Content deleted Content added
→Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Youprayteas (talk | contribs) m very important battle |
||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Article history
|action1=WAR
|action1date=08:50, 15 September 2006
Line 44 ⟶ 43:
|action7result=not approved
|action7oldid=802538290
|otd1date=2005-01-09|otd1oldid=10009045
|otd2date=2006-01-09|otd2oldid=34428617
|otd3date=2007-01-09|otd3oldid=99435783
|otd4date=2008-01-09|otd4oldid=183077730
|otd5date=2009-01-09|otd5oldid=262894705
|otd6date=2009-04-25|otd6oldid=285990622
|otd7date=2010-01-09|otd7oldid=336754423
|otd8date=2010-04-25|otd8oldid=348518522
|otd9date=2012-04-25|otd9oldid=489208220
|otd10date=2014-04-25|otd10oldid=605767132
|otd11date=2015-04-25|otd11oldid=658803096
|otd12date=2018-04-25|otd12oldid=838065050
|otd13date=2021-04-25|otd13oldid=1019774479
|otd14date=2023-04-25|otd14oldid=1151626712
|otd15date=2024-04-25|otd15oldid=1220745076
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|A-Class=fail|Australian=yes|British=yes|Canadian=yes|New-Zealand=yes|French=yes|Ottoman=yes|WWI=yes}}
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Top|history=yes|history-importance=Top|military=yes|military-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject
{{
{{
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 19 2015 (12th)}}
== Inflation of First Day casualties ==
I'm unsure whether this is patriotic mythologising, or whether it is simply an error overdue for correction, but the article lists ANZAC casualties for the first day as "around 2,000".
Although this figure can be derived from the official casualty statistics published both by New Zealand History and the Australian War Memorial, both government organisations tasked with the preservation of factual war history, the actual statistics provided by both governments list this number as the total casualties across a five day span (April 25-30, 1915) and not isolated only to the landing itself.
In other words, this article and its solitary source is in conflict with official statistics, unless the assumption is made that the ANZACs suffered no fatalities after April 25, and only on the May 1 did the fatalities resume.
I also have a broader concern about the word "casualties". Although historians correctly understand that casualties include both the number killed in action and non-lethal battlefield wounds, many people assume the word casualties is a synonym for "killed". I think it might be helpful to break down respective categories of "casualties" when data is available to do so and it is not too cumbersome. Officially, about 1,000 ANZACs were killed in action during the first five days of the campaign, inclusive of the landing. At least half of the casualties stated in this article therefore survived their wounds but no mention is made of this.
I'm not going to change anything to the article. I've been burned by Wikipedia's editing wars before and by the territorial brittleness of the editing culture (12 years ago I updated an entry on the evening an election was called and all the updates were reverted almost instantly despite the result being clear and corroborated across major media carriers; for at least 12 hours, maybe even a day or so, the Wikipedia article reported totally false information about who was in government and my investment of time to amend the article was discarded like trash). So I now flatly refuse to contribute to any article even when I spot palpable errors. So maybe someone else would like to tackle the casualty statistic. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.206.97.247|203.206.97.247]] ([[User talk:203.206.97.247#top|talk]]) 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Ottoman entry into World War I ==
Line 169 ⟶ 195:
Around 50.000 ethnic Albanians fought in this war , somebody better put that in the list of combatants also there is proof of this just check the canakkale monument . <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.28.93.6|77.28.93.6]] ([[User talk:77.28.93.6#top|talk]]) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[User:77.28.93.6|@77.28.93.6]] albania was not even part of the ottoman empire at that time lol [[Special:Contributions/94.109.150.222|94.109.150.222]] ([[User talk:94.109.150.222|talk]]) 08:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
== CE ==
Line 212 ⟶ 240:
== When did this start? Feb or April 1915? ==
[[Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign]] says 17 February 1915, the main infobox of this page says 25 April 1915. [[Timeline of the Gallipoli Campaign]] says 19 February. [[User:Starship.paint|'''starship''']][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|'''.paint ~''']] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">[[User talk:Starship.paint|<
:G'day, the dates in the infobox are for the land campaign. Regards, [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 08:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
:*{{u|AustralianRupert}} - okay, could we also list the naval campaign's dates as well? Since it is the same campaign. [[User:Starship.paint|'''starship''']][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|'''.paint ~''']] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">[[User talk:Starship.paint|<
::*Seems reasonable to me. {{ping|Keith-264|Anotherclown}} thoughts? [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 10:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
:Since the article refers to the naval campaign and the invasion was to facilitate the naval attack towards Constantinople, why not? They were means to the same end. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Line 220 ⟶ 248:
:::Ok, thanks. I propose changing the infobox (and lead) dates to "17 February 1915 – 9 January 1916". Would this work for all concerned? Regards, [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 01:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
:::: Yes I've no issue with that proposal. We will also need to amend the dates in the lead. [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 09:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
::::*I have changed the dates in the infobox and the lede as the article is submentioned at WP:DYK now. [[User:Starship.paint|'''starship''']][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|'''.paint ~''']] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">[[User talk:Starship.paint|<
== Recent edits ==
Line 270 ⟶ 298:
::Thanks. It's quite noteworthy how these decisions were still made by "the man on the spot" - Hamilton in this case. In WW2 such a decision, with so much riding on it, would have been signed off on by the chiefs of staff, defence ministers and heads of government of the countries involved.[[User:Paulturtle|Paulturtle]] ([[User talk:Paulturtle|talk]]) 21:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::According to David French's study of British War Strategy 1914-16 (p.108) in June 1915 the Dardanelles Committee (which was full of "laymen looking at the map" like me) toyed with the idea of making the second landing at Bulair to cut off the neck of the peninsula. Hamilton urged against this, on the grounds that the beaches were unsuitable, it was too far away from the Helles bridgehead for mutual support and it would be vulnerable to Turkish attacks from both north and south. So Suvla was chosen instead.[[User:Paulturtle|Paulturtle]] ([[User talk:Paulturtle|talk]]) 03:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC) It occurs to me also that as the Turks still controlled the Dardanelles they might well have been able to supply their troops on the peninsula by boat just as quickly as the Allies could supply their bridgeheads by sea. So, since Gallipoli runs parallel to a Turkish-controlled landmass, a landing at the neck of the peninsula at Bulair might not have "cut off the peninsula" as effectively as it might have done if it had simply been jutting out into the sea.[[User:Paulturtle|Paulturtle]] ([[User talk:Paulturtle|talk]]) 13:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
==John Hancox grave==
Line 390 ⟶ 419:
{{edit semi-protected|Gallipoli campaign|answered=yes}}
Change “Captain Faik in charge of the of the 27th Battalion located there verified it with his binoculars and immediately informed his commanding officer, Ismet Bey, at Kabatepe.” to “Captain Faik in charge of the 27th Battalion located there verified it with his binoculars and immediately informed his commanding officer, Ismet Bey, at Kabatepe.” [[User:The heatmiser|The heatmiser]] ([[User talk:The heatmiser|talk]]) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]
Thank you, I’ll make sure I don’t do that next time. [[User:The heatmiser|The heatmiser]] ([[User talk:The heatmiser|talk]]) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Line 399 ⟶ 428:
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Gallipoli campaign|answered=
In the casualties and losses section, change 'New Zeeland' to 'New Zealand'. [[Special:Contributions/115.189.99.226|115.189.99.226]] ([[User talk:115.189.99.226|talk]]) 23:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
:Done, tks. [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 00:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Gallipoli campaign|answered=yes}}
The word 'repulsed' needs to be changed to 'repelled' throughout the article. [[User:Spellingandgrammarchecker|Spellingandgrammarchecker]] ([[User talk:Spellingandgrammarchecker|talk]]) 13:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
:Why? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Cambridge Dictionary - [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/repulse repulse]: "to push away or refuse something or someone unwanted, especially to successfully stop a physical attack against you." Enough said... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 13:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Gallipoli campaign|answered=yes}}
{{subst:trim|1=
<!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. -->
25.000 Albanian volunteers need to be added on Ottoman's side which died in battle.
<!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. -->
25.000 Albanian volunteers need to be added on Ottoman's side which died in battle. There are many sources and facts which prove that.
Source:
^ "ÇANAKALA, THE BATTLE WHERE 25 THOUSAND ALBANIANS WERE KILLED FOR TURKEY". Zani and Malsise. Valmir Kuci. Retrieved April 2, 2017
[[User:CuriousHistorian|CuriousHistorian]] ([[User talk:CuriousHistorian|talk]]) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding basic information about the battle which was not includes. [[User:CuriousHistorian|CuriousHistorian]] ([[User talk:CuriousHistorian|talk]]) 07:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
:Not done for now. The reference you refer to is apparently [https://inforculture.info/2021/01/08/canakala-beteja-ku-25-mije-shqiptare-u-vrane-per-turqine/ this], which is a blog, and given the amount that's been written on the subject I'd personally prefer something more reliable. Curiously, I can find no trace of it or anything with that title being cited on Wikipedia, despite you apparently providing a retrieval date. Further discussion welcome. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 07:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
== Casualty statistics in box ==
The box gives these casualty totals:
*British Empire
**31389 killed
**9708 missing and POWs
**78749 wounded
**78494 evacuated sick
**198340 total
*France
**9000 killed and missing
**18000 wounded
**20000 evacuated sick
*Australia
**7594 killed
**18500 wounded
*New Zealand
**3431 killed
**4140 wounded
*Total 300,000 including 51,000 killed
Why are the Australian and Kiwi deaths counted twice? Or why are they excluded from the Imperial total? [[Special:Contributions/64.203.186.112|64.203.186.112]] ([[User talk:64.203.186.112|talk]]) 14:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
== Book Suggestion ==
Good day: wish to submit a book of personal observations by one in attendance of this battle. "Trenching at Gallipoli" written by (Alonso, he dropped this first name) John Gallishaw (1890-1968), a Newfoundlander. He incorrectly reports the Aussie deaths at 10k but this anecdotal account is at least interesting and First Person as he was there. His credentials as a writer are impressive. He was badly wounded and wrote this sometime before 1917. http://ngb.chebucto.org/NFREG/WWI/ww1-add-gallishaw1369.shtml
Thank you and regards, Philip S. Webster [[User:Psw808|Psw808]] ([[User talk:Psw808|talk]]) 21:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
:New items go at the bottom, regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Got it: the end of the line. Makes sense. Not sure how this should be "entered" without some sort of reference to specific content in the book besides the erroneous Aussie death count. Don't see how or where to reference the book as a General Reference. Thanks. [[User:Psw808|Psw808]] ([[User talk:Psw808|talk]]) 16:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
: Could be listed in "Further Reading" before: Gatchel, Theodore L. (1996). At the Water's Edge: Defending against the Modern Amphibious Assault. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-308-4.
Gallishaw, John (1916). Trenching At Gallipoli``2nd Edition<ref></ref>. 3. World War, 19114-1918, Personal Narratives, Canadian. St. John's, NL-Canada: DRC Publishing; D568.3G3 2005 940.4'26 C2005-900571-8
<ref>p.IV</ref>
```` <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Psw808|Psw808]] ([[User talk:Psw808#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psw808|contribs]]) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{reflist-talk}}
== Piping ==
{{ping|Jean-de-Nivelle}} Greetings, how can you tell what un-piped links work? Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 22:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, I use [[User:Nardog/Unpipe.js|a script]] that compares the two sides of a piped link of the form <code><nowiki>[[A|B]]</nowiki></code>. If <code><nowiki>[[A]]</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>[[B]]</nowiki></code> reach the same target page, the link is simplified to <code><nowiki>[[B]]</nowiki></code>, preserving both the target page and the displayed text. I used to do the same thing by hand, but this technique is more accurate, and much, much quicker. [[User:Jean-de-Nivelle|Jean-de-Nivelle]] ([[User talk:Jean-de-Nivelle|talk]]) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:Out of experience I know that Jean thinks that direct links with piping are evil and redirects are better. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 23:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
::Had a stab at installing the script but it wouldn't load....Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I had a little trouble installing it at first. In fact it was installing correctly, but I didn't know where to find it. If it's installed, a button "Unpipe links" should appear under "TemplateScript" in the sidebar of a page you're editing, after you click "edit source". Click the button, and the script will run, presenting you with the normal "Show changes" screen. You can check the changes and make further edits before saving. [[User:Jean-de-Nivelle|Jean-de-Nivelle]] ([[User talk:Jean-de-Nivelle|talk]]) 08:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks I'll give it a try. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Thanks it's working now. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
== 1914 4th battalion 22nd cheshire regiment became 159th Brigade, 53rd (welsh) division ==
I am looking for information on a Charles Conwell who served in WW1. [[Special:Contributions/77.81.75.109|77.81.75.109]] ([[User talk:77.81.75.109|talk]]) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
== Comparing Gallipoli and Normandy (D-Day) ==
Would like to see an article comparing these two battles.
It would have to be a Draft: to begin with, but how would interested wikipedians find it?
Much of this article would be writtenusing wikitable and sortable.
This article would be linked in the "See also" section of [[Gallipoli_campaign]] and [[Normandy landings]].
Note that wiki seems to ignore underscores "_" in article names. ----[[User:MountVic127|MountVic127]] ([[User talk:MountVic127|talk]]) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
| |||