Template:Did you know nominations/Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş
Source: "ÇANAKKALE Savaşı kahramanlarından Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş", "Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş, Türk askerine 'Mehmetçik' denilmesinin isim babasıdır." , "İtilaf donanmasının, 4 Mart 1915'de 5 zırhlı ve 7 torpido desteğinde, 3 büyük sandalla Seddülbahir İskelesi'ne gelerek, karaya 60 asker çıkardığını anlatan Atabay, Seddülbahir Tabyası'nın Osmanlılar tarafından boşaltılmış olmasına rağmen, bu bölgeyi kara saldırılarına karşı savunmaktan sorumlu olan 9. Tümen Komutanı Albay Halil Sami Bey'in, 27. Alay 3. Tabur 10. Bölük eratından Mustafa oğlu Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş komutasındaki bir takım askeri, Seddülbahir Kalesi'ne yerleştirdiğini kaydetti. "  Mustafa Kemal's exhortation to his Turkish troops ... After the war Mustafa Kemal himself said of the Ottoman victory over the invaders on the Gallipoli Peninsula; 'The greatest monument is Mehmetçik himself' ISBN 978-1-84603-506-7
 * ... that "Mehmetçik", the common name for Ottoman and Turkish soldiers, is considered to be coined after Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş, who fought during the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915?


 * Reviewed: State censuses in the United States of America

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 03:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC).


 * New article - yes, ~6 days from creation to nomination
 * Long enough article - yes, body itself > 2500 characters


 * Hook format - yes, 172 characters and meets formatting guidelines
 * Hook content - yes, all issues settled. 1) Source #1 mentions Turkish soldiers but not Ottoman soldiers. 2)  The Gallipoli Campaign supposedly started in April but Source #2 for hook mentions things that happened on 4 March?


 * Ottoman soldier means soldier of the Ottoman Army, which belongs to the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman and Turk is identical if not explicitly stated for ethnic population of that time. Please check the text under the section "Gallipoli Campaign": "Planning to capture the Turkish defences by land began and two Allied submarines tried to traverse the Dardanelles but were lost to mines and the strong currents." as well as under "Gallipoli Campaign": "Frustrated by the mobility of the Ottoman batteries, which evaded the Allied bombardments and threatened the minesweepers sent to clear the Straits, Churchill began pressuring the naval commander, Admiral Sackville Carden, to increase the fleet's efforts. Carden drew up fresh plans and on 4 March sent a cable to Churchill, stating that the fleet could expect to arrive in Constantinople within 14 days.". CeeGee 07:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) If Ottoman and Turk are identical, then why is there a need to mention both? Wouldn't just Turk suffice? 2) I saw that source #2 mentioned Çanakkale Savaşları'nın. Could you change the hook to Dardanelles Campaign. I still think there is a problem - not with the DYK but with the Gallipoli Campaign article, so I raised it on its talk page. starship.paint ~  KO   13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What rule is against it? When identical, we can use both, and this is done everywhere. The English name of the battle is "Gallipoli Campaign", not Dardanelles. CeeGee 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Gallipoli, but not on the Ottoman/Turk thing. If they are identical, why do they have separate articles? Reading the articles, the Ottoman Empire ended around 1922 or 1924. The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923. The Turkish War of Independence had the Turks on one side and the Ottoman Empire on the other side. So how are they identical? starship.paint ~  KO   03:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may: the issue here is that the nickname was used for the soldiers of two polities: Ottoman ones (who are often also referred to as Turkish) and Turkish (as in: of the Republic of Turkey). CeeGee is right, I feel, to want to use both, and his point about them being synonymous refers to the usage in sources; the usage in the hook distinguishes between two polities, which sources don't necessarily feel they should -- for instance, a source detailing events in 1915 might not use "Ottoman", because it could just as well refer to them as "Turks" (there was no other Turkey that wasn't Ottoman). The point here can be highlighted by noting that during the war of independence soldiers on both sides might have been nicknamed Mehmetçik. Dahn (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was looking for sources, really. Thankfully, reference 1 of the Mehmetçik (Nicolle) says that Mehmetçik refers to Ottoman / Turkish soldiers. So the issues are solved. There is no need to change the hook. starship.paint ~  KO   10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * QPQ - yes, done
 * Image - none starship.paint ~  KO   01:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Who are Ottomans in your opinion? The people revolted against the Ottoman Empire were Turks, who were led by Ottoman military officers fought in the World War I. I don't think we need to open a history class here. If you think something is not right, please let someone other take over the further review, but not block it. Thanks. CeeGee 08:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to block the review. I'm just trying to be thorough. That part is settled, anyway. I ask for your patience. starship.paint ~  KO   13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Article within policy - yes, all clear!
 * i) The lede's He is remembered for his bravery should be reflected in the body and sourced. I note that source [2] mentions he attacked the enemy with stones after his rifle broke.... could be added.
 * Did you mention He is remembered for his bravery in the body of the article (and source it)? It can go in the Legacy section, there should be a mention in his current sources.
 * ✅ Added to the "Legacy" section as translated from "Seddülbahir Kahramanı Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş" and "Mehmet Çavuş .... rahmetle anıyor".
 * Kahramanı is "hero", right? I think it would be better if you wrote He is remembered as a hero. I did see other sources also writing hero.
 * ii) artillery batteries on the southmost point of the Gallipoli Peninsula, west of the Dardanelles - doesn't seem to be in source [1].
 * ✅ ("tabya" means artillery battery)
 * iii) not found in translated form of source [2] - French fleet
 * iv) not found in translated form of source [2] - to capture the Ottoman fortifications in order to secure the passage of their naval forces towards Constantinople (today Istanbul), the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Although the artillery batteries in Seddülbahir were evacuated by the Ottomans at
 * "to secure the passage of their naval forces through the Dardanelles" is reworded and translated from "Çanakkale Boğazı'nı geçmek isteyen itilaf devletlerinin gemilerinden" at "Although the artillery batteries in Seddülbahir were evacuated by the Ottomans" from "Seddülbahir Tabyası'nın Osmanlılar tarafından boşaltılmış olmasına rağmen," at
 * v) not found in in translated form of source [2] - giving an impression of being much more stronger in numbers than they actually were
 * This is translated from "Mehmet Çavuş'un askerleri sürekli yer değiştirip, ateş ederek sayılarını çok gösterdiler." at
 * vi) The sources don't seem to indicate his grave is in Bahçeli, both explictly write Biga but don't specify further?
 * In source, Turan Özarı, the headman of Bahçeli village says "Sgt. Mehmet is buried next to his wife, and his burial site was converted into a monumental grave".
 * Unfortunately, this just says he is buried to his wife. It didn't say his wife was buried in Bahçeli. I know that if the headman of Bahçeli village says this, and talks about conversion of burial site, it is a very high probability that he is buried in Bahçeli, but being probabilistic is not good enough. It is 100% verifiable that he is buried in Biga, but it is not 100% verifiable that he is buried in Bahçeli.
 * "Köyünün mezarlığına eşinin yanına defnedilir." at translates to "He was buried next to his wife in the village cemetery".
 * vii) I'm not sure this sentence is correct according to the source. His war medal is on display in the "Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş Arts Gallery. I used Google Translate, but the war medal seems to be of Şehit Kanibeyin from Bozlar village.
 * Corrected.
 * viii) The category lists him as a National Hero of Turkey. Is there a source for that? starship.paint ~  KO   09:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The title of the source [] "Seddülbahir Kahramanı Bigalı mehmet Çavuş Mezarı Başında Anıldı". (Kahraman means hero)
 * ix) a battleship under the shield of machine gun fire - I believe that it was mitrailleuse fire according to the source, not machine gun.
 * ✅ Reworded.
 * x) Plovdiv, then in Bulgaria under the Ottoman rule - this is shaky, given that the Russians liberated Plovdiv from Ottoman rule on 16 January 1878.. He could have been born before or after 16 January, and it would have still been during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). If you agree with what I am saying, can you see if my edit is acceptable.
 * OK
 * xi) He participated in the Balkan Wars and World War I. - you don't need to mention World War I in this section, it is mentioned in the Battle part.
 * OK
 * xi) He participated in the Balkan Wars and World War I. - you don't need to mention World War I in this section, it is mentioned in the Battle part.


 * Please recheck. CeeGee 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Sorry for the mistranslation. See i), vi) and new ix) starship.paint ~  KO   04:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One more recheck is needed. CeeGee 06:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again please. CeeGee 10:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - nice! The last thing is the first issue i) ^ Per the sources do you think it would be better to write He is remembered as a hero instead of He is remembered for his bravery? starship.paint ~  KO   13:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection.
 * - we're good. I have approved, above. Since I reviewed this throughly, you may consider WP:GA for this article (maybe with a little expansion? Not sure) starship.paint ~  KO   23:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg - all issues settled, article is good to go! Yay! starship.paint ~  KO   23:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)