text:
Relief Society

The Relief Society is a philanthropic and educational women's organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). It was founded in 1842 in Nauvoo, Illinois, United States, and has more than 7 million members in over 188 countries and territories. The Relief Society is often referred to by the church and others as "one of the oldest and largest women's organizations in the world."

Mission
The motto of the Relief Society, taken from 1 Corinthians 13:8, is "Charity never faileth." The purpose of Relief Society reads, “Relief Society helps prepare women for the blessings of eternal life as they increase faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and His Atonement; strengthen individuals, families, and homes through ordinances and covenants; and work in unity to help those in need.”

Beginnings
In the spring of 1842 Sarah Granger Kimball and her seamstress, Margaret A. Cook, discussed combining their efforts to sew clothing for workers constructing the Latter Day Saints' Nauvoo Temple. They determined to invite their neighbors to assist by creating a Ladies' Society. Kimball asked Eliza R. Snow to write a constitution and by-laws for the organization for submission to President of the Church Joseph Smith for review. After reviewing the documents, Smith called them "the best he had ever seen" but said, "this is not what you want. Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and He has something better for them than a written constitution. ... I will organize the women. .. after a pattern of the priesthood."

Twenty Latter Day Saint women gathered on Thursday, March 17, 1842, in the second-story meeting room over Smith's Red Brick Store in Nauvoo to discuss the formation of a Ladies' Society with Smith, John Taylor, and Willard Richards. Smith, Taylor, and Richards sat on the platform at the upper end of the room with the women facing them. "The Spirit of God Like a Fire Is Burning" was sung, and Taylor opened the meeting with prayer. The women present were Emma Hale Smith, Sarah M. Cleveland, Phebe Ann Hawkes, Elizabeth Jones, Sophia Packard, Philinda Merrick, Martha McBride Knight, Desdemona Fulmer, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Leonora Taylor, Bathsheba W. Smith, Phebe M. Wheeler, Elvira A. Coles (Cowles; later Elivira A. C. Holmes), Margaret A. Cook, Athalia Robinson, Sarah Granger Kimball, Eliza R. Snow, Sophia Robinson, Nancy Rigdon and Sophia R. Marks. The women present were proposed as the initial members and the men withdrew as the motion to accept all present was considered. The motion was passed and the men returned. Then another seven names were proposed by Joseph Smith for admission. They were: Sarah Higbee, Thirza Cahoon, Keziah A. Morrison, Marinda N. Hyde, Abigail Allred, Mary Snider, and Sarah S. Granger. The men again withdrew as the women considered and passed the motion. Smith then proposed the society elect a presiding officer and allow that officer to choose two counselors to aid her. They would be ordained and would preside over the society. In the place of a constitution the presidency would preside and all their decisions should be considered law and acted upon as such. At appropriate times, the body of the society should vote and the majority opinion of the sisters would be honored as law. The minutes of the meetings would serve as an additional guide to their governance. Whitney motioned and it was seconded that Emma Smith be chosen president and this passed unanimously. Emma Smith then chose her two counselors, Cleveland and Whitney. At that time Taylor, who had been presiding over the meeting, vacated that honor to Smith and her counselors. The men then again withdrew as Smith chose a secretary and treasurer. The three members of the Presidency were then ordained and blessed by Taylor.

Smith stated "the object of the Society—that the Society of Sisters might provoke the brethren to good works in looking to the wants of the poor—searching after objects of charity, and in administering to their wants—to assist; by correcting the morals and strengthening the virtues of the female community, and save the Elders the trouble of rebuking; that they may give their time to other duties, &c., in their public teaching."

It was proposed that the organization go by the name "Benevolent Society" and with no opposition the vote carried. However, Emma Smith made a point of objection. She convinced the attendees that the term "relief" would better reflect the purpose of the organization, for they were "going to do something extraordinary," distinct from the popular benevolent institutions of the day. After discussion, it was unanimously agreed that the fledgling organization be named "The Female Relief Society of Nauvoo". Joseph Smith then offered five dollars (worth $0 today) in gold to commence the funds of the Society. After the men left the room, Eliza R. Snow was unanimously elected as secretary of the Society with Phebe M. Wheeler as Assistant Secretary and Elvira A. Coles as Treasurer. Emma Smith remarked that "each member should be ambitious to do good" and seek out and relieve the distressed. Several female members then made donations to the Society. The men returned, and Taylor and Richards also made donations. After singing "Come Let Us Rejoice," the meeting was adjourned to meet on the following Thursday at 10 o'clock. Taylor then gave a closing prayer. Of his experience Joseph Smith recorded: "I attended by request, the Female Relief Society, whose object is the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of all benevolent purposes. ... [W]e feel convinced that with their concentrated efforts, the condition of the suffering poor, of the stranger and the fatherless will be ameliorated".

The new organization was popular and grew so rapidly that finding a meeting place for such a large group proved difficult. Under Emma Smith's direction, the Society was "divided for the purpose of meeting" according to each of the city's four municipal wards. Smith and her counselors continued to preside over the groups. Visiting committees were appointed to determine needs in each ward. Young mother Sarah Pea Rich, wife of Charles C. Rich, recalled, "We then, as a people were united and were more like family than like strangers." By March 1844, membership totaled 1331 women.

The last recorded meeting of the Relief Society in Nauvoo was held on March 16, 1844. Smith had often used the Relief Society as a pulpit to express her opposition to plural marriage. However, several of the society's members and leaders were themselves secretly in plural marriages, including to Smith's own husband, who himself counseled the society against exposing iniquity. These inner conflicts led Joseph Smith to suspend all meetings of the organization. After the death of Joseph Smith in June 1844, Brigham Young assumed leadership of the majority of Latter Day Saints. Desiring to continue plural marriage, Young disbanded the Relief Society before leaving Nauvoo for the Salt Lake Valley.

Moving west
When Relief Society secretary Eliza R. Snow joined the Latter Day Saints in their exodus west in 1846, she carried the Relief Society Book of Records with her. Although they no longer met in an official capacity, women continued to assemble informally; the care and nurture of the needy continued without a formal Relief Society organization.

As Saints established homes in the Salt Lake Valley and surrounding settlements, formal meetings for women gradually emerged. A Female Council of Health was established in 1851. On January 24, 1854, in response to Brigham Young’s call to Saints to assist neighboring Native Americans, women from several Salt Lake City wards decided to organize "a society of females for the purpose of making clothing for Indian women and children." Two weeks later, on February 9, 1854, they formally organized an association remembered as the "Indian Relief Society." Matilda Dudley was elected president and treasurer, Mary Hawkins and Mary Bird as counselors, Louisa R. Taylor as secretary, and Amanda Barnes Smith as assistant secretary. Twelve other women were listed as charter members. Though the Latter-day Saint women were poor in material goods, they felt the need of Native Americans exceeded their own. Over the next four months, their efforts to clothe Indian women and children continued in earnest. In June 1854, Brigham Young encouraged women to form societies in their individual wards. Members of the first Indian Relief Society disbanded to help establish organizations in their own wards, many of them becoming leaders. Matilda Dudley, for example, became president of the Thirteenth Ward Relief Society with Augusta Cobb and Sarah A. Cook as her counselors and Martha Jane Coray as secretary. Records are limited but show that by 1858 over two dozen organizations had formed in some twelve Salt Lake City wards and in other outlying settlements such as Ogden, Provo, Spanish Fork, and Manti, Utah.

Each Relief Society operated independently within its ward in cooperation with the local bishop. Ward societies were not interconnected by central women's leadership, though many of them engaged in similar activities such as sewing clothing for Indians, caring for the poor, especially emigrants, and weaving carpets for local meetinghouses. In 2004, historian Carol Holindrake Nielson documented the organization, activities and membership of the Salt Lake City Fourteenth Ward Relief Society. The Fourteenth Ward included Temple Square and eleven residential squares to the south and west. This section contained the homes of many church leaders. Among others, the ward Relief Society roll included the names of Leonora Taylor and Jane B. Taylor, wives of John Taylor; Elizabeth B. Pratt, Kezia D. Pratt and Phoebe Soper Pratt, wives of Parley P. Pratt; and Phebe W. Woodruff, Emma Woodruff, Sarah Woodruff, Sarah Delight Woodruff, Phebe A. Woodruff, Susan C. Woodruff, Bulah Woodruff, wives and daughters of Wilford Woodruff.

Interrupted by the 1858 Utah War, no more than three or four of these independent ward organizations survived the temporary move of much of the Latter-day Saint population south of Salt Lake County.

Reorganization and expansion

In December 1867 church president Brigham Young publicly called for the reorganization of Relief Society in every ward. Eliza R. Snow provided a historical account of the society and described its purpose to seek "not only for the relief of the poor, but the accomplishment of every good and noble work." Young again addressed the need to establish local Relief Society units at the church's 1868 April general conference, stating: "Now, Bishops, you have smart women for wives, many of you. Let them organize Female Relief Societies in the various wards. We have many talented women among us .... You will find that the sisters will be the mainspring of the movement." Snow was assigned to assist local bishops in organizing permanent branches of the Relief Society. Using the minutes recorded in the early Nauvoo meetings as a Constitution, Snow created a standard model for all local wards that united women in purpose and provided a permanent name and structure to their organization. She and nine other sisters began visiting wards and settlements in 1868, and at the end of the year, organizations existed in all twenty Salt Lake City congregations and in congregations in nearly every county in Utah.

Ward units of the Relief Society performed a variety of functions. Women helped the bishop of the ward assist the poor by collecting and disbursing funds and commodities. They nursed the sick, cleaned homes, sewed carpet rags for local meeting houses, planted and tended gardens, promoted home industry, and shared doctrinal instruction and testimony.

Snow provided central leadership both before and after her call as General President in 1880. She emphasized spirituality and self-sufficiency. The Relief Society sent women to medical school, trained nurses, opened the Deseret Hospital, operated cooperative stores, promoted silk manufacture, saved wheat, and built granaries. In 1872, Snow provided assistance and advice to Louisa L. Greene in the creation of a woman's publication, the Woman's Exponent, which was loosely affiliated with the Relief Society. Emmeline B. Wells succeeded Greene and continued as editor until its final issue in 1914.

Under Snow's direction, Relief Society sisters nurtured young women and children. Heeding Brigham Young's 1869 call to reform, Snow, Mary Isabella Horne, and others established the Ladies' Cooperative Retrenchment Association from which the Young Ladies' Department of the Ladies' Cooperative Retrenchment was formed (later called the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Association and now the Young Women). Snow also worked with Aurelia Spencer Rogers to establish the first ward Primary Association in 1878. By 1888, the Relief Society had more than 22,000 members in 400 local wards and branches. In 1891, the Relief Society became a charter member of the National Council of Women of the United States and it was called the National Women's Relief Society.

Early Relief Society meetings were generally held semi-monthly. One meeting per month was devoted to sewing and caring for the needs of the poor. At meetings members might receive instruction, discuss elevating and educational topics, and bear testimony. The women were also encouraged to explore and develop cultural opportunities for their community.

The 20th century
Stakes began circulating outlines for lessons in 1902. The first standardized lessons were published by the General Board in 1914 in the Relief Society Bulletin, later renamed the Relief Society Magazine in 1915.

By 1942, membership in the organization was approximately 115,000 women, growing to 300,000 members in 1966.

In June 1945, the General Board changed the organization's official name to "Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

The church-wide implementation of Priesthood Correlation in the 1960s "radically transformed" the Relief Society. These changes assisted in preparing the Relief Society for an era of a worldwide church; correlated lessons and materials were easier to translate and applicable to a broader audience. A side-effect of these changes was that the Relief Society lost much of the autonomy that it once enjoyed, notably around its budget.

The Relief Society Magazine's last edition was December 1970, after which it and several other church magazines were replaced with the Ensign.

In April 2005, the Relief Society received the American Red Cross "Heroes 2004 Award" for its service in the Greater Salt Lake area. In 2010, Catholic Community Services honored Julie Beck, the general president of the Relief Society, where she was named Community Partner.

Structure and meetings today
In the LDS Church today, every Latter-day Saint woman, on her eighteenth birthday or within the following year, and women under 18 who are married, move into Relief Society from the Young Women. Additionally, unwed teenage mothers who are seventeen or older and who choose to keep the child are advanced into Relief Society. There are no fees or membership dues for joining the Relief Society.

In each local congregation of the church, a member of the Relief Society serves as the local president of the organization. The president selects two other women from the congregation to assist her as counselors; together the three women make up the local Relief Society presidency. The Relief Society presidency acts under the direction of the bishop or branch president in presiding over and serving the women in the congregation. Additionally, stake or district Relief Society presidencies exist to supervise five or more local Relief Society presidencies.

Following changes made in 2019, Relief Society holds meetings twice per month that last approximately fifty minutes. During these meetings, an educational lesson is presented by a member of the Relief Society presidency or another woman who has been asked to serve as the instructor. From 1997 to 2016, the curriculum was composed primarily of Teachings of Presidents of the Church. As of 2019, recent general conference messages largely comprise the curriculum. The Relief Society also leads the LDS Church's efforts to teach basic literacy skills to those members and non-members that lack them.

According to the church, as of February 2020, the Relief Society has over 7 million members in 188 countries and territories, having grown from about 6 million in 170 territories in 2009.

Governance
Three women are selected by the First Presidency to serve the entire LDS Church as the General Relief Society Presidency. Although these women are not considered general authorities, they are based in Salt Lake City and are considered to be "general officers" of the church and are the highest ranking women in the LDS Church's hierarchy. Similar to other general authorities and officers in the church, they serve under the direction of the church's First Presidency. Since August 2022, the General Relief Society Presidency has been composed of Camille N. Johnson, president; J. Anette Dennis, first counselor; and Kristin M. Yee, second counselor. They are assisted and advised by a Relief Society Advisory Council drawn from women in the church.

From the 1970s to 2013, the Relief Society held a general meeting in Salt Lake City, annually in late September, which was broadcast around the world via television and radio, and later the Internet. This meeting was an opportunity for the General Relief Society Presidency to address the entire body of the Relief Society. Typically, a member of the church's First Presidency also spoke to the women of the church.

In 2014, such meetings (along with the March General Young Women Meeting) were replaced by a biannual women's meeting held in March and September, one week before the other sessions of general conference. The meeting is for all women of the church ages eight and older. The first of these meetings was held in March 2014 and the general presidents of the Primary, Young Women, and Relief Society General Presidencies spoke along with Henry B. Eyring of the First Presidency. Beginning in 2018, the annual Women's Session of the church's general conference is held in October, in the evening, as part of the regular Saturday schedule.

Relief Society Building
In Salt Lake City, the Relief Society occupies its own headquarters building known as the Relief Society Building, which is separate from the other administrative offices of the LDS Church. While the Quorum of the Seventy had a building in Nauvoo in the 1840s, the Relief Society is the only auxiliary organization in the LDS Church today which has a completely separate facility. This building is also the closest of any building to the door of the Salt Lake Temple.

Ministering sisters
In every LDS congregation, each member of the Relief Society is paired with another member; this companionship is then assigned by the Relief Society Presidency to be ministering sisters of one or more other members of the Relief Society. Ministering sisters strive to make regular contacts with the women assigned to them. Sometimes this contact is a personal visit in the member's home. If this is not possible, the member may be contacted by telephone, letter, e-mail, or a visit in a location other than the member's home. Ministering sisters are encouraged to look for opportunities to serve the individuals to whom they minister.

On April 1, 2018, during the church's general conference, church president Russell M. Nelson announced that the similar program of visiting teaching, along with the priesthood's home teaching, would be retired, to be replaced with the "ministering"-brethren-and-sisters program, with its dual components under the direction of the ward's elders quorum and Relief Society's respective leaderships.

Compassionate service
Along with the bishop or branch president, the Relief Society President is the key person in the ward in ensuring that the temporal and emotional needs of the members of the congregation are met. The Relief Society Presidency is responsible for helping the women of the congregation learn welfare principles such as work, self-reliance, provident living, personal and family preparedness, and compassionate service of others. In many congregations, the Relief Society will ask a woman to serve as the Compassionate Service Leader, who is responsible for organizing service activities and responses to members' needs in times of emergency or hardship.

Activity/enrichment meetings
An evening Relief Society meeting is usually held quarterly on a week-night in each congregation of the church. At this meeting women learn a variety of skills, participate in service projects, and enjoy time together. Local congregations may also choose to hold monthly or weekly meetings for women with similar needs and interests. These extra meetings are informal, and local congregations have a wide discretion in determining what activities will be part of these meetings. These meetings were originally called "Homemaking", and on January 1, 2000, the name changed to "Home, Family, and Personal Enrichment", or "Enrichment" for short. In September 2009, due to the complexity of the name and different interpretations of the meeting's purpose, the separate name for the extra weekday meetings was discontinued and all meetings of the Relief Society began to be referred to simply as "Relief Society meetings".

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Relief Society


text:
NEA Four

The "NEA Four", Karen Finley, Tim Miller, John Fleck, and Holly Hughes, were performance artists whose proposed grants from the United States government's National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) were vetoed by John Frohnmayer in June 1990. Grants were overtly vetoed on the basis of subject matter after the artists had successfully passed through a peer review process. John Fleck was vetoed for a performance comedy with a toilet prop. The artists won their case in court in 1993 and were awarded amounts equal to the grant money in question, though the case would make its way to the United States Supreme Court in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, which ruled in favour of the NEA's decision making process. In response, the NEA, under pressure from Congress, stopped funding individual artists.

Peer review process within the NEA
The NEA has used peer review panels since 1966 (one year after its inception). The NEA's Founding Chairperson Roger L. Stevens did not want to use panels, preferring that staff members review applications. Due to the increase of funds and applications, Stevens turned to peer review panels. Nancy Hanks (the next chairperson appointed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1969) expanded panels and created a list of three criteria: appointments must be merit-based; appointees must serve the panel as individuals, and may not make decisions based on any particular interest group, institution or viewpoint; the panels must be insulated from external pressures. The last criterion became more difficult to enforce as the budget of the NEA grew, and public interest in how the money was spent mounted.

In 1979, Report: a Study of the Panel System at the National Endowment for the Arts recommended that the panels be split into a policy panel that reviewed policies within the NEA panel process and a review panel that only made granting decisions. Once adopted this split panel allowed for more review panelists to be engaged who represented more diverse art practices. Also in 1979, a House report found that the NEA was failing to establish a coherent system of review and had not established a uniform system of review.

The NEA and President Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan began his presidency in 1981 and by the end of his two terms in office in 1989 the NEA's funding had dropped by 50% based on inflation. After his election in 1980 the New York Times ran an article by Hilton Kramer stating that Reagan arts policy advisors believed that both the NEA and the National Endowment for the Humanities had strayed from their original intent, and that their standards of artistry had been lowered to an unacceptable level. Kramer stated that there were opposing views within the group of Reagan's policy makers on how to deal with the perceived issues of the two Endowments. One solution offered was the adoption of narrower programs and renewing an emphasis on high art and scholarly practice, the other solution reported by Kramer was the abolishment of the Endowments entirely. Kramer's reportage was subsequently corroborated by Livingston L. Biddle, Jr. the third NEA chairman in his 1988 book Our Government and the Arts (American Council for the Arts, 1988).

In 1981 President Reagan convened a Special Presidential Task Force on the Arts and Humanities to assess the endowment process and its policies for awarding federal funds for culture. The task force reported that the agencies were basically sound and in need of only minor improvements. The task force also supported the peer review process as fair and able to act effectively. Despite this finding, pressure to decentralize NEA funding – funneling it through state and local agencies – mounted during the 80s and into the 90s from both conservative and liberal interest groups. In June 1985 Representative Steve Bartlett (R-Texas) proposed an amendment to a 1986 appropriations bill that would not allow the NEA to fund artwork considered to be "patently offensive to the average person". The amendment was struck down but laid the groundwork for future debate on what makes an artwork obscene. In October 1985 the United States House of Representatives passed two amendments to the budget that limited the NEA to funding artistic work with "significant literary, scholarly, cultural or artistic merit" and requiring that recipients file financial reports within 90 days of the end of their grant period. The NEA was also pressured to rely on formulas for arts assessment. Frank Hodsoll (chairperson from 1981 to 1989) and John Frohnmayer (chairperson from 1989 to 1992 during the heart of the NEA Four controversy) both had to fight such political pressure to retain the peer review model as well as their own roles within the NEA.

Additional events
In 1989 two art pieces drew controversy to the NEA, Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Robert Mapplethorpe's The Perfect Moment (which was canceled at The Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC due to political pressure). The controversy around these two art pieces led to increased interest in how the NEA was spending its money from conservative lawmakers.

In June 1989, prompted by Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, Senators Alfonse D'Amato and Jesse Helms, joined by twenty-five members of the Senate, co-signed a letter written to the NEA requesting reforms to its grant making policies. A month later the House passed an amendment that no NEA funds may be re-granted by other organizations, therefore only work that the NEA sponsored itself will receive its funding.  In March 1990 NEA grantees began receiving a new clause in their agreements that states:

"Public Law 101-121 requires that: None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the National Endowment for the Arts ... may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which in the judgement of the National Endowment for the Arts ... may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homoerotocism, the sexual exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

title: NEA Four


text:
Talk:Gallipoli campaign

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.97.247 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ottoman entry into World War I
Gallipoli Campaign is not the article for arguing on "Ottoman entry into World War I." That argument may have a position in Battle of Odessa (1914), but too many things happened before Gallipoli Campaign. A small reference to Ottoman entry into World War I is quite explanatory. The section in this article is quite big in content. Includes many non-factual claims (arguments); statements like "the Ottoman Empire's geographic position meant that Russia and her allies France and Britain had a significant interest in Turkish neutrality in the event of war in Europe." is not factually-correct, but I guess there is a reference for that, surely there is a reference for everything on the internet! Arguing on these issues beyond the scope of the Gallipoli Campaign. If there is a need for fully developed section, this section needs to be factual, correctly supported, not a collection of POV statements, even if it is cited. User:Anotherclown Either let the Gallipoli Campaign link to Ottoman entry into World War I page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654423093&oldid=654422409 or let the correct information be included https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654420494&oldid=654337465 --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday - thanks for starting the conversation about this, much appreciated. Given the close links b/n the issue of Turkey's entry into the war and the Gallipoli Campaign I think there is a need to cover the issue in some detail in this article, but using summary style so as not to provide it undue weight (hence the reason for the state of this section as it currently is). Indeed most works on the topic (i.e. the Gallipoli Campaign) cited here seem to cover the background to the Turkish entry into the war and that is probably the reason why it was included in the first place (otherwise the article would not adequately summarise the campaign). You proposal seems to be either removing the section altogether and replacing with a very short paragraph - per your edit here, or covering in detail per your alternative edit here . As I said in my edit summaries though there are issues with both, firstly the short summary you replaced the existing text with wasn't referenced, whilst the second edit was too detailed. Consequently I don't think either of your proposals are workable in their current form, although obviously other editors may disagree with me. IRT the other aspect of your comment, you obviously have concerns about the factual content currently included (although only mention one example above). As you state though all the information here is referenced to reliable sources so I don't think calling them POV statements is really accurate. Perhaps more might be gained by listing the concerns you have with the current content and providing a source for an alternative interpretation and then discussing on that basis rather than wholesale deletion of content, or replacing it with text that meets your interpretation / understanding of the events? Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I do not think it is one or two problems of the current summary. These are from the first paragraph. Using two references: "Young Turks seized power in Constantinople and installed Mehmed V as a figurehead Sultan." It was 31 March Incident not Young Turk Revolution (seized power!) replaced the sultan. Who ever typed that misrepresented the source, or source is... Without a reference "the French, British and Germans had offered financial aid" is totally non-true. They were the debt collectors, not providers. That is nonsense. There are three sources behind the claim "A pro-German faction influenced by Enver Pasha" It is well known that Enver Pasha resented the German military mission. The fact that Ottoman government outreach got response only from Germany linked Enver to Germany. That is not being influenced, but cornered. Cornered argument brings the "Great Game" into this article. That is a paragraph by itself. With a reference: "Russia and her allies France and Britain had a significant interest in Turkish neutrality" In 1912, Russia "kind of" declared war. The note said change the governors or I will occupy you. They replaced the governors. But Russian military began planning for occupation in 1913. You can read these under Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). Just to follow your position; the clarification of the first paragraph, as you stated to adding other positions, I'm going to add 3-4 paragraphs just for the first paragraph. I believe there are other missing points. I just want to remind that you also have a position of "too long." I sincerely believe a short summary to articles would be a better solution. You did not like my summary. So, write a "three line summary" and replace these three paragraphs to the links Ottoman entry into World War I, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and for political events to Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). If you want to argue when the Sultan changed, how much dedt the Empire had, or if Russia really wanted to be neutral, the articles already established. It is not like we would be deleting content. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm struggling to understand a lot of the issues that you are attempting to raise, as I'm assuming English is a second language for you. I'll try but you may need to break your concerns down into smaller, more concise statements. So far you have mentioned some concerns with the first paragraph. Whilst I don't have access to all the sources used there (Haythornthwaite, Aspinall-Oglander, or Fewster, Basarin & Basarin), I was able to spot check Howard (2002) The First World War, p. 51 which states: "...power had been seized in 1908 by a group of young officers (the original 'Young Turks') set on modernizing the archaic political and economic system and restoring national prestige'." That would seem to be faithfully used here in this article in my opinion, although again others might disagree. Perhaps either or  might be able to check the other references used here if they have access to them? The pending spot check aside though I get the feeling that your objection isn't so much a case of the sources used being interpreted incorrectly but that you have a different understanding of the events being discussed than those in the sources used. I'll ask again do you have any references that you can point to for these interpretations that you can present here? So far you haven't provided any. Given the language issues we seem to be having I'll try to state my position as clearly as possible: I remain unconvinced by your proposal to reduce this section to a "three line summary", and I do not agree with adding "3-4 paragraphs" to it either. Certainly what is here can be corrected where / if there are found to be errors in it; however, I support doing this only if you can back up your concerns with verifiable references to reliable sources, not statements like "It is well known...". Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm working today so I'll have a look later. I have the OH (Aspinall-Oglander) and Erikson Ordered and Defeat but I'm surprised that it's been questioned considering that the passage is descriptive.Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Young Turks seized power... -> That is Young Turks and they sized the power with Young Turk Revolution (July 1908). ...and installed Mehmed V Mehmed V (Reign: 27 April 1909 – 3 July 1918) Young Turk Revolution did not remove Abdul Hamid II, just opposite "On 24 July 1908, Sultan Abdul Hamid II capitulated and announced the restoration." The removal of Abdul_Hamid_II was in 1909 and nothing to do with Young Turk Revolution. I do not even see why this article is the place of all this jazz. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't help much with the sources as I am interstate for a while. Definately agree, though, that these changes should be discussed first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At a glance I'd certainly support the view that the section could be pruned and the details left to the linked main article. I'll have a look in Strachan later.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On spot checking Haythornthwaite p. 6 mentions this did indeed occur in 1909 and states: "The new Sultan then installed was Mohammed V, Abdul the Damned's younger brother, but he was merely a figurehead: all power was concentrated in the hands of the instigators of Abdul's overthrow, the 'Young Turks'. Google Book preview here . I've tweaked the current text to reflect this - pls see my change here . I will discuss the proposal below separately for continuity. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman entry into the war
On 2 August 1914, the British requisitioned two modern battleships—OTTOMAN BATTLESHIP Sultân Osmân-ı Evvel and OTTOMAN BATTLESHIP Reşadiye—which were being built in British shipyards for the Ottoman navy, alienating pro-British elements in Constantinople, despite an offer of compensation if the Ottomans remained neutral. The German government offered two cruisers—SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau—to the Ottoman navy as replacements. The Entente Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau failed and the Ottoman government opened the Dardanelles, to allow them entry to Constantinople, despite being neutral and required under international law, to block military shipping. In September, the British naval mission of 1912 under Admiral Arthur Limpus, was recalled due to increasing concern that the Ottoman Empire would enter the war. Rear Admiral Wilhelm Souchon of the Imperial German Navy, took over command of the Ottoman navy.

On 27 September, acting on initiative, the German commander of the Dardanelles forts, ordered the passage to be closed, adding to the impression that the Ottomans had sided with Germany. The German naval presence and the success of German armies in Europe, gave the pro-German faction in the Ottoman government enough influence to declare war on Russia. On 27 October, Goeben and Breslau—having been renamed OTTOMAN BATTLECRUISER Yavûz Sultân Selîm and OTTOMAN CRUISER Midilli—sortied into the Black Sea, bombarded the Russian port of Odessa and sank several Russian ships. The Ottomans refused an Entente demand to expel the German missions and on 31 October 1914, entered the war on the side of the Central Powers.

Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 2 November and the next day, a British naval squadron off the Dardanelles, bombarded the outer forts at Kum Kale and Seddulbahir and killed 86 soldiers. Britain and France declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 5 November and the Ottomans declared jihad (holy war) later that month and began the Caucasus Campaign against the Russians, to regain former Turkish provinces. The Mesopotamian Campaign began after a British landing, to occupy oil facilities in the Persian Gulf. The Ottomans prepared to attack Egypt in early 1915, aiming to occupy the Suez Canal and cut the Mediterranean route to India and the Far East. Strachan wrote that in hindsight, Ottoman belligerence was inevitable once Goeben and Breslau were allowed into the Dardanelles and that delays were caused by Ottoman unreadiness for war and Bulgarian neutrality, rather than uncertainty about policy. Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "later that month and began the Caucasus Campaign when the Russians began the Bergmann Offensive, to regain former Turkish provinces." The first conflict of Caucasus Campaign is Bergmann Offensive which is opened by Russia. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "the pro-German faction in the Ottoman government enough influence to declare war on Russia." this is an interpretation by that author. The Sultan has the sole power to declare war. The declaration of war to Russia was on 11 November 1914.SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An author's interpretation accurately summarised is reliable as the author's interpretation. If there are other authors with different interpretations, put them in. If you want to reword the Caucasus Campaign section with citations I'd be delighted, it's not my field.

"later that month the Caucasus Campaign began when the Russians started the Bergmann Offensive and the Ottomans had the war aim of regaining former Turkish provinces." Will something like this be OK?Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd suggest probably tweaking it slightly (mainly for narrative flow): "...later that month the Caucasus Campaign began when the Russians started the Bergmann Offensive and the Ottomans sought to regain former Turkish provinces in the region." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday again. User:Keith-264 thanks very much for your efforts so far. I acknowledge that you have only taken this on following the suggestion / criticism of the article by another editor and that this is not your initiative so I appreciate your attempts to find a middle ground. Firstly, I'm not opposed to this draft (and support User:AustralianRupert's suggested tweak) if there is consensus for it as it is a more concise, well-worded and descriptive summary of the topic. However, I am concerned that in this search for brevity we may be missing important details, which is why my position so far has been to keep the background section at its current approximate size and breadth of coverage, whilst correcting any inaccuracies / anything that is unclear (presuming of cse reliable sources support these changes). For instance:
 * the state of the Ottoman Empire prior to the campaign is important to provide context to our readers (and indeed is mentioned in numerous works on the campaign) but is not mentioned in the proposed draft; and
 * in the current draft we don't mention the German military mission and von Sanders (who would later of cse play a major role in the campaign).
 * These are just two examples, but there may be others. The effect of such a short summary in my opinion is that any reader that doesn't already have an understanding of the campaign is introduced to the subject rather abruptly, and without the necessary context to understand how it unfolds or who the key players are (and I don't believe this is adequately summarized at the main topic article yet either, which is still being worked on and is mostly unreferenced).
 * At only three paragraphs this section (as it currently is, not the draft) doesn't really seem that big to me (although any overall expansion would probably create a WP:SIZE issue). As such I don't really see why there is a need to reduce it; however, if others are supportive of doing this then a section with the level detail of Keith's suggested draft would be a minimum in my opinion, and I still do not support its reduction to a single short paragraph per the original proposal. You will note above I have now tweaked the sentence regarding Mehmet V so I wonder if perhaps User:SelimAnkara1993 might comment on that and if there are any other issues which they feel need to be amended. If the references support changes then I am more than happy to consider those of cse. Perhaps that may be an alternative way forward. Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cut the preamble since it seemed to be the place for bones of contention but if you want a version of it back I'd support that too, although since it contains explanation as well as description consensus will be harder. I'm critically ill with manflu at the moment (O)) hence my reluctance to look at sources. It was nice to see Selim's suggestions of detailed changes but we need citations before bigger ones.Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Skinner & Stacke have

 * 29 October: Turkey commences hostilities against Russia (see July 31st. and November 2nd and 5th) . Turkish warships bombard Odessa, Sevastopol, and Theodosia.
 * 30 October: Allied Governments present ultimatum to Turkey (see 29th). Great Britain and France sever diplomatic relations with Turkey. British and French Ambassadors demand passports (see 31st, and November 5th).
 * 31 October: British Government issue orders for hostilities to commence against Turkey (see 30th, and November 1st and 5th).
 * 1 November: Great Britain and Turkey commence hostilities (see 5th, and October 30th and 31st).
 * 2 November: Russia declares war on Turkey (see October 29th)
 * 5 November: Great Britain and France formally declare war on Turkey (see 1st and 11th, and October 31st).
 * 6 November: Keupri-Keui (Armenia) taken by Russian forces (see 14th).Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The German "cruisers" Goeben and Breslau
The article mentions that Germany "offered two cruisers, SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau to the Ottoman Navy". While the Breslau was indeed a Magdeburg-class light (4,500 ton) cruiser armed with 10.5 cm (4.1") guns, the Goeben was a 23,000 ton Moltke-class battlecruiser armed with 280 cm (11") guns that threw a 302 kg (666 lb.) shell, heavy enough to sink the British battlecruiser HMS Indefagitable at Jutland. Cruisers and battlecruisers are not the same thing; the latter -- originally a brainchild of Admiral Jackie Fisher -- were vessels built for cruiser speed but with battleship armament --Death Bredon (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've tweaked the wording to remove the word "cruisers". Does this work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NZ Troop Numbers
On 22 March 2016 there was much media attention in New Zealand regarding a revision of the recognised number of NZ troops involved in the Gallipoli Campaign. ( and ) I accept that this is unproven, and potentially subject to debate, (it's history!) so I shouldn't have changed this page. Sorry for that and thanks for the 'undo'. So let's debate. Should we change the infobox? The source seems authoritative - NZ Defence Force and NZ Ministry of Culture and Heritage. Surely unlikely to have a bias and ultra cautious against any risk of losing face through undertaking substandard research or unsafe conclusions. The research was undertaken by the Chief Historian of MCH, and included relevant folk from NZDF, Archives NZ and Statistics NZ. The findings are plausible and in fact address some problems with other numbers, often quoted, if not here. The assumptions seem reasonable. I propose that the Infobox 'Strength' number for New Zealanders be changed to 17,048. This is the best number available at this date.Toothpickdog (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Gday Toothpickdog, thanks for starting this discussion. I agree that the source you have provided is a reliable one so I have included this information in the body of the article now with this edit (although I haven't amended the infobox). As far as I can tell the figures in the infobox are probably "peak strength" not the total number of personal that served over the entire campaign (or at least I'm assuming this is the case). Please note for instance that the infobox currently lists 20,000 Australians; however, a total of 50,000 + Australians actually served during the entire campaign - many being reinforcements or replacements for casualties etc. The figure of 20,000 refers to the initial commitment. I'm unsure about the rest of the figures for other nationalities however (e.g. Britain etc). The MCH source seems to be referring to total personnel (i.e. including reinforcements and replacements etc) and not peak strength so it would probably be out of place with the rest of the figures in the infobox if it were changed in isolation.  - do you recall if the figures in the infobox are all meant to be "peak strength" or total figures? Anotherclown (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they're totals but I'm not sure.Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, there wouldn't have been 460,000 British ashore at once. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks Keith, yes that is a fair point. Given then that most of the figures in the infobox are totals (not "peak strength" like I suspected) both the New Zealand and Australian figures need to be changed to be consistent with them. As such with this cleared up I support Toothpickdog's proposal to do this. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made this change now . Given the difference b/n Green (14,000) and MCH (17,000) for NZ figures I thought we should include both. I am open to other suggestions of how to acknowledge this difference though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems a good solution to me. Thanks, all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. Thanks!  Toothpickdog (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This change looks good, but should it be noted that this new (and extremely credible) figure is essentially a statistical estimate? - see page 8 of the source in particular where the authors repeatedly use the word "approximately" and discuss the statistical error factors. Other text probably needs to be revised - eg "Among the dead were 2,721 New Zealanders, about a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula" (I've read today, but can't remember where) that this revision results in the NZ force having a similar casualty rate to the Australian force, which makes sense. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday Nick. Good points - the bit from McGibbon re "a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula" seems to be explained by the MCH source as the initial NZ strength so I have slightly reworded it to (hopefully) be consistent with the previous change - pls see my edit here . Also I have now identified both the AS and NZ figures in the infobox as approximates. I am of cse open to further rewording in the text though if you feel the possible statistical issues with the revised NZ figures needs to be more explicitly acknowledged (or a note if you think that would be a better solution). Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What's happened to the lead?
It used to be succinct reportage of events and their significance, now it reads like journalism. 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I also have concerns about the changes and have reverted them. Dbachmann: could you please outline your rationale here so that the proposed changes can be discussed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a nod towards Oz, NZ and Turkish creation myths is right but not treating them as if they were what the campaign was for. I'll try to step back a bit though, because I'm in enough trouble already. Regards ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

CE
Tidied references and changed ; to ''' as apparently readers for people who can't see, can't deal with a semi-colon. Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day. Unless there is objection to it I'd like to keep Bean's 2nd volume in the further reading as we only use his 1st volume as a reference and its still considered a fairly important work on the topic in this part of the world (even if dated). Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apols Another', I thought it was a duplicate, which is why I got rid, quite happy for rvKeith-264 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PS I abbr US states but didn't notice I'd only abbr NSW in Oz locations....Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I put this into a note as it seemed a dubious claim (Who didn't have enormous casualties at Gallipoli?) and I wasn't sure about its placement. Apropos, does anyone have the page number? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this. Sorry I don't have the page number for that. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've replaced this with West, which I was able to view on Google books with a page number. Moved Orr to the Further reading section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gallipoli Campaign. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://https
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608013850/http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/modern_history/research/gallipoli_centenary_research_project/ to http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/modern_history/research/gallipoli_centenary_research_project/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia listed as a combatant?
What was Russian contribution to Gallipoli campaign? 82.46.64.88 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

CE
Did a little tidying up, revert as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Albanians ?
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.93.6 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 * @77.28.93.6 albania was not even part of the ottoman empire at that time lol 94.109.150.222 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

CE
Apols, I've trodden on someone else's edits; if I can help reinstate them, pls let me know. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Think I've resolved it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Apols, another edit conflict....Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Think I've put it right; I'll lay off for the rest of the day to let everyone else have a clear field. Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wattle Grove
pls check - added text & refs for 7 Sep 1915 Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove & 'Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915' CenotaphZbunyip (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding those references, however, I am concerned that the level of detail you are adding breaches WP:UNDUE. It might be okay to include that sort of detailed coverage in the article about the memorial itself, but this article deals with a much larger topic, that needs to remain focused without going into too much detail. Adding several paragraphs on a single, local memorial seems like it places undue emphasis on a minor aspect, which is arguably inappropriate for this article. Please establish consensus for your change before continuing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove and Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915 Cenotaph, Adelaide Park Lands, South Australia
There should be some mention of the SA event in Gallipoli Campaign article, but happy to have that mention link to a longer text & refs transferred to a new article. In fact there's loads more info for the first and subsequent years which was deliberately left out to try and minimise the SA additions so as not to be WP:UNDUE. However removing all of Adelaide Park Lands, South Australia 7 September 1915 Gallipoli Landing commemoration event and its inauguration of the first Australasian memorial to Gallipoli and ANZAC would make Victoria / Queensland and UK WP:UNDUE by suppressing fact of historically significant earlier South Australia event which Australia's Governor-General stated was the first in the Commonwealth. The article would be biasing towards Victoria, Queensland and UK. In fact the South Australian event was internationally significant, as the Australasian Soldiers Dardanelles April 25, 1915 monument is also the earliest known ANZAC memorial to New Zealand Corps landing at Gallipoli. Have not been able to identify any earlier NZ ANZAC memorial - the Auckland Harbour Board Beacon (which is not national, but in memory of employees from that organisation) was not lit until Dec 1915. In addition to official role of Governor-General and Lady Munro Ferguson, the references evidence that it was not only locally reported in SA, but also in West Australian and Victorian newspapers, however the Australian Wattle Day League also had 'branches' in the UK, not only in other Australian states, and William Sowden, who presided over the 7 Sep 1915 event was the Australian Federal President as well as the SA Branch President. As such some mention of the Australian Wattle Day League's 7 Sep 1915 inauguration of the Commonwealth's first national memorial to the 25 April 1915 Gallipoli Landing would not be WP:UNDUE. How much would you like to reinstate and would you help link and transfer the rest of the information to a new Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove article?Zbunyip (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Commemorations are events in themselves so If you want that much detail, i think you'd do better to write an article on them and link with this one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A single, short sentence would seem sufficient to me here. Or, including mention of Adelaide in the sentence that is already there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture size
Is everyone happy with the size of the pictures? I altered them to upright 1.0 to standardise them and having looked again, think they are a little large. Would upright 0.75 be better? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I don't have any dramas with that change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment the images do look a little big on my screen so I wouldn't have any issues if you want to reduce them a bit Keith. I'm a bit of a numpty with the "upright" markup though otherwise I'd have a go at it myself. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I gather that their appearance depends on the size of your equipment (ooh-er). I'll have a tinker.Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes very probably. Anyway those changes look fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice sought
What do people think of keeping this edit which has been removed? --27.99.52.82 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Image Showing Ottoman Naval Defense
In the Naval Campaign section (probably under Attempt to force straights) I think it would be nice to have an image that shows the locations of Ottoman mines and submarine defenses in the straights. I was thinking something like this image from the USMA Atlas. I think only the lefthand side of the image is relevant to the section. Any thoughts?

Jdazzle95 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Jdazzle95
 * If it's public domain I can't see how we can keep it out. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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. starship.paint ~  KO   13:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, the dates in the infobox are for the land campaign. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - okay, could we also list the naval campaign's dates as well? Since it is the same campaign. starship.paint ~  KO   10:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. thoughts? 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 Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes seems logical to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I propose changing the infobox (and lead) dates to "17 February 1915 – 9 January 1916". Would this work for all concerned? Regards, 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. 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. starship.paint ~  KO   14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Greetings, curious as to why you've changed — to –? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should use one or the other in the text – see— generally, MOS:DASH. (Thanks for the note about 20 ems for sfns—I'll keep it in mind.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Anon comment
foi uma vitoria teuto turca a influencia alemã nos armamentos e resto é geralmente minimizada pois se pra turquia era estrategico continuar controlando as duas margens pra alemanha o era mais ainda pra continuar seu plano de via directa pro indico sem canal ingles e embora hitler tenha reconhecido os esforços turcos e se baseado algo nele tambem temos de ver que na altura turquia e russia eram potencias menos industriais e mais atrasadas a nivel tambem de caixa mesmo a frança tava ficando pra tras os grandes poderes eram anglos e alemães por zonas estrategicas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.154.77.70 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Google translates the above as: "it was a Turkish victory for the German influence in the armaments and the rest is generally minimized because if turquia was strategic to continue controlling the two shores to germany it was still more to continue its plan of direct route to indicate without English channel and although hitler has recognized the Turkish efforts and if based on it we also have to see that at the time Turkey and Russia were less industrial powers and more backward at the cash level even France was getting behind the great powers were Anglo and German by strategic zones".

I assume our anon feels the article does not adequately convey this point of view.

For me, this 'big picture' story is outside the scope of this article.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman entry into World War I, reprised
While we're on the subject of inappropriate "big picture" I see we have a subsection on why Turkey was in the war, with details about events going back several years. Seems to me, it should be moved and integrated into Ottoman entry into World War I, replaced here by a summary paragraph. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh. That will teach me a lesson about reading the existing talk page before mouthing off. I'll be pleased with a relevant counteragument either here or above. The argument that the reference books handle it that way is true enough, but this is an encyclopedia, where readers can quickly click to the explanation of events months before the campaign. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Causalities
Causalities are wrong, fix it. There's even no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.233.237 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean casualties, these are cited to "Erickson2001a", which is DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand
I have taken this from the lead: "However it had the long term effect of galvanizing national identity for Australia and New Zealand, whose soldiers suffered proportionately heavy casualties". This partly duplicates information in the second paragraph and is therefore misplaced. And it really overstates the case in a number of ways, going beyond what is said in the body of the article. I'm not sure that Australian and NZ casualties were so much different from UK casualties. And I don't see a source which says that the casualties suffered were the key factor. The Anzac spirit article barely mentions casualties, for example. As to "galvanizing national identity", this sentence states this as a fact, while the rest of the article merely says that some people have said something like that. I think it is hard to argue this is a serious non-partisan sense: that Australia did not have a fully-fledged national identity at Federation, for example.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite agree with the excisions and suggest that "national identity" is a myth and an invented tradition. Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it's just duplicating stuff which is already discussed in a more nuanced way in the intro and elsewhere. The role of Gallipoli in Australian national memory deserves a full treatment, though. I just stepped in to correct blatant error, ie. a claim that most of the casualties were ANZACs. Although I suspect a lot of Australians probably imagine that to be the case. I was wrong about Fromelles in my edit summary though - it looks like somewhat fewer Aussies were killed there than at Gallipoli, although it was in much the same ballpark.Paulturtle (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Can the counties casualties be listed individually, not the vague ‘British Empire.’ It seems to devalue the actual countries contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4028:AE00:D44A:913E:ABCD:1952 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

CE
Tidied lead; is para 2 really the place to bruit Arab involvement in the campaign? It seems a bit recondite for introductory remarks. The citations don't inspire much confidence either.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith. Agreed, it probably shouldn't be in the lead, IMO, as it seems a minor point and breaks up the flow of the current paragraph. There is potentially a place for it elsewhere, though. Maybe in the Ottoman defensive preparations section? Agreed also, though, that the sources presented may not be the best. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Strategic Planning & Choice of Invasion Sites
Does anybody have any material about how and why the decision was taken to land at Helles and ANZAC (or rather the spot near ANZAC where they were supposed to land)?

To the layman looking at a map, Bulair at the neck of the peninsula looks like the obvious place to invade, so I'd always assumed that there must have been a good military reason why they didn't, e.g. steep cliffs rather than invadable beaches. However, the RND division conducted some decoy activity there on D-Day (Freyberg swimming ashore and lighting some flares etc - mentioned in the article). So there must have been at least a possibility of landing there.

A book I'm reading at the moment on the Asquith family (Arthur Asquith was in the RND) says that the top brass decided not to land at Bulair precisely because the Turks were expecting it and the area was defended by two divisions. I'm sure the writer copied that claim from somewhere rather than inventing it, but it probably ought to be sourced to a more heavyweight military history.Paulturtle (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, Harvey Broadbent's Gallipoli: The Fatal Shore (pp. 44-45) mentions "Hamilton's plan for achieving this, however, was uncannily similar to that anticipated by von Sanders, except that it dismissed a landing at Bulair on the Gulf of Saros. Hamilton considered Saros too far from the main objectives, the forts on the Dardanelles. Instead Hamilton...opted for a dummy landing at Bulair - a demonstration at the neck o the Peninsula". Probably doesn't help, though. I will have a look through some of my other books. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 * 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.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.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.Paulturtle (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

John Hancox grave
Photo and short text added to the 'Graves and memorials' section is something I considered worth salvaging from the recently deleted article about John Hancox. Meticulo (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Question
Isn’t this an invasion? If it is, why isn’t it named that way? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 21:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, do you mean the article's title, or are you referring to the wording in the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn’t talk about the superiority of the allies weaponary. Is there a reason for that? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 21:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, the article briefly mentions the advantage in terms of naval artillery (although this diminished throughout the campaign), but it also highlights that the Allies were unable to concentrate sufficient land-based artillery. In regards to your query, do you have a proposal for what should be mentioned and where you would propose this be added, as well as sources that support the proposed addition? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic Composition
Not dubious at all since it's based on scholarly work on Gallipoli published by the Oxford University. You want to claim it's dubious since I always added a source from Al Jazeera. Wikipedia is not a tool for propaganda. Is good to detail the ethnic composition of the Ottoman defense. First you proposed to remove it from the header, very well. Although I do believe it should be added to the Ottoman defenses. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD This is Mickey Mouse nonsense, what does the geographical origins of Ottoman soldiers have to do with the Gallipoli campaign? Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These were Ottoman Troops consisting of many ethnic backgrounds which need to be highlighted as it's very important to really understand the dynamics of the campaign and the defenses. I will undo your edit. As you can find me proof that the 9th division consisted of any other troops. I'm all for breaking down all divisions on the page and what they consisted of. Stop removing invaluable data. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Make your case here that the geographical origins of Ottoman troops makes a difference to the Gallipoli Campaign. Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, in its current form the information lacks context and potentially it may be too much detail for this article, which should be a summary, and should point to daughter articles to explain things in more detail. I'd suggest, though, that potentially some of the information could be added to where the 19th Division is first mentioned in the article. It should be done in a way that doesn't break up the narrative flow too much, though. For instance, perhaps The 19th Division (Kemal)—two thirds of which were Arab troops[ref]—and the 9th Division were placed along the Aegean coast and at Cape Helles on the tip of the peninsula. The topic could then be covered in more detail on the article about the division itself and also potentially the Ottoman Empire during World War I article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Something on the structure of the Ottoman army won't go amiss and I've found enough for a paragraph or two in Erickson. It could explain why the 19th and 9th divisions were there. If there is significance in their areas of recruitment it would fit in a passage like this although we don't often go into such things with the other polyglot armies. If the troops were fighting a long way from home that could be worth a mention. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In 1914, the defence of the Dardanelles was the responsibility of the Dardanelles Fortified Area Command (DFAC), which oversaw the forts and an artillery brigade with one heavy and two medium regiments. The forts and guns were concentrated at the mouth of the Dardanelles and along the narrows with skeleton peacetime garrisons. North of the peninsula, the III Corps had its headquarters at the garrison town of Tekirdag, comprising the 7th, 8th and 9th divisions, the 9th Field Artillery Regiment, the 3rd Cavalry Brigade and support elements. The III Corps had been the only corps of the Ottoman army to emerge relatively intact from the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The III Corps received its mobilisation order on 2 August 1914; the peacetime establishment of the 7th Division was 200 officers, 5,021 men and 724 animals and the other two divisions had similarly low establishments. III Corps was the only one in the army to meet the mobilisation schedule and by 21 August had incorporated 28,945 men and 7,402 animals. On mobilisation the 9th Division was attached to the DFAC as its mobile reserve; the Command found difficulty in filling its specialist posts but by 17 August had put the heavy artillery on a war footing and by the end of the month the commander of the 9th Division had begun discussions with the fortress command to devise a defence scheme. In September the 9th Division began to move into the peninsula and the 7th Division joined the 9th Division at the end of October; III Corps headquarters moved to Gallipoli on 4 November, the 8th Division being ordered to transfer to the Sinai Desert in Palestine, to be replaced by the mainly Syrian 19th Division.

 * Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Caption for picture of French gunners
The caption is wrong. There were no units of Artillerie Coloniale present during the Gallipoli campaign. ) Those men who are manning the 75mm are from the metropolitan army of France. The word "colonial" should be removed from the caption. Keith H99 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC) . If  and   reach the same target page, the link is simplified to , 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. 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. The Banner  talk 23:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Had a stab at installing the script but it wouldn't load....Regards 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. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll give it a try. Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks it's working now. Regards 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. 77.81.75.109 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gallipoli campaign


text:
Vanessa-Mae

Vanessa-Mae (born 27 October 1978), also called  Vanessa-Mae Vanakorn Nicholson, is a Singaporean-born British violinist with album sales reaching several million, having made her the wealthiest entertainer under 30 in the United Kingdom in 2006. She competed under the name Vanessa Vanakorn (วาเนสซ่า วรรณกร; her father's surname) for Thailand in alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics. She was initially banned from skiing by the International Ski Federation (FIS) after participating in a qualifying race allegedly organised to enable her to qualify for the Winter Olympics. An appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport led to the ban being nullified, citing lack of evidence for her own wrongdoing or any manipulation. The FIS later issued an apology to her.

Early life and education
Vanessa-Mae was born on 27 October 1978 in Singapore, to Chinese mother Pamela Soei Luang Tan and Thai father Vorapong Vanakorn. After adoption by a British father, she moved to London at the age of 4 where she began playing the violin, having already started the piano in Singapore. At the age of eight Vanessa-Mae embarked upon a period of study with Professor Lin Yao Ji at the National Conservatoire of Music in Beijing.

Musical career
Vanessa-Mae made her professional debut when she was ten at a music festival in Germany.

At age thirteen, Vanessa-Mae became the youngest soloist to record both the Beethoven and Tchaikovsky violin concertos, according to Guinness World Records.

Her first pop-style album, The Violin Player, was released in 1995. She appeared on the 1997 Janet Jackson album The Velvet Rope playing a violin solo on the song "Velvet Rope".

Vanessa-Mae appeared in producer George Martin's compilation and covers album In My Life in 1998. She is featured on Track #5 with her violin rendition of the 1969 Beatles song "Because".

She was managed by her mother until Vanessa-Mae fired her in 1999.

In May 1998, she was part of the interval act at the Eurovision Song Contest taking part in Birmingham at the National Indoor Arena.

In June 1999 she played at the Michael Jackson & Friends concerts in Seoul and Munich.

On 7 March 2002 Vanessa-Mae performed a variation of Antonio Vivaldi: The Four Seasons – "Summer: III. Presto" during the opening ceremonies of the 2002 Winter Paralympics.

In April 2006, Vanessa-Mae was ranked as the wealthiest young entertainer under 30 in the UK in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006, having an estimated fortune of about £32 million.

In October 2011, Vanessa Mae performed for Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov during his birthday celebration in Grozny reportedly receiving US$500000 for her appearance.

Composition
Vanessa-Mae has occasionally recorded her own compositions. Her 1997 album China Girl: The Classical Album 2 included two pieces in which she shared a writing credit: Violin Fantasy on Puccini's 'Turandot' and Reunification Overture, marking the reunification of China and Hong Kong.

In 2017, ClassicFM compiled a list of the 300 best selling classical albums in the 25 years it has been running. Vanessa-Mae entered three times. The Classical Album 1 reached 244, Storm reached 135 and her debut mainstream album The Violin Player is the 76th best selling. The site claims that her total album sales make "her the biggest-selling solo violinist in the chart".

Skiing career
Vanessa-Mae stated that she "started skiing around the same time as I began playing the piano, at around four, before moving to the violin at five", and that it had been her "dream to be a ski bum since I was 14." In 2009 Vanessa-Mae took up residence in the Swiss alpine resort of Zermatt. In August 2010, she told The Telegraph, "I am British, but realistically there is no way I could represent my own country, but because my natural father is Thai, they have accepted me." She registered as a Thai alpine skier.

Qualifying event
In 2014, Thailand had no Alpine skiers in the top 500, and Olympic rules allowed such countries to send one man and one woman to the Olympics slalom and giant slalom, based on alternative criteria: The skier must have 140 points or less, smaller scores being better under the International Ski Federation (FIS) system, while starting at least five internationally recognised slalom or giant slalom events.

At the request of Vanessa-Mae's management and the Thai Olympic Committee, a giant slalom competition was organised by the Alpine Ski Club Triglav and took place on 18 and 19 January 2014 at Krvavec in Slovenia, and would be the last chance for Vanessa-Mae to achieve the FIS-recognised score to qualify for the February 2014 Olympics. The event included a national junior championship, in which she was 14 years older than any of the competition.

The event put her score under the 140-point average, dropping it from 269.44 on 11 January to 131.15 at the end of 19 January. Her manager Giles Holland said "It would appear that she's done it. She's done it by a whisker, but she's done it." FIS confirmed her eligibility to compete in the 2014 Olympics, with Ana Jelusic of the FIS mentioning that the Krvavec results "ticks all the boxes".

A Swiss race on 3 and 4 February raised her score to 171.09.

Olympics
She was one of two alpine skiers who represented Thailand at the 2014 Winter Olympics, where she competed under the name of "Vanessa Vanakorn" (วาเนสซ่า เมย์ ตัน วรรณกร; Vanessa May Tan Vanakorn).

On 18 February 2014, Vanakorn finished 67th of 90 skiers, with a time of 1:44.86 on her first run at giant slalom, 26.98 seconds behind the leader. She started in the 87th position, representing her relative ranking in the world giant slalom rankings. In run 2, she had a time of 1:42.11, 24.21 seconds behind the leader of run 2. She started 74th in run 2, the last starter for run 2. At the end of the event, she had a total time of 3:26.97, 50.10 seconds behind the gold medal winner, Tina Maze of Slovenia. She was last of the 67 racers who finished, although 23 other racers failed to complete the race.

Investigation and appeal
On 10 July 2014 four Slovenian ski competition organisers were reported to have each been given four-year bans on working with Slovenian Ski Union (Smučarska zveza Slovenije) and FIS competitions because of supposedly fixed Sochi Winter Olympics qualifications for the Thai ski team at Krvavec in January 2014 – with the only goal to successfully qualify Vanessa Mae. However, no formal bans were ever handed out.

On 11 November 2014, the FIS Hearing Panel issued its own findings about the Krvavec event less than 10 months earlier: The weather was such that no regular race could be held; the competition's referee said that "any comparable competition in Slovenia would have been cancelled". A previously retired competitor took part in the alleged competition solely to lower (improve) the scores of the participants. The official results of "approximately 23 competitors" for the two races on 18 January included results at least two people who in fact did not attend. The official results for two giant slalom races on 19 January also included results for a person who was not even present at the Krvavec competition. One competitor who fell was given an official timing 10 seconds better than reality, and put in second place in the official results. At least one participant started outside the starting wand; afterward, the starter manually triggered the starting wand.

The Hearing Panel issued a worldwide four-year ban against Vanessa-Mae, two-year ban against the Chief of Race Borut Hrobat, and one-year bans against the FIS Technical Delegate, Chief of Timing, Referee, and Starter. FIS president Gian-Franco Kasper commented to Associated Press concerning the violations: "Those who have been sanctioned have been sanctioned for good reason. At first we were laughing when we heard it. But then we realised it's quite a serious thing."

As two or more participants worked in combination to violate the rules, the FIS Hearing Panel recommended that all four events during the Krvavec competition be annulled. The Hearing Panel noted that, if the results were to be annulled by the FIS Council, it will mean that Vanessa-Mae, Federica Selva of San Marino, and Ieva Januškevičiūtė of Lithuania will have not qualified for the 2014 Olympic Games. Vanessa-Mae issued a statement calling the ban "nonsensical" and saying "we will" appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The FIS Council met on 18 November and cancelled the results of "all four giant slalom races" at Krvavec and issued a press release saying that "Vanessa Vanakorn (THA) who competed in the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games therefore did not qualify and should not have been participating in the Sochi 2014 Games." The FIS Council was of the opinion that Federica Selva and Ieva Januškevičiūtė "were victims of the manipulated races", and forwarded the information to the International Olympic Committee. Vanessa-Mae filed appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 4 December 2014 against both the FIS Hearing Panel and the FIS Council.

On 19 June 2015 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) voided Vanessa-Mae's four-year ban, saying there was a lack of evidence that she herself manipulated the races; but the CAS dismissed her appeal to restore the qualifying results, confirming that the qualifying races "were so defective that their results and qualification points gained therefrom could not stand", and therefore "Vanessa Vanakorn remains ineligible to compete in the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games". The CAS's decision also awarded an amount of money to be paid by the FIS to Vanessa-Mae.

Despite Vanessa-Mae's successful result in nullifying the FIS race ban at the CAS appeal, there was still some doubt over the status of her races at the 2014 Winter Olympics. However, in January 2016 the media announced that the International Olympic Committee had confirmed that Vanessa-Mae could be called an Olympian.

In 2016, Vanessa-Mae settled her defamation lawsuit against the FIS, in which the FIS made an "appropriate payment", the amount of which was not disclosed. The FIS issued a full apology for its claims of race-fixing, and stated "Ms. Vanakorn and her entourage did not in any way fix, contrive or improperly influence the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of the FIS-approved races."

Post-appeal
Vanessa-Mae returned to skiing in 2017, to attempt to qualify for the 2018 Winter Olympics. Vanessa-Mae withdrew from competition due to suffering a shoulder injury, in January 2018. With her withdrawal, the placement for Thailand went to 21-year-old Alexia Arisarah Schenkel.

Personal life
Vanessa-Mae's long-term boyfriend is Frenchman Lionel Catelan. Vanessa-Mae has expressed a lack of interest in marriage, saying "you don't need a ring to say I love you".

Awards and nominations
{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" ! scope="col" | Award ! scope="col" | Year ! scope="col" | Nominee(s) ! scope="col" | Category ! scope="col" | Result ! scope="col" class="unsortable"| Ref. !scope="row"|World Music Awards ! scope="row"|Žebřík Music Awards
 * 1997
 * rowspan=2|Herself
 * World's Best Selling Classical Artist
 * Won
 * 1999
 * Best International Instrumentalist
 * Nominated

Discography

 * Violin (1990)
 * Kids' Classics (1991)
 * Tchaikovsky & Beethoven Violin Concertos (1991)
 * The Violin Player (1995)
 * The Classical Album 1 (1996)
 * China Girl: The Classical Album 2 (1997)
 * Storm (1997)
 * The Original Four Seasons and the Devil's Trill Sonata: The Classical Album 3 (1999)
 * Subject to Change (2001)
 * Choreography (2004)

Filmography

 * Live at the Royal Albert Hall, The Red Hot Tour (1995) (concert documentary)
 * Live at the Berlin Philharmonie (1997)
 * The Alternative Classical Concert - Live at the Symphony Hall Birmingham (1997)
 * Storm on World Tour (1998)
 * The Violin Fantasy (1998)
 * Arabian Nights (2000) (actor in the series)
 * The Making of Me (2008) (subject of episode 3)

title: Vanessa-Mae


text:
Retinal scan

A retinal scan is a biometric technique that uses unique patterns on a person's retina blood vessels. It is not to be confused with other ocular-based technologies: iris recognition, commonly called an "iris scan", and eye vein verification that uses scleral veins.

Introduction
The human retina is a thin tissue made up of neural cells that is located in the posterior portion of the eye. Because of the complex structure of the capillaries that supply the retina with blood, each person's retina is unique, making retinal scans an emerging authentication method. The network of blood vessels in the retina is not entirely genetically determined and thus even identical twins do not share a similar pattern.

Although retinal patterns may be altered in cases of diabetes, glaucoma or retinal degenerative disorders, the retina typically remains unchanged from birth until death. Due to its unique and unchanging nature, the retina appears to be the most precise and reliable biometric, aside from DNA. The National Center for State Courts estimate that retinal scanning has an error rate of one in ten million.

A retinal scan is performed by casting an unperceived beam of low-energy infrared light into a person’s eye as they look through the scanner's eyepiece. This beam of light traces a standardized path on the retina. Because retinal blood vessels absorb light more readily than the surrounding tissue, the amount of reflection varies during the scan. The pattern of variations is digitized and stored in a database.

History
The idea for retinal identification was first conceived by Carleton Simon and Isadore Goldstein and was published in the New York State Journal of Medicine in 1935. The idea was ahead of its time, but once technology caught up, the concept for a retinal scanning device emerged in 1975. In 1976, Robert "Buzz" Hill formed a corporation named EyeDentify, Inc., and made a full-time effort to research and develop such a device. In 1978, specific means for a retinal scanner was patented, followed by a commercial model in 1981.

In popular culture
Because of the relative obscurity and "high tech" nature of retinal scans, they are frequently used as a device in fiction to suggest that an area has been particularly strongly secured against intrusion. Some notable examples include:

 * In the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Admiral Kirk gains access to top secret computer files by use of a retinal scan.
 * In the science fiction novel The Long Result by John Brunner (1965), a retinal scanner is used to access a Remote Control Centre at a spaceport.
 * In the movie Batman (1966), Batman describes to Robin how the tiny vessels in the retina are unique to the individual, and by utilizing the portable retina scan device in the Batmobile, they confirm the identity of the Penguin.
 * In the comic book film series X-Men Charles Xavier uses a retinal scanner to unlock Cerebro. This is bypassed by the shape-shifter Mystique assuming his form and William Stryker using an unknown mechanism.
 * In the Half-Life video game series, the scientists of Black Mesa are frequently shown operating retinal scanners to access locked doors or hidden devices.
 * Characters in the films Never Say Never Again (1983), GoldenEye (1995), Mission: Impossible (1996), Barb Wire (1996), Entrapment (1999), Minority Report (2002) and Paycheck (2003) and Charlie's Angels (film) (2000) utilize or try to deceive retinal scanners.
 * In the Splinter Cell video game series, retinal scanners are used to identify agents within the Third Echelon and guards within military/business complexes.
 * In the 2012 film The Avengers, characters gain access to a quantity of very rare iridium by using two devices: one which apparently hooks onto a victim's eyeball, and another which receives signals from the first to holographically reconstruct the retina to fool the scanner.
 * In the 1993 film Demolition Man (film), Simon Phoenix deceives a retinal scanner by taking the eyeball from a prison doctor.

Uses
Retinal scanners are typically used for authentication and identification purposes. Retinal scanning has been utilized by several government agencies including the FBI, CIA, and NASA, and has also been used in prisons. Retinal scanning also has medical application. Communicable illnesses such as AIDS, syphilis, malaria, chicken pox and Lyme disease as well as hereditary diseases like leukemia, lymphoma, and sickle cell anemia affect the eyes. Pregnancy also affects the eyes. Likewise, indications of chronic health conditions such as congestive heart failure, atherosclerosis, and cholesterol issues first appear in the eyes. Retinal scanning is sometimes confused with iris recognition, which has been employed for a wider scope of applications.

Pros and cons
Advantages Disadvantages
 * Low occurrence of false positives
 * Extremely low (almost 0%) false negative rates
 * Highly reliable because no two people have the same retinal pattern
 * Speedy results: Identity of the subject is verified very quickly
 * Measurement accuracy can be affected by a disease such as cataracts
 * Measurement accuracy can also be affected by severe astigmatism
 * Scanning procedure is perceived by some as invasive
 * Subject being scanned must be very close to the camera optics
 * High equipment cost

title: Retinal scan