Talk:And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda

Name

It's Bob Kerrey, not "Kerry".

 Done No fixed, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"And I ask myself the same question"

I never understood this line to be questioning the commemoration of the war, as the article suggests. I think the song is far too insightful to offer such an iconoclastic and disrespectful slap in the face to war veterans who risked their lives for others. Rather, I always figured this lyric was suggesting that the veteran himself doesn't understand what the point of the war was. WWI in general, and the Gallipoli campaign in particular, are thought to be symbols of the imperial powers' callous disregard for their own citizens and subjects – the British commanders essentially used Australian soldiers as cannon fodder to gain proverbial inches. Hence, the veteran here wonders how all the horror could have been worth it. J21 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. While the song raises the question of whether wars should be fought and glorified, there's nothing remotely anti-veteran about it. What strikes me about that last verse is that the protaganist lost his legs, his youth, and no doubt many friends to one of the bloodiest battles in Australian history, and the kids don't even know what it was about. That'd make any old man look back and wonder if it was worth it. Worth noting, I think, is that when Bogle wrote the song in 1972, the veterans of Gallipoli were all 75+ and not far from "someday, no one will march there at all". Its a very sad and beautiful song. The article could use further work, but since it is so closely tied to ANZAC Day, I'll leave to our friends down under. -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed that text from commemoration of the battle etc. to a lament for the forgotten dead, including quotes from the song as the song's text makes the point more clearly than talking about what it is intended to mean.. : my edit User:Pedant 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you recall the debates in the 70s and even the early 80s in Australia, there were many who believed ANZAC Day was a glorification rather than commemoration of war, so the article's interpretation seems more likely. I have a vague recollection of Bogle saying as much in a contemporary ABC radio interview, but can't recall the particulars. Not sure if I agree Bogle intended it to be about the British commanders sacrificing Aussie diggers either- the association was popularised with Weir's film which was made in the context of a growing republican movement in Oz. One view is that the event was hijacked as propoganda for a political message. 212.124.244.131Digger's Daughter

In reply to Diggers Daughter - you are correct. People forget that the song was written in 1971 at the height of the anti-war movement and anti-military feeling in Australia. From about 1969 onwards there was a massive shift in how society regarded the military and Australian military history. It wasn't till the Welcome Home march in '87 and popular war movies on Vietnam like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, TV shows like Tour of Duty etc came out that we started to 're-discover' our Military history, re-discovering Vietnam and our Vietnam Veteransetc and began attending ANZAC Day marches and Dawn Services again in huge numbers that continue to grow each year. But when Bogle wrote the song ANZAC Day wasn't very popular at all and was in very grave danger of dying off completely outside of Military circles. Hence the lines in the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.217.14 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the text is sceptical about Anzac Day: what are they marching for? The politics of this has now changed, and people are far more supportive of Anzac Day and Australia's defence forces than they were in the 1970s. But that doesn't mean we should censor or manipulate the article to suit the current political mood.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Bob Kerrey

I don't know when Bob Kerrey sang the song, but (according to Wikipedia) he ran for presidantial candidacy in 1992. In 1988 he ran for the senate. Good song by the way...

He definitely sang it when he won his campaign for Nebraska senator in the late '80s. I was there. Many a person got teary-eyed, though his son just looked terminally embarrassed. Fraid I don't have a proper citation, though. dao from the placebo 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Kerrey's rendition is now included and is supported by a WP:RS, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy

"Additionally, the reference to tin hats is anachronistic - they were in fact not issued until 1916."

I would dispute this fact, as the French introduced the steel helmet in 1915, and was followed by the British Empire shortly afterwards. The German army were the only ones not wearing a steel helmet before 1916. Lwdjaymac 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

well change it then!--172.203.2.68 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"and was followed by the British Empire shortly afterwards" Or, in 1916 as the original commentator suggested??? What the french and Germans were doing is irrelevant, the song is about an Australian....

Australian troops did not receive 'tin hats' until they arrived on the Western Front in 1916. So no Digger was issued a 'tin hat' in 1914 or 1915, at Gallipoli or anywhere else. Also, Australian troops were issued either the familiar Slouch Hat or the common British Peak cap. Infact, probably more Australian's were wearing the British Cap on April 25 and for the entire campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.217.14 (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

I moved the following passage here (deleting from main article):

• The song refers to the Turks burying their dead. ("But the band played 'Waltzing Matilda' / When we stopped to bury our slain. / Well, we buried ours, and the Turks buried theirs / Then we started all over again.") The Turks neither buried their dead nor counted them, but are estimated to have lost as many as 200,000 men. John McDermott sings this line as "Well, we burned ours, and the Turks burned theirs" -- this definitely did not happen.

Yes the Turks did bury their dead! It is well known that several cease fires occurred so that BOTH sides could bury there dead.

The referred Wikipedia article in the footnote says that a truce was organized so both sides could bury their dead. In other words it says the reverse of what this passage claims while citing it. Odd contradiction, but clear cause for simply removing the passage. jackbrown (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Factual Inaccuracies

The AIF never "...sailed off to Gallipoli."

A bit pedantic no? They did sail off, they did arrive in Gallipoli, and the story is told with the benefit of hindsight and told as a recollection. From the point of view of an individual member of the AIF, after training in Egypt they went to Gallipoli.

New to this though, so ignore if stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoblue (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

the song is an anti war protest song. Factually incorrect in all aspects. It is a disgrace. 103.210.155.30 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting. Artsygeek (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

I partially agree, I did think at the time of my original posting that this was possibly a bit pedantic, Nevertheless, if I set out from home to work in the city, but shortly after arriving at the office my wife calls and asks me to collect Aunt Nelly from the airport (and I subsequently do so), no one describing my departure from home would say, "he drove off to the airport." I won't reinstate it, but if anyone agrees with me, please feel free. My original wording could be improved upon, though.

Suvla Landings 'Only lightly opposed' - you have GOT to be kidding

Those words are an insult to the 40,000 men of the four British Divisions, (10th, 11th, 53rd(Welsh) and 54th (East Anglian)) who landed at Suvla in August 1915 and were slaughtered in their thousands by an enemy who reacted as fiercely there as they did five miles south at ANZAC a few months earlier. They're also hurtful to surviving relatives of those men, of whom my wife is one. This Peter Weir-inspired myth does his country and mine no credit at all. Also, although Australians were not involved directly in the landings, they were involved directly in attacks north from the Aghyll Dere to link up with the British at Suvla, and at that time were closer to Suvla than to ANZAC cove. I'm deleting the offensive and incorrect words. RichardH (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect! The landings where lightly opposed. This is no discredit to the brave soldiers, rather an indictment of the poor command structure, that decided to sit around on the beaches giving the Turks time to bring up re-enforcement's, which led to months of slaughter. It is also to be remembered that the generals where still in the old fashioned mind set, and did not appreciate the need for speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.244.176 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "'Only lightly opposed" no longer appears in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the use of Suvla in the song - Suvla was the name of the Area of Operations, or AO in military parlance, of the Northern battle area on the Gallipoli Peninsula from April 25. There wa sno such thing as ANZAC Cove or ANZAC AO prior to the landing and indeed for days or weeks afterwards. Suvla was how it was referenced in the Australian press and military records of the time. Hence the confusion now 100 years later with people indignantly saying that Suvla was to the north and a British Operation etc So the use of Suvla is both correct and incorrect depending on when you use the reference ;)58.7.217.14 (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The song lyric is this:

"And of how in that hell that they called Suvla Bay, we were butchered like lambs at the slaughter."

So I think it can be assumed that this was Suvla, although the Anzac sector was five miles (8 km) to the south. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Strongly implied"

I'm not sure I agree that the song strongly implies that he was present at the start of the campaign (and therefore was not called up in 1915). The song, to me, more implies that he was present at the Landing at Suvla Bay in August, the planning for which started earlier in the same year, thus if the narrator was called up to support that, 1915 is perfectly logical. Thoughts? Rails (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"In 1915 the country said, son, it's time to stop ramblin', there's work to be done". So yes, quite the reverse. Our poor chap was still rambling in 1915, and not yet on his way to Galipolli. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The main issue with that line of thought is the whole 'our blood stained the sand and the water'. Apart from the April 25th landing all the fighting Australians did (apart from the brief sally to help the Brits down south in May) was in the ridges and gullies further inland at ANZAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.217.14 (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be a mistake to try and to match small details of the song, such a names, with exact historical events. Yes, the song is based on the experiences of the Anzacs, but it's more concerned to give an overall impression of the campaign, rather than a strictly accurate chronology. Artist licence is only to be expected in any work of art. The links here will take the reader to those articles that describe the actual events with historical accuracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, there was no 'call up' of Australian troops. Australia never had Conscription during WW1 and was one of the very few (and not only as some people mistakenly claim) all volunteer forces of the war. So the Digger of our song was a volunteer. And if he was present at the April 25th landings then he would have to have been a very enthusiastic volunteer of August/September 1914 and an 'Original' of his battalion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.217.14 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

I'm not wholly convinced that the "synthesis" tag, even though it was there for over a year, was fully justified, as there were perfectly good references included. I think the removal of the section does the article a disservice and some effort might be reasonably expended in trying to improve it instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a useful section.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Persistent reinstatement of unsourced materials

An editor has recently engage din an edit war by persistently reverting a citation needed tag for the claim that the subject of the song was a drover and swagman. That claim is not supported in any of the references on this page. If you feel otherwise, then please provide a quote of where these sources use the words "swagman" and "Drover". If you can not do so, then DO NOT revert the tag again until you have consensus. If you do so, you will be reported for edit warring. Have a nice day. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think that I have "persistently reinstated any unsourced materials". I removed your {{cn}} tag (which is undated) twice in the space of 8 days. I'm not sure that constitutes being "engage din an edit war". You seem to be disputing that we can call the subject a "swagman" or a "drover" because the lyrics don't specifically call him this? So what would you like to call him? We don't normally provide sources, especially in the lede section, for synopses. If there really is a dispute about the content of the song, or controversy over competing versions, this is usually better considered in a separate section. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Bogle himself discusses the song in an interview here, but does not explicitly tell us much about the subject. I guess it comes down to the meaning of the first two lines:

"Now when I was a young man, I carried me pack, and I lived the free life of a rover

From the Murray's green basin to the dusty outback, well, I waltzed my Matilda all over."

That seems pretty clear to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"I guess" and "Seems pretty clear to me" does not meet WP:RS. Per Swag (bedroll), "Swags have been carried by shearers, miners, the unemployed, and many others, some of whom would have been happy to have been called swagmen and some not". Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim they did. And where does your own quote come from? A certain popular source says this: "There were many itinerant and seasonal workers travelling from place to place through the rural parts of Australia particularly in the latter part of the 19th century." But it's not allowed at Wikipedia. What is your suggestion of how describe the subject? He describes himself as "a rover". But I don't see anything suitable at rover. This source says ""Matilda" - the backpack and associated gear used by livestock drovers and prospecters, In remote areas of the Australian outback." But I doubt that is considered a WP:RS either. I'd suggest the term currently used in the lede, "drover", is being used as an archetype, and not as a definitive. I have no objection to using something better, especially if a source can be found. But I do object to being accused of "edit warring" for no good reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

When you persistently revert the edits of others and refuse to discuss the issue, that is indeed an edit war.

You claimed, wrongly, that the claim was referenced in the external.

I don't "seem" to be disputing that we can call the subject a "swagman" or a "drover". I am challenging that assertion as being unverified. The fact that whoever added the claim seems to think that a drover and a swagman are the same thing makes me question the accuracy of the edit.

Material doesn't need to be cited in the lede if, and only if, it is referenced elsewhere in the article AND it is unchallenged. If, as in this case, the lede introduces novel material that is not referenced elsewhere and that material is challenged, then it needs a an inline cite, just as any other claim made on Wikipedia. In all such cases we do indeed "normally provide sources the lede section".

There is no controversy about competing versions. This is about the claim being made that the subject in any version of the song was an swagman or drover. No version of the song cited in this article says or even implies that the subject was swagman or drover.

"My own quote" comes from the linked article, Where else would it come from?

Of course there were lots of itinerant workers during the Federation Drought and associated recession. That doesn't mean the subject of this song was one. That is WP:OR. Whether Shazam is RS or not is irrelevant. It just notes that swags were used by lots of people, including drovers and prospectors. That does not imply that the subject of this song was a drover any more than it suggests he was a prospector. Once again, this is you doing original research, and that is not acceptable per WP:OR. If Shazam made an explicit claim that the subject was a drover we might then consider whether it is RS. Since it doesn't make such a claim, then it can't be even considered.

As for what I would like to call the subject, there are endless options: rural traveler and rover would be the most obvious ones. To me it "seems pretty clear" that, since he traveled with a "tent and pegs", he wasn't a swagman, ie an itinerant worker who travels on foot. But this is just as unsourced as your claim that he was a swagman and drover (somehow both together). We should simply provide a synopsis of the song, not introduce unfounded claims based on what "seems pretty clear". If we are going to do that then we need to introduce a claim that he was a tin scratcher, which seems clear to me, and a claim that he was a farm butcher, which seems pretty clear to some bloke I met down the pub.

A claim that the subject was a drover and swagman as an "archetype" is no more accurate and no more sourced than the claim that he was a drover and swagman in some other sense. There is not one shred of evidence for such a claim. If you can't find a reliable source that he was made a claim that he was a drover or swagman as an archetype, then it is no more acceptable than your claim that he was a literal drover and literal swagman.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

When did I "refuse to discuss" anything? I don't recall ever getting an invitation. Only a belated threat. Yes, your quote comes from another Wikipedia article, not from a reliable source. And I don't see what's wrong with using the word "rover" in quotes. Unless an interview source from Bogle himself can be found in which he clarifies exactly what he meant, I'm not sure it's a fruitful exercise to try and pin down each and every word in the song to an exact single meaning. Like many other songs, I think Bogle has been deliberately vague - the song means different things to different people. It shouldn't really be treated as some kind of definitive historical text - I think that's maybe why the section on "Historical inaccuracies" might have been useful. One might as well try and ascertain the exact colour of that fog or the exact altitude at which Jimi kissed the sky. I was expecting that you would take my suggestions here in good faith, simply as opinions, not as some kind of factual "claims". I was trying to have a discussion. But no, it seems your aim here is to prove that you are wholly right an I am wholly wrong. Martinevans123 07:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD is quite clear: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. Don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring. You refused to explain why you reverted my edits and you refused to begin a discussion on the talk page. You instead engaged in back and forth reverting, which was viewed as edit warring. Only a warning prevented you from continuing to do so.

Yes, my quote comes from another Wikipedia article, a point that you apparently didn't realise despite it being hotlinked. Yes, it is from a reliable source, a direct quote in fact. Once again, easily found in the linked article

If you require a forum to present statements that are simply your opinions, might I suggest Twitter? Wikipedia is not the forum for such statements. All statements presented here must be verifiable and must be attributable to a reliable source. Your opinions, presented simply or otherwise, do not meet the criteria for inclusion. If you do not have reliable sources that discuss the exact colour of that fog or the exact altitude at which Jimi kissed the sky, then such statements cannot be included in Wikipedia, regardless of what your opinion is on those subjects. Wikipedia is not the forum to present statements that are simply your opinions, it is not the forum for things that you guess, it is not the forum for things that seem pretty clear to you. Your mate seems to think that you are a long term contributor. If that is the case then you already know this. I shouldn't need to explain WP:Verifiability to you. If I, or anyone else, can't check that your claims come from a reliable source they should not and can not be included. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. If your edits are not claiming to be verifiable, and hence factual, then they have no place here. They don't need to be right. They don't need to be true. They just need to be verifiable. Mark Marathon (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I never seen such a lengthy and detailed explanation of why I am editing in bad faith and contravening strict wikipedia principles. Congratulations. Wow, removing your cn tags twice. Even with edit summries. Perhaps a topic ban for me here would be a more suitable outcome for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You ask me questions in a talk page discussion. I answer them fully in a civil manner. And you response appears to flippant nonsense criticisng me for taking the time to respond at length. Well, I shall continue to assume good faith and respond with a breif answer as you seem to desire: If you can't provide references for any edits that I have tagged as needing citations, then they shall be removed in short order. If you persist in reverting such removal, you shall be reported for edit warring. The only 'suitable' outcome that I desire is is that you cease edit warring and adhere to some basic Wikipedia polices, to wit WP:Verifiability and WP:OR.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misread the purpose of my Jimi Hendrix example. And I'm still edit warring, am I? Thanks so much for explaining why my edits here are all utterly worthless. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise you still intended to continue edit warring. That is not good news.

Your mate told me that you are an established editor who doesn't need templates to remind you of the rules regarding edit warring, verifiablity and so forth. As such I figured you wouldn't take offence at me to explaining to you that edits that consist solely of opinion are utterly worthless on Wikipedia. If frank discussion of basic policies offends you, then perhaps in future you might follow BRD and initiate a polite discussion rather than reverting other editors multiple times. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So, you consider all my edits, including this one, simply "edit warring" and not any kind of attempt at collaborative compromise? And you now suggest that in future I "initiate a polite discussion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are admitting that all your edits are deliberate edit warring and that you do not intend to initiate polite discussion in future?Mark Marathon (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you spot two question marks in my last edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Were there questions in my last edit?Mark Marathon (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Only one. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Really?

Yes, really. WP:WIN. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Impeccable timing. Over to you to improve the article further. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Note:: User:Mark Marathon was indef blocked, on 18 July 2019, for "competency issues and battleground behavior". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Why this article's contentious { { citation needed } } is { { not needed } }

I was going to be "Pommie-polite" and start this section with "In my opinion ...". But it isn't [just] my opinion, it is the shared opinion of a community consensus. So to be a little less polite ...

I am removing a template from this article. Do not restore it until you have read this (yes all of it), and have reached a community consensus agreement about the reason you are abandoning and ignoring community consensus agreements.

What

As of 15 August 2017, this article's section entitled Content opens with the following sentence:

The song is an account of the memories of an old Australian man who, as a youngster had travelled across rural Australia with a swag (the so-called Matilda of the title) and tent ^{[citation needed]}.

I am removing the {{citation needed}} template from that sentence because its inclusion contravenes at least two Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines. WP:MoS very explicitly and unambiguously states that a citation is not needed in this specific context. Furthermore, the editor's choice of shorthand name for this template was particularly unfortunate ({{fact}} in an article about a work of fiction).

Inclusion or exclusion of this very template appears to have been a primary component of a fairly recent "edit-war" (or possibly just a very convincing impersonation of an "edit-war"). A quick read of just one page in the [[WP:MoS]] suggests that the Content section of this article alone is in violation of a dozen guidelines. In light of that "edit-war" and in preparation for a more extensive edit, I will therefore show not only how one can determine that this template is not needed but also why. I know this will be an anathema to the casual reader of this discussion. I can only apologise by saying that the following is not intended for you (unless you" is you or you - and you know who you are), and more lengthy descriptions haven't yet achieved the result desired by the larger community consensus.

How: Determination of whether a citation is needed

Or more accurately "Determination of whether a {{citation needed}} is needed. 1. The lyrics of this song are a work of fiction.

If you are unsure or unconvinced of that, please read the Sydney Morning Herald interview with the composer Eric Bogle from 2002. When writing this song in 1971, Bogle originally had the then-ongoing Vietnam War in mind, but changed the context to the Australian experience in the then-56-year-old Battle of Gallipoli. He had lived in Australia for less than two years at the time.

Source: This Sydney Morning Herald interview with Eric Bogle from 19 April 2002 (and published the following day).

2. Wikipedia's Manual of Style strongly encourages all articles about a work of fiction to have a section describing or summarizing the "plot".

Specifically:

"Whenever the original fiction itself is the subject of the article, all real-world information needs to be set in the context of that original fiction (e.g., by including a plot summary)".

Source: MOS:PLOT (first paragraph, second sentence).

3. This article's "plot summary" is provided by the section entitled "Content".

Source: The dictionary definitions of "plot summary" and "content" (as intended in this context).

4. According to WP:MoS, "plot summaries [...] should only present an obvious recap of the work".

Source: The third sentence of this section.

5. The first sentence of the "Content" section (the plot summary) is:

"The song is an account of the memories of an old Australian man who, as a youngster had travelled across rural Australia with a swag (the so-called Matilda of the title) and tent".

This is entirely consistent with an obvious recap of the work because after the initial statement of context, all nine subsequent clauses of that sentence from the article are mentioned in the lyrics of the song.

Source: Specifically ...

The song is an account of:

(I really hope that much is not under dispute)

the memories:

"Reliving old dreams of past glory"

of an old:

"I watch my old comrades [...] the old men march slowly"

Australian:

"they shipped us back home to Australia"

man:

"my country said "Son, ..."

who as a youngster:

"When I was a young man"

"had travelled across rural Australia:

"From the Murray's green basin to the dusty outback, ..."

with a swag (the so-called Matilda of the title):

"... I waltzed my Matilda all over".

and tent:

"For to hump tent and pegs, a man needs two legs"

Just in case there is anyone left on this planet who is not wholly conversant with 1890s Australian outback slang, a Matilda is a swag is a bedroll. Carrying a bedroll with, without or even nowadays incorporating a tent (and whether jolly or not) makes you a "swagman" by definition. Banjo Patterson (not Eric Bogle) made it clear in his original (later edited) version that the subject of his (Patterson's) 1895 song was a "rover". As Eric Bogle "sampled" those 1895 lyrics in 1971, it is equally clear that Bogle had a similar "rover" in mind.

6. And finally (phew), WP:MOS states:

"the plot summary for a work [of fiction], on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary".

Source: This section of the WP:MoS.

Who makes all those rules anyway?

Did I already say finally? Steps 1-6 were the "how to determine" part. I also promised a "why" part. Here it is:

7. The second and third sentences of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY are:

"Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules [and guidelines] themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected."

The proper interpretation of this particular "written rule' is that the logic underlying the preceding six steps above were arrived at by community consensus. And it is that COMMUNITY CONSENSUS that forms the reason WHY this particular instance of the {{citation needed}} template is {{not needed}}.

ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

I'm not suggesting at all that no Australians were present at Suvla Bay; in fact, it was I who pointed out the fact, whereas Bogle (probably) and Walsh (very clearly) weren't aware of the participation of the Bridging Train. Writing only in 2018, Walsh (p50) says, "Australian troops did not land in 'that hell they called Suvla Bay' (British troops did)." A small number certainly landed in Suvla Bay, though not in hell. That came later.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of anybody's accounts of Anzac deeds in the Gallipoli landings except the song's. Bogle acknowledges that he altered details that he knew (or, it now turns out, believed) to be true so as to accommodate a widespread misunderstanding. Let's examine the story:

If the protagonist in Bogle's song joined up in 1915, he can't have been at Anzac on April 25th, because the force that landed there left Australia in November 1914. Therefore, he must have been at Suvla, and therefore must have been in the Naval Bridging Train, the only Australian troops present. But there's no evidence that Bogle knew about them. He doesn't say to Walsh, "Ah, but there were Australians at Suvla."

He says, "I chose Suvla because of a couple of music hall songs that convinced most Aussies that that is where the Anzacs had landed. There was a particularly popular musical song at the time called "Suvla Bay." It's a tearjerker and it was THE song in Australia during WWI after Gallipoli. There were no songs about Anzac Cove . . . So even for the generation of Aussies that I shared the country with, Suvla was synonymous with Anzacs. Also, Suvla sort of rhymes with Australia, and I thought, I'll fudge it." He chose Suvla, believing it to be inaccurate.

So here's the song that caused Bogle to stray from the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68PjEsJ_zGA And here is the background to it:

A 1944 Australian copyright on a song called “Suvla Bay” is held by the otherwise unknown Jack Spade and three other songwriters. The 1948 sheet music advertises it as “Sung by Tex Morton Australia’s yodelling boundary rider.” In January, 1949, the Sydney Sunday Herald reported that the song had “suddenly become the rage in Britain,” and as of March, 2015, a century after the Gallipoli campaign it commemorated, a lush recent recording of Suvla Bay by Ray Kernaghan had received more than 17,000 hits on YouTube. That version includes a final stanza in which the soldier’s sweetheart happily weds one of his former comrades while never forgetting her first love. “Suvla Bay” may well have been composed anonymously during the First World War, but no pre-1944 publication record exists. That is despite latter-day assertions that the Australian government made its singing in 1915-18 “illegal.” Its broadcast popularity in Britain and Australia after World War II may have led to the simple updating of “Suvla” to “Dunkirk,” as in Wiggy Smith’s version, though the assigning of Dunkirk to the “autumn” is an error. Souda Bay in Crete was the site of an Italian naval assault in 1941 that sank HMS York; Bill Scott, editor of the Second Penguin Book of Australian Folksongs, heard the Souda version in Brisbane in 1944. Whenever “Suvla Bay” may have been written, its style is very much that of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century music hall.

But there is a further problem. This song says, "My love's asleep so far away. He played his part that April day, and now he sleeps on Suvla Bay." Suvla was in August. If he was killed in April, it must have been at Anzac. So that reference is anachronistic.

There are suggestions that "Suvla" became a general term for the Anzac operation at Gallipoli, but the site of the April landing was named "Anzac Cove" on the 29th, plenty of time between then and August for word to get back to Australia. We shall probably never know how the confusion came about.

It's just possible that Bogle opted for "Suvla" and then moved his entry into the army to 1915 so that the dates would allow for him to be there, but we've already established that he revealed no knowledge of the Bridging Train and that he fell into line with an existing misconception.

So Bogle's tale is of a man who in August 1915 lands under heavy fire at a place called Suvla Bay, and whose fellow Antipodeans suffer many casualties. The facts are that the landing at Suvla succeeded against light opposition and that the only force of which he could have been a part did not suffer any casualties during the landing. Bogle admits that he knowingly altered certain facts for reasons of convenience.

The other arguable inaccuracies lie in the lines: "Then in 1915, my country said son, it's time you stopped rambling, there's work to be done. So they gave me a tin hat, and they gave me a gun, and they marched me away to the war." The reference to a tin hat is without any doubt inaccurate. Walsh and others suggest that the lines 'my country said, Son, there's work to be done' and 'they marched me away to the war' imply compulsion - in other words: conscription, which was not introduced in Australia. On the other hand, the first part could simply mean that he responded voluntarily to his country's call, and the second just normal soldierly moaning about being marched around. I'd say that's a possible inaccuracy according to some sources.

So, in view of the above, I shall reinstate and improve the section on Historical Accuracy. Who knows?: Mr. Bogle or Mr. Walsh might read this and offer further information. Of course, that would be Original Research and therefore of no value whatsoever. Hengistmate (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that musical hall song should be mentioned at Landing at Suvla Bay? I'm surprised that you regard any further information offered by Mr. Bogle as being "of no value whatsoever". But I'm not sure we have any evidence that he's even aware of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's difficult. As explained, the song "Suvla Bay" says that her beau was killed in April at Suvla, which is impossible. Either the date is wrong or the location is wrong. I'd be intrigued to see how you fit that into the article! As for a direct response from the author being "of no value whatsoever," I merely state Wikipedia's ludicrous policy on Original Research :-) I recently added some corrections to a Wikipedia article about a reasonably notable friend of mine who had died. I knew him for about 35 years, and was his Best Man. Unfortunately, my observations were deemed inadmissible by a conscientious "editor" since they were not endorsed by a group of marginally-informed schoolboys or, say, an overweight, bearded man in a lumberjack hat. Something like that. No, Mr. Bogle's word would not suffice; it would have to come from a 'reliable source' . . . Still, if I can track him down I might send him an invitation and see what happens. Amicalement, Hengistmate (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that was very easy. That article has a section called "Commemoration", where "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" is already given pride of place, despite consensus that its mention of Suvla Bay is inaccurate. Now we have another song, but a probably contemporary one, which can be tracked to 1940s Australia and which "suddenly became the rage in Britain" in 1949. It may be wholly inaccurate as an historical account. But as a commemoration? Or does it perhaps belong at ANZAC Cove? Sorry to have misread your sarcasm about Bogle and Walsh. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ooh. So it does. I see that I have played some part in shaping that reference. I shall elaborate. I wouldn't say it will be "very easy," but thank you. I think it's also worth pointing out in the lead the confusion between Suvla and Anzac, as Wikipedia should do on such occasions.

By the way, this from the Naval Historical Society of Australia makes interesting reading:

Even at Gallipoli, the soldiers at Anzac Cove had no idea that there was an Australian unit a short distance away at Suvla Bay. AB Driver Carl Schuler stated that he and the rest of the 2nd Reinforcements for the Train were incorrectly landed at Anzac Cove and found that no-one had ever heard of their unit. They were promptly got rid of by sending them to Suvla in a pinnace. It is also unlikely that many RAN personnel knew of the Train either. In histories of the RAN, the Train is lucky to get a passing mention. Well may the Officers and Men of the Royal Australian Navy Bridging Train be called the ‘Dry Land Sailors.’

Unfortunately, I think we have yet more problems now. Please tell me if you agree. If the protagonist joined up in 1915 and was sent to Suvla, he must have been in the Bridging Train. The Train was part of the Navy, not, as the article says, part of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The train drew most of its strength from the Naval Reserve, and the protagonist does not admit to being part of it. The Train also recruited some Northern Queensland horsemen, but the fact remains that they were still in the Navy. The Train wore khaki uniforms at Gallipoli but had naval ranks and wore naval badges of rank. So we cannot say, as is claimed in the "Content" section, that Bogle's man "joined the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps." He can't have done. I shall try to make that line non-committal; the reason will, necessarily, be explained later in the article. Hengistmate (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Who'd be a songwriter, eh? One tries to write a song, tied to a major historical event, attempting to convey a feeling, a message. Then commentators like us, start to rip it apart and show how it is riddled with factual contradictions and inaccuracies. But it's just a song, not an historical account. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I know that, and you know that. But this is Wikipedia, and all that goes with it . . . :) Hengistmate (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics?

If there is going to be such a detailed article about a particular song, it would be nice to include the actual lyrics in the article, rather than just talking about the lyrics for several paragraphs.

Would also be nice to see an illustration of at least the main melody of the song, in music notation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Mainland Kitchen Band

Ep 4 of the series Something Undone has the song playing in the background of the pub scene. Credited as "Folk Song" performed by the Mainland Kitchen Band. 1.145.200.144 (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)