Talk:Gallipoli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myth[edit]

How did this become a 'founding myth'? Gaurav

The Battle of Gallipoli is known simply as Gallipoli in Newfoundland. Newfoundland was the only country in North America to commit troops to the battle as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment fought alongside Australian and New Zealand forces in the Gallipoli Campaign. BmPower, April 27,2005

Country?--Greasysteve13 09:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Dominion of Newfoundland was a British dominion from 1907 (before which the territory had the status of a British colony) to 1949." Wikipedia article: Dominion of Newfoundland 66.234.222.23 (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling on Newfoundland and Gallipoli there are various references. The following link might help: from Newfoundland Regiment: Gallipoli - 1,076 Newfoundlanders landed on the shores of the Dardanelles on September 19, 1915 and left January 1916
Because the Newfoundlanders arrived in September, I think it would be useful to clarify their presence. I am not attempting to belittle their contribution, but for Australians and New Zealanders the battle is remembered for the dawn landing followed by months of entrenchment close to the shore facing the Turks - only the latter experience applies to the Newfoundlanders (the comment in the article was: "The soldiers arrived expecting action and excitement. They were soon disappointed; they spent the first few months digging trenches and keeping long night watches"). Clarification would help against reversion of the Newfoundland reference. It would also be useful to know how Newfoundlanders commemorate their participation. --AYArktos 21:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In Newfoundland, the Gallipoli offensive is commemorated each year on April 25 by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment who hold a march from Government House through the streets of St. John's ending at the National War Memorial. Members of both the Australian and New Zealand armed forces are invited each year to participate (and almost always do) in the march and wreath laying ceremonies. People in Newfoundland realise that Gallipoli was mainly an Australian/New Zealand operation, with a smaller contribution from Royal Newfoundland Regiment (hence the April 25 date of recognition). --User:Jcmurphy 05:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Newfoundlanders served in the Suvla sector of Gallipoli, which existed from August until December 1915. The only Australians permanently stationed in that sector were the members of the Royal Australian Naval Bridging Train (RANBT), and there were no New Zealander units permanently stationed there. So in fact the Newfoundlanders served mainly with the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish forces which made up the majority of troops at Suvla. Approximately 45 Newfoundlanders died at Gallipoli. There was a Canadian Hospital situated on the Greek island of Lemnos in support of the Gallipoli campaign. Two of its nurses died on that island during the campaign.

See

Gallishaw, J. Trenching at Gallipoli. A Personal Narrative of a Newfoundlander with the Illfated Dardanelles Expedition, New York, A.L. Burt Co., 1916.

and

Stacey, A. J. Memoirs of a Blue Puttee: The Newfoundland Regiment in the Great War, St. John's, Newfoundland, DRC Publishers, 2002. Hayaman (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Gallipoli → Gallipoli, Turkey … Rationale: This is to avoid ambiguity with Gallipoli, Italy. Thanks g_fiore 15:30, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose Common name throughout the British Commonwealth -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For above reason, the Turkish Gallipoli is simply much more prominent. michael talk 16:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the U.S., we consider Gallipoli, Turkey to be the Gallipoli as well. It doesn't need further clarification. Kafziel 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and the quickmove was inappropriate. Gallipoli typically refers to the place in Turkey or the Battle of, that took place in Turkey, and slaughtered the ANZACs, by order of Winston Churchill. 132.205.45.110 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Any Kiwi or Ausi I have ever head say that they are going to Gallipoli (for ANZAC Day). I have never heard anyone qualify Gallipoli with the word Turkey because there is another pace in Italy with the same name. It is like qualifying London with England because there are other places with the same name. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mustafa Kemal's speech[edit]

He is quoted in the article as saying:

"I do not commend you to fight, I commend you to die."

But wasn't what he said closer to the following:

"I do not command you to fight, I command you to die." -- llywrch 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"His famous speech "I do not command you to fight, I command you to die" shows his courageous and determined personality and also shows the main character of a Turkish Warrior. He went on to found the modern Turkish state after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire." Is this part propaganda for Attatürk?

No, it is the truth: Edward J. Erickson, Ordered to die. A history of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Westport/London: Greenwood Press, 2001, xx11 +265 p. --134.155.99.42 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote isn't a sign of courage - it doesn't take much courage to command/commend others to die - but it is a sign of a determined military commander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.128.180 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


'Battle' of Gallipoli[edit]

There was no 'Battle' of Gallipoli. The correct term in English is 'Gallipoli Campaign'. A campaign consists of a series of battles. Some of the battles fought at Gallipoli were 'The Landing', 1st Krithia', '2nd Krithia', 'Sari Bair', 'Scimitar Hill' and 'Hill 60'. Hayaman (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anzac[edit]

For a discussion on the historical use of the word 'Anzac' as opposed to the acronym for the army corps 'ANZAC', see [here [1]] Hayaman (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in article: how many deaths?[edit]

Overall, there were around 300,000 Allied casualties including around 100,000 deaths and 150,000 Turkish casualties including around 20,000 deaths. ....

In fact around 21,000 British died, 10,000 French, 8,700 Australians, 2,700 New Zealanders and 1,370 Indians. Nearly twice as many Turks died (85,000) as all the Allies combined. However it must also be noted that, relative to its population, Australia suffered more losses than any other nation in World War I[citation needed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.73.247 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following text:
  • Overall, there were around 300,000 Allied casualties including around 100,000 deaths and 150,000 Turkish casualties including around 20,000 deaths.
I don't know the actual figures, but these seem to be wrong, at least according to Gallipoli campaign. Figure for Australians is here, which is consistent with what anon has written above. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the population figures at World War I casualties and the figures currently in the casualty table here, the precentage of population deaths were, in order:
  • OTT 0.00407%
  • NZ 0.002474%
  • AUS 0.001935%
  • UK 0.000468%
  • FR 0.000252%
  • IND 0.000043%.
Maybe the sources for the casualties here shoud be checked? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation?[edit]

can we have a disambiguation page? gallipoli campaign, place, movie? i'm sure there are more. it'd make life easier. or is that old fashioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.36.169 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli (disambiguation) already exists. Perhaps you mean it should be moved here, and this page moved to Gallipoli (Turkey) or to Gallipoli peninsula? If so, I agree. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection if I make the move? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we need to - before you make the move, is there anything in a Style Guide that might give some advice? Given that the disambig page is listed on the first line of the page here PalawanOz (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I'd also note the result of the page move proposal above - which was to keep the page as is, rather than renaming to "Gallipoli, Turkey", or similar PalawanOz (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

As Gelibolu and Gallipoli are the same place, it would be best to merge the two, with an appropriate redirect. Although "Gelibolu" is the Turkish usage, "Gallipoli" is the usual English language version and this article is the most developed, so I propose the merge into Gallipoli. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

Rerated article as "start". No way is it "B", since referencing is incomplete and the subject is confused - is it about the town or the peninsular - it's not indicated by the title which is linked to by articles that assume the town. Some projects have criteria for "B" status; it might be useful to consider them. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople or Istanbul[edit]

I reverted a recent edit which changed (in only one instance) Constantinople to Istanbul. The edit summary given for the change was that the city was known as Istanbul after the Ottoman conquest in 1453. This is not correct. The city was called Istanbul in common Turkish usage, but it was officially Kostantiniyye from the conquest in 1453 up until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923 as well as most of the rest of the Islamic world. Outside of the Islamic world, the city was known mostly as Constantinople but also as Tsarigrad (Slavic countries) as well as Stamboul, a variant of Istanbul. Istanbul did not become the official name until 1923, within Turkey, and internationally in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law of that year which began the return of packages and letters not addressed as Istanbul. Since the event in the Gallipoli article take place in 1915, when the city was still predominantly known as Constantinople (and Kostantiniyye in the Islamic world), the correct usage would be Constantinople for that time. Age Happens (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Kallipolis or Callipolis?[edit]

"Kalippolis" is the Greek name transliterated into English while "Callipolis" is the Romanized version. It was once routine in Europe and the West to use Romanized names but in that past half-century or so the transliterated Greek has been gaining favor in both scholarship and journalism. See Romanization of Greek and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) for more on this. This article uses both versions, but not necessarily with consistency to the time period where it is named. When Attila captured the city in 443 it was certainly Roman, so I will change the spelling to Callipolis. This is not to say the city was not predominantly Greek in language, but that the Greek world was Romanized at this time. However, I am not an expert on this period so revert if you know better. —Blanchette (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Campaign[edit]

I have added in one or two sentences about the landings and the subsequent failure to take advantage of the initial lack of oppossition, allowing the Ottoman Empire to pour in reinforcements. Please feel free to change or delete as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the state that we are in we do not know about the gallipoli isa really boring so we do not know anything about it the end!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.42.195 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

This is listed in Music on the Dutch page for the battle of Gallipoli. It says The Sweedish heavy/powermetal band Sabaton brought the Album The Art of War out in 2008 with a number over the battle of Gallipoli: Cliffs of Gallipoli.

De Zweedse heavy/powermetal band Sabaton bracht in 2008 zijn album The Art Of War uit met daarop het nummer Cliffs of Gallipoli.

I think this is a nice addition to the article as the song is very good and it teaches history in a way that is easy to remember. Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clwijnen (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

As someone wrote above, this article reads like a school essay. It has way too few sources and makes sweeping statements like Anzac Day is the most important national day of commemoration for Australians. I don't want to go through and put [citation needed] everywhere, but something needs to be done. Anyone? Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This got lost in the shuffle, but it's absolutely right per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:ENGLISH. Gallipoli is the city, Gallipoli peninsula (seldom shortened) is the geographical body named after it, Gallipoli campaign (often shortened) is the military action that took place on it.
Gelibolu (ie, Gallipoli) should be merged. Gallipoli Campaign should have a separate hatnote of its own. Historic elements of the current "Gallipoli" article should be kept and merged, with geographic parts moving to Gallipoli peninsula (just like the lede suggests).
The current set-up makes as much sense as having "Florida peninsula" in the "Florida" namespace and moving the polity to "State of Florida."
I'll set up the proposal, notices, talk pages. — LlywelynII 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for evidence of WP:COMMONNAME & WP:ENGLISH, it's hard to compare google results, but cf. Fall of Gallipoli; discussions of Gallipoli (not Gelibolu or Kallipolis) on Byzantine (example) and Ottoman pages (example) and sources; hundreds of years of maps at David Rumsey's site; National Geographic c. 1914 map; and Bing Maps today. Use Google Translate on the Gelibolu municipal site, and every "Gelibolu Yarımadası" turns into "Gallipoli peninsula" and every "Gelibolu" into "Gallipoli."
Now, it's true that the official name of the city has been changed to Gelibolu and that shows up on National Geographic's 1977 map and Google Maps. The Turkish-produced English page of the municipal site is titled "Gallipoli" but employs "Gelibolu."
Personally, the present name is mixed and the historic preference is clearly Gallipoli, it'd keep it here under WP:ENGLISH. But since the overall trend in English is to follow local names, we could follow the precedent of Bombay (Mumbai) and have this page as a redirect to Gelibolu with a hatnote link to Gallipoli (disambiguation). Thoughts? — LlywelynII 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Common usage of the name Gallipoli refers to the location in which the Gallipoli Campaign took place. Landings and battles took place all along the peninsula but not in the town. The two should not be merged. It's not like Istanbul. The town is a tiny part of the peninsula, comparable in ratio to the Italian Gallipoli and its peninsula. The peninsula is a much wider topic, with a broader, separate history. If any article should be merged into Gallipoli its Thracian Chersonese. Rennell435 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The proposal above is now unclear about what is actually being proposed: a merge of two articles into one, or a switching of places between two articles that are to remain distinct? Can we please clarify this so everybody knows what everybody has been voting for or against. Personally, I'd be opposed to a merge (the town and the peninsula are two separate topics that can have two articles), but I haven't quite made up my mind about the names yet. By the way, there's a potential for yet another merger: Thracian Chersonese could/should be merged with whatever ends up as the main article about the peninsula. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have separated the old merge proposal (from 2009, now back in the section above at #Proposed merge) from the new move proposal made by User:LlywelynII. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rennell: "Common usage of the name Gallipoli refers to the location in which the Gallipoli Campaign took place". Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi yet there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.83.216 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for any move. bd2412 T 20:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:ENGLISH. For example English-language maps published by companies, such as National Geographic [[2]] also use both of the proposed names. Google & googlebooks prefer Gallipoli for both the peninsula and the city (gbooks by a ratio of more than 10vs1), characteristic example is Enc.Brittanica [[3]]...Gallipoli, Turkish Gelibolu, historically Callipolis, seaport and town,...

Additionally it's erroneous that both bear the same name in every language: English, Turkish, Latin, Greek etc., since historically the peninsula was named after the city, but in wikipedia their names differ. --Relisted. Red Slash 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Alexikoua (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Alexikoua (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, but I'd support a move of Gelibolu to Gallipoli, Çanakkale. The town is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which this move presumes. I agree with the general principle of using the same spelling for both the town and peninsula, however. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good notice, I'm changing Gallipoli to Gallipoli, Çanakkale, per primary topic. Gallipoli is already a disambiguation page, no need to became the article about the city.Alexikoua (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Gallipoli is about the peninsula, not a disambiguation page, and thus the default WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This move would still change that by declaring no primary topic, and I think it's correct that the peninsula is. --BDD (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I oppose the first move and support the second. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neither proposal has an obvious benefit. They both just make titles longer. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@victor falk: I assume that the oppose vote concerns only the first request (the second one is unrelated to any disambiguation) .Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad assumption. Natural disambiguation is still disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. walk victor falk talk 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Peninsula is clearly the primary topic and the shortened form is more common. Don't see the benefit of the other change either. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I agree with Neljack. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Add coordinates under main photo[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gallipoli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Proposition[edit]

As in WPs of other languages I propose to move this article about the Gallipoli peninsula to it's appropriate Lemma and move the disambiguation here. Then it's really clear that this term has many meanings. Btw: yes, I know that much links here - and it will be a big work to adapt all these links; but I consider that it is worth it. --ProloSozz (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gallipoli&oldid=1207350034"