sinai were eliminated in early 1917. The Anzac Mounted, the 52nd (lowland), the 53rd (Welsh), and the 54th (East Anglian) Divisions, unsuccessfully attempted to capture Gaza on the southern edge of Palestine in March, and in April. The 74th (Yeomanry) Division was formed during the Stalemate in Southern Palestine, from 18 weak Yeomanry regiments which had fought dismounted at Gallipoli, and on 31 October, along with the 60th (London) Division from Salonika and the Anzac and Australian Mounted Divisions, captured Beersheba beginning a new offensive which resulted in the Ottoman defensive line being outflanked and then rolled up from east to west. After the Third Battle of Gaza fought on 1 and 2 November, the town was occupied without opposition by the EEF during the night of 6/7 November, while Jaffa was occupied without opposition on 14 November following the Battle of Mughar Ridge. Finally, after several weeks fighting during the Battle of Jerusalem, the city was captured by the EEF on 9 December 1917." 
 * Issues:
 * Main problem is that this is far too detailed (hence concerns about WP:UNDUE). Like I have said repeatedly this is meant to be a summary so there is no need to mention everything in detail. Quite happy to delete mention of specific units entirely so Jim's solution seems a good one. For instance:
 * Why is it necessary to discuss the forming of the 74th Yeomanry Division in a summary paragraph of events that occurred after the subject of this article?
 * To add balance. --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet this has been achieved without specifically mentioning every unit. Like I said its a summary. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "along with the 60th (London) Division from Salonika...", completely unnecessary detail.
 * Issues with prose include:
 * "...formed during the Stalemate in Southern Palestine..." This shouldn't be a proper noun even if that is what you have decided to call your article.
 * Just trying to avoid easter egg link --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet you kept such links in other areas. Inconsistent as usual. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "After the Third Battle of Gaza fought on 1 and 2 November..." is fairly wooden prose and works better without the use of a proper noun.
 * Just trying to avoid easter egg link --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * " the town was occupied without opposition by the EEF during the night of 6/7 November, while Jaffa was occupied without opposition..." is repetitive ("occupied without opposition" written twice).
 * Not accurate, see Allenby's letter. --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Circular logic here: you originally wrote that sentence. Wow. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of these points I agree the current wording is not perfect. In particular it says: "Remaining in Egypt to defend the Suez Canal at the Battle of Romani in August 1916, the division subsequently made a fighting advance across the Sinai Peninsula at the beginning of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign." I note that you changed this to read "the EEF" and I agree that this would work better, I also think it could be worded better to include mention of what the EEF were defending against. So I prosed to reword as fols:
 * '' "Remaining in Egypt to defend the Suez Canal, the EEF successfully defeated an Ottoman raid across the Sinai in July 1916, and following the Battle of Romani in August it subsequently made a fighting advance across the Sinai Peninsula.
 * Makes it sound like the raid had nothing to do with the battle. --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggested wording then or just a pointy comeback? Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also propose moving the wikilink to Sinai and Palestine Campaign to a main header link rather than in text to aid summary style.
 * Are you suggesting a new sub heading?--Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. A main article link at the top of the section using template. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose rewording " ...unsuccessfully attempted to capture Gaza on the southern edge of Palestine in March... " " ...to unsuccessfully attempted to capture Gaza in southern Palestine in March..." for the same reason.''Anotherclown (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose reinstating 'Battle of' rather than 'fighting at' Mughar Ridge for clarity. --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Already discussed this above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the first flush of recovery from ManFlu, I had a dash at "Subsequent operations" as the prose looked a bit one-O'clock-in-the-morning, before I noticed the discussion here. Sorry I've jumped the gun, CE as desired. I suggest that the Withdrawal th Egypt and Subsequent operations sections should go beneath the other aftermath sections as they have an epilogue quality.Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith. Yes that makes sense to me. Unless anyone has any objections pls feel free. Anotherclown (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I'll listen to England drub New Zealand for a while to give the others a chance to see it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy, given the large number of edits that seem to have occurred since I started this thread it is now mostly irrelevant anyway (had been trying to gain an agreed version but this seems to have worked itself out anyway) so I'm just going to be bold and move those sections as proposed. If anyone has an issue with it I'm sure I'll hear about it fairly quickly anyway. Enjoy the cricket! Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sub-headings
Could the paragraph "Withdrawal to Egypt" be added to "Subsequent operations" and the heading deleted? They seem to be part of the same process.Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

PS Ahem! I simplified a heading up the page then realised I'd contradicted your addition of info to make it clearer.Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A useful example of historians debating and resolving differences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA&list=PL66091877225E1050 Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday again. Agree with your proposal to merge the headings "Withdrawal to Egypt" and "Subsequent operations". Anotherclown (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent operations
There is way too much detail on what happened in Egypt and Palestine which is not balanced with what the ANZAC Corps did on the Western Front, never mind the Ottoman side. I know the Aussie divisions had an easy time in France, drinking wine, sunbathing, goofing off, but unless they are treated the same I believe the Egypt part of the section should be trimmed to a summery. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio
A while back I tried to improve this article and came across this but forgot to say anything so i'll say it now. I believe a large chunk of this article has been copy-pasted straight off the internet, or perhaps the other way around. I shall look into this over the coming days.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, the Copyvio Detector only seems to identify one website, and that is itself a copy of Wikipedia . Given that the article was revamped extensively recently by myself and a few others, I'd like to think that any issues were removed then, but to be honest I didn't consider this when I started working on it, and if I'd known this I probably wouldn't have spent the time on it. Nevertheless, if you can identify anything, please let me know. The domain age checker tool might come in handy: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering all the citations to published sources ascribed recently I'd be surprised if the bulk of the text is outside wiki criteria. It would be a pity if it is.Keith-264 (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably it's one of the wikipedia mirrors. Reiftyr (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On what do you base they claim that "a large chunk of this article has been copy-pasted straight off the internet" ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Retrolord. Could you pls provide some examples per the requests above to clarify your concerns? Quite a few of us have done a lot of work recently to improve this article with an eventual aim of taking it to GA so I for one am holding off until this is dealt with lest it all be a waste of effort. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi all, A while back while trying to improve the article I did a few google searches and stumbled across what appeared to be most the article on another website. It didn't really cross my mind that it could be a mirror site, so apologies for all this confusion.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  07:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Casualties
There is something very wrong with at least the Ottoman casualty figures. From numerous sources it can be verified that the dead were near 90K (including hospital deaths I think) and total being north of 200K. Should be looked into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.103.149 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for your interest. The article currently discusses this discrepancy in the casualties section by stating the following: "Yet Turkish casualties have been disputed and were likely higher, with another source listing 2,160 officers and 287,000 other ranks. Included among this may be as many as 87,000 killed." If you feel this could be clearer, please let me know and we can discuss alternate wording. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

mid-east theatre?
gallipoli is in continental europe but how on earth is this war part of the mid-east theatre? :))

Sarkis Torossian
In the scale of Gallipoli Campaign, a captain is a minor officer. The approximate number of captains in the Ottoman Fifth Army should be between 600-1600. There is no reason he should be listed among the commanders. --Mttll (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday - I'm unfamiliar with Torossian, but agree with your reasoning. If indeed he was only a captain he is unlikely to meet the threshold to be included in the infobox. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli-Normandy Suggestion
''Analysis of the campaign led to "a belief among most of the armed forces of the world", that amphibious assaults could not succeed against modern defences. Arguably this perception continued until after the Normandy Landings in June 1944.'' I'm not sure that this comment deserves to be in the main text, since by 1944 the Japanese and American-Australians had managed to pull off quite few opposed landings, as had the Red Army on the Kerch peninsula. I'd put it in a note in deference to Weighley's notability.Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the key point, is what is meant by modern defences. Did the island hopping campaign come up against modern defences like the Atlantic Wall or the Dieppe fiasco.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there was as much concrete in fortifications in the Pacific (except at Singapore) but there were in parts of Tunisia, Sicily and Southern Italy. In the Pacific there were places where tunnels and craites were used like Iwo Jima, which had similar effects to those on the Chemin des Dames in 1917 or the artificial ones like pillboxes in Flanders. The trouble with the remark is that I think it's also questionable in form. Who held the belief, when did they hold it (20s, 30s, 40s?), how influential were they and what effect did they have? it seems too throwaway to stand by itself and takes no account of lessons learned and which were incorporated into Operation Hush (even Hunter-Bunter pops up again). It wasn't as if the peninsula was all that fortified, outside the gun positions in the narrows.Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith and Jim, I had a go at rewording to add attribution to the quotes and to add a bit more context. I personally don't mind removing the comment if its not considered necessary, though, but I think it does serve some purpose to illustrate the impact it had at least psychologically on planners. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good to me and I think the material should be retained for the reason AR has identified. Hadn't really considered the issues posed by the previous wording until they were raised above, but agree it needed some work. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've reworded it rather well.Keith-264 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It does seem to be a questionable and very sweeping assertion. Is there another source that says this? And while there are a lot of examples of amphibious assaults prior to Normandy, are there any examples which show the impact on planners? In many cases there would be no alternative to an amphibious assault, so it is hard to understand how this lesson could be put into practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Jack, thanks for the comment. I've added a bit from Peter Hart's Gallipoli. I'm a bit concerned about writing too much more, though, as I don't want to overbalance the article. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The D-Day planners were well aware of the experiences of the Allied forces in the Pacific, with the near-disaster at the Battle of Tarawa reinforcing the lessons of Dieppe. Unlike MacArthur they didn't have the luxury of being able to side-step the German defences entirely. The British also landed in the face of well-prepared defences later in 1944 during Operation Infatuate. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Turkish attack on ANZAC Cove in May
Has anyone come across the Turkish name, or even a common Allied one, for this attack ? We have an article Attack on Anzac Cove (1915), which needs some work and I'm not sure about the article title. The New Zealand accounts have no definitive name for it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Gallipoli
I propose Gallipoli is merged here. All items are about the Campaign. Widefox ; talk 13:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for discussing this. Given that the items listed in the "Influence on the arts" section are unreferenced, I am not in favour of merging the section here at this stage. Additionally, this article is already quite large so adding more to it is possibly not in its best interests. Are there any other opinions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would have to agree, would seem more of a triva section if added here.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree with AR - no value in adding an unreferenced section to a GA at this time. As it stands it looks like an "in popular culture" section which is generally to be avoided per WP:MILPOP. That said given the significant impact the campaign seems to have had this material could possibly be included, but only if there are references provided, it is written in a way which demonstrates that impact, and it complies with the principles in WP:UNDUE. Anotherclown (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The material clearly belongs here if it belongs anywhere. Currently the campaign takes up a massively WP:UNDUE proportion of the Gallipoli article.   is your main concern that adding the material might jeopardize the GA status of this article?  Nearly all of the items have wikilinks, so references should not be hard to get.  I have little WP experience in military history, but I wonder whether you are not overinterpreting WP:MILPOP; wouldn't a full disucssion of the campaign's legacy naturally include at least those feature films that are entirely devoted to it?  And if not, would it be better to entirely delete the pop culture material, rather than to have it taking refuge in a geography article?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of this, the entire Gallipoli section needs to be hacked down to about 10% of its current size, per WP:UNDUE. That includes the subsections Gallipoli and Gallipoli as well as Gallipoli.  Could someone with experience in this article take a quick check as to whether anything from those sections should be transplanted over here, so that I can do the requisite hacking without fear of losing anything important?  Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Does it need references, when they're in the text?Keith-264 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, sorry for the late reply: in theory, no, but only so long as the information is cited in the body. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the infobox includes Egyptian Labour Corps and Maltese Labour Corps as this seemd to me to be undue weight. Unless there are any objections, I will remove these.  Hamish59 (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I note also that other than Supported by ~2,000 civilian labourers in the infobox, there is not other mention. The infobox should be a summary, shouldn't it?  Hamish59 (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Hamish, I think it would be best to mention these in the body at least. I've made a quick effort to do this using the source provided, but unfortunately I have to get to work about probably won't be back for another 48 hours. In regards to removal of the Egyptian Labour Corps and Maltese Labour Corps from the infobox, I can see the logic in this (i.e. we don't list any of the other component corps) and would support the move if others agree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, AustralianRupert. Your addition to the article body looks good.  I will leave the infobox alone for now.  Hamish59 (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkish account
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll7/id/374/rec/4

Link with armenian genocide
There is a proven fact, that the armenian genocide started the 24 avril 1915, is a direct result of allies landing. It pushed turcs to accelerate their extermination plans. We need to speak about it in this article. --Ժողովրդավարական ցանց (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, just like the Allies of the Second World War caused the Holocaust?  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath section
There is a photo of the memorial at ANZAC Cove, with a dedication written underneath. With the photo in it's original thumb size, the dedication is basically unreadable. I slightly enlarged the photo, to make the dedication easier to read. This is a clear improvement. I'm not sure why, but some busy-bodies keep blindly reverting this edit, obviously without looking at the effects on the text. I'd rather not hit 3RR, so hopefully these people will knock it off. - the WOLF  child  09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:IMGSIZE, and it says that image sizes generally shouldn't be forced Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the image makes it more legible, at least with the browser I use. Other browsers or platforms may well differ in how it is displayed which I think may be one reason for just using thumb. Whether there needs to be a transcription in the caption as well is another question. The transcription might well be better placed in the body of the text alongside the image.SovalValtos (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why have you changed the image again? The text is now all but unreadable. It is now forced into single-word lines, extending down past the reference section. ,It looks ridiculous. You quoted IMGSIZE, yet again, in the summary. That policy states: "In general, do not use px without very good reason"

What that means is, the policy needs not to be unilaterally enforced at all costs. If, as in this instance, there is a need for a change in size, it is permissible. The policy further states: "Where px is used, the resulting image should be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices in common use."

I have already (and repeatedly) demonstrated that upsizing to 250px is all that required. (I bet even 220px would work). That is well within the limits. The change to the picture itself is negligible, and therefore does not impact the article negatively in any way. It only servers to benefit the article by making the text within the caption more wieldy and easier to read. It also eliminates the impact of needlessly extending the picture frame all the way down to the refs.

Surely you can see this. Since you're quoting this policy so much, surely you know that it does not prohibit this edit. I have asked repeatedly that you look at the effect on the article, both before and after the edit, and in doing so,. surely you see the need for this edit. Yet you insist on repeatedly reverting, which only serves a detriment to the article and is tantamount to vandalism. Is that really want you want for this article? - the WOLF  child  11:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. The default size for unforced images is 220px, which you consider satisfactory. The text at that size is perfectly legible in my browser. If you want a different size just set it in your own preferences (see the link at top of page?) instead of trying to force your preference on everyone else.Charles (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup... not everyone using WP knows to change their preferences (mine was preset at 120px, by the way). And what about the casul users? What about people without accounts? You say I'm "trying to force this on everyone" as if I'm doing something harmful. It's just the opposite. My edit only served to benefit the article. It is you that is needlessly forcing everyone to jump through your hoops, and all based on what? A policy that doesn't even apply? Or a need to control the content on this page. You made an unecessary revert, and instead of admitting you were wrong, and just letting the edit stand, you are trying to needlessly argue the point. - the WOLF  child  11:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox 2
The result given in the infobox should fairly reflect the body of the article. Changing it to 'Decisive Ottoman victory' from 'Ottoman victory' does not seem to be clearly supported by the sourced opinions. The victory did not lead to the Ottoman Empire winning the war. If ultimately there is no consensus it could be left blank. SovalValtos (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with SovalValtos, the article does not support the addition of "decisive". - the WOLF  child  01:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)