Talk:Landing at Anzac Cove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleLanding at Anzac Cove has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
February 22, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1915 landing at Anzac Cove on Turkey's Gallipoli peninsula is marked on 25 April each year by a dawn service at the cove (pictured), attended by 50,000 people in 2013?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 25, 2005.
Current status: Good article

Periscope Rifle[edit]

Please, someone ref. the invention of the periscope rifle somewhere in this article as it played a very novel and integral role to Australian snipers at Quinn's post. Furthermore someone if they can please start an article on some of these locations in red, and especially include Quinn's post in here somewhere. The periscope rifle article was just created by me so I'd like to leave it to the other editors to proliferate it where they see it appropriate. Great aussie invention! Jachin 15:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LateOttomanFlag.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:LateOttomanFlag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture[edit]

Clearly this even has had a huge impact on Australian culture, and there should be a section to discuss this, and the ramifications that followed.58.106.110.97 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I Agree

babaned232 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.78.103 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits[edit]

1. I've added 'predominantly' before 'Australian and New Zealand forces' to para 1 of the introduction because the British Royal Naval Division and Royal Marines are mentioned in the 'Stalemate' and 'Aftermath' sections: e.g. "...reinforcement by the RND" (para 3 of 'Aftermath') and "...the casualty figure was about 8,500 including 600 from the Royal Naval Division" (para 4).
2. The 'Anzac Cove' sketch-map is not displaying its caption - is this because it is a png file, not a jpg? Can somebody more knowledgeable than me sort it out?  24 May 2013

RASAM (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OH G I & II[edit]

OH G I has 15,000 men, 42 mules ashore, 2,000 casualties. The Turks also had 2,000 casualties which it calls "an even greater percentage of loss". (pp 196, 199)

OH G II has 3,000 dead of 10,000 Turkish casualties for the action of 19 May, with c. 600 Anzac losses. (p19)
See Bean, p. lvii. A check of Navy records showed that 1,800 Australians and New Zealanders were evacuated ftom Anzac in the first 24 hours. The total loss was therefore greater. While the British official statistics gives ANZAC casualties at the landing (between 25 and 30 April inclusive) as 4,686, a check of the personnel records by the War Memorial found that 6,877 Australians and New Zealanders had become casualties in that period, and this figure did not include British casualties at Anzac. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Controversy continues regarding the factual events of the first day of the landing at ANZAC Cove,due to the Australian Government's strict Censorship Rules.Charles Bean,Australia's War Correspondance stated "rule of censorship forbids criticism'so we rely on other eye witnesses such as the British War Correspondant B-General Aspinell-Oglander.In his 1927 official History of the campaign, states that "stragglers(Australian Government forbade the use of the word deserters)from the firing line was so bad the senior officers did not think the beach head would hold'. Other non Australian historians/authors of WW1 also talk of alternate events occurring such as Cyril Falls of The Great War(1959) stating of the ANZAC Landing as [1]almost 'calamity' and of a 'heavy drift to the rear'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.134.39 (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The two sources you mention are more than fifty years old. The majority of the sources cited in this article are much more recent, and therefore could be expected to take into account those sources (and past rebuttals to them).
The article does cover "large numbers of unwounded men were leaving the battlefield and heading for the beaches", the artillerymen being nearly driven into the sea, and "if the Turks come on in mass formation ... I don't think anything can stop them." The lengthy quotation from Birdwood includes talk of troops being demoralised and "there is likely to be a fiasco", which is about as near to "almost a calamity" and not thinking the beach head would hold as one can come without using the exact same words. So it's not clear what you view as "alternate events" here.
It's true that the article does not discuss censorship nor any ongoing controversy; but it is unclear to me that any unusual or notable censorship took place regarding Anzac Cove as opposed to anywhere else in WWI; nor that there is or was an ongoing controversy about what occurred. If the latter, what sources discuss that controversy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Great War Cyril Falls(1959)

Citation Needed for landing site text[edit]

According to this page (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/myth-the-anzacs-landed-in-the-wrong-place/5410252) which is a subset of this page (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-25/five-anzac-myths-put-to-the-test/5393750) the troops were landed within the designated landing zone (Naval navigation not being precise enough to have a smaller landing zone), and the actual site was less defended than the site the planners were hoping for.Ocker3 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There's also the information here (Ocker3 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)http://www.abc.net.au/innovation/gallipoli/historical_analysis.htm)

Gday - I'm not the author of the article and cannot really comment on its validity, although it does appear in the body of the text and is currently cited. Pls see here: "They were one mile (1.6 km) further north than intended, and instead of an open beach they were faced with steep cliffs and ridges[11]..." - The citation is "Anzac Cove, The Landings". New Zealand Government. Retrieved 20 January 2014. Given this and sources you pointed out there may well be room to add some discussion into the article about these conflicting interpretions / this myth though I would imagine (although I would hope that there are more sources than just a few ABC News articles for this, perhaps recent books or journal articles on the topic perhaps by Ashley Ekins or Peter Stanley?). Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Further to my last I added another ref re the landing site (as the NZ govt website seemed a bit weak as a ref to me). Regardless, I'd still be happy to see a discussion about more recent interpretations of this aspect of the landing included in the article if someone was prepared to draft something. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Gaba Tepe vs Kabatepe[edit]

As far as I can tell "Kabatepe" is the modern name, or at least Gaba Tepe seems to have been widely used at the time of the landing. A quick review of the sources shows it in use in the Australian [1] and the New Zealand official histories [2], Tim Travers Gallipoli 1915 and Les Carlyon's Gallipoli. I imagine there are many others as well. As such I don't think a contemporary guidebook is sufficient to outweigh the usage in such sources, which at any rate probably reflects current naming rather that which was common at the time. Happy to discuss if more reliable sources can be provided though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure that "Gaba Tepe" remains the common English-language name. It's used in Chris Roberts' 2013 book The Landing at ANZAC 1915 for instance. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Landing at Anzac Cove. 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 16:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Claimed Ottoman victory removed[edit]

It appears this should have never been in the article to begin with. "Inconclusive" was changed to "Ottoman Defensive Victory" by an IP edtor here in August, and I compounded the problem by removing the non-standard use of "defensive" which is deprecated by the infobox instructions. The two facts cited in the infobox "Allied forces established a beachhead" and "Turkish Army temporarily halted further progress" both support the "Inconclusive" result, not an "Ottoman victory". FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Turkish machine guns at landing[edit]

It is claimed in this article that there were machine guns at Gaba Tepe greeting the Anzac troops. This is not true. 27th was one of the last regiments to receive machine guns. 2nd Battalion had non though. What they had at Gaba Tepe was a gun battery. Two Noredenfelds and two old "matelli" guns were at Gaba Tepe and a 75 mm field artillery battery that was positioned at Kanlisirt, about 1.5 km East of Gaba Tepe. Initial rifle fire was very intense and gave the impression of a machine gun possibly. Murat (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)