# Talk:Battle of Katia

No confirmation or link to any confirmation that this is also referred to as "First Pelusium" as stated in the introduction. Opbeith (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's right. Do you want a reference? --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Reference checked and cut. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As discussed, here are some suggestions while you wait for a GA review. As always, feel free to disregard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again Australian Rupert for your interest and invaluable suggestions. --Rskp (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
in the infobox, currently there are a couple of fields missing for the Ottoman forces. Is this information known? (The article states "Von Kressenstein's force of 3,650 men" - should this be in the infobox?)
Added
if you have not already done so, I'd suggest requesting a copy edit through the GOCE or another editor that you know has good attention to detail;
Did request one which was apparently done but there didn't seem to be much to do?
in the Aftermath, where you have "(See also 'Occupation of Romani' and 'Reconnaissances..." I suggest moving this to a Footnote such as the one you have for "The towns on the Suez Canal are...";
Done
the citations could probably be presented in columns (either two or three columns). This would reduce the page length and reduce the whitespace. This can be done by typing "{{reflist|2}}" or "{{reflist|3}}". This is purely cosmetic suggestion, though, and there is no policy requirement to do so;
Done
Citations # 32 and 33 would probably look cleaner if they were formatted with the {{cite web}} template;
Done
"File:IWMphotoQ15839.jpg" probably needs a date of creation on the description page;
Done
the External links probably should be differentiated somehow. Currently it appears that there are two links to the same work;
Done
the External link for the Easter Rising article doesn't appear to be working correctly. It took me to http.com, which doesn't seem right. The url might need to be tweaked;
Done
currently the TOC is quite large considering the size of the article. I suggest considering limiting the TOC to level 2 headings, but again this is only a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
After adding Falls it seemed better to have subsections for each of the separate attacks as they were quite spread-out. Anotherclown insisted on the standard heading Battle which I think is misleading in this article but in order to incorporate Battle it was necessary to add attack to the subsections. Anotherclown seems to be saying its mandatory to have Battle but I can't find anything in WP:MILMOS/C which sanctions this position. --Rskp (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, my reading of MILMOS/C is that it is a suggestion that a battle article use the following subheadings: background, prelude, battle, aftermath. That is certainly a structure that has enjoyed considerable success at A-class and FA reviews. I wouldn't say that it is mandatory, though. Having said this, depending upon the reviewer at GAN, they may have issue with the repeated use of "Attack at...". Using a level 2 heading of "Battle" with level 3 subheadings of "Oghratina", "Katia" and "Dueidar" would probably resolve this issue. I think that this is what Anotherclown is saying and I'm inclined to agree. Certainly, that would be the way I would do it; however, that is just my opinion on the matter and I don't think it is a requirement either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again - I've followed your suggestion and it does look better. Regards --Rskp (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources that support the name Combat at Katia, however several books use Battle of Katia [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You have to be joking. :) --Rskp (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Combat at Katia has strayed into WK:OR and should be moved back to Affair of Katia. --Rskp (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"Battle of Katia" makes the most sense IMO, per the conversation at Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul use of the term "Affair" is archaic, while "Combat" doesn't see right either. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I just did a Google Books check of "Affair of Katia" vs "Battle of Katia" and i'm seeing a 6 to 549 ratio. Battle of Katia does seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME used in sources. SilverserenC 06:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
G'day, given the examples above, I'm inclined to agree that the article should be at "Battle of Katia";  There would be no dramas, IMO, though, of having something like this in the lead: "The Battle of Katia (also known as the Affair of Katia)..." with "Affair of Katia" being a redirect to this article. That's jus my opinion for what its worth. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Silver seren, I tried to replicate your search but only got 9 results for Battle of Katia; Erickson 2001, p. 247 [Its during the last 20 pages of his book which I don't appear to have seen] Lady Asquith 1950, Ballobar, Maza 2011, Mrs. P. Campbell 2005, Caroline Dakers 1987, D. Cannadine 1999, The complete Peerage, West County houses and families, the Cornhill magazine.
There were 6 results for Affair of Katia 3 were love affairs and 3 were sourced to Wikipedia. My google book search for Abu Tellul and Abu Tulul found Hill and Falls official history and Armageddon 2003 p. 29. 
I've had a quick look through the sources I based the Katia and the Abu Tellul articles on and none of them mention 'battle of ...' or 'affair of ...' just the place names, excepting Hill's 'brief battle of Abu Tulul', the Battles Nomenclature Committee and Falls official history as quoted in the articles. 
There is no mention of Battle of Abu Tellul/Tulul and Erickson appears to be the only military historian to claim Battle of Katia. Jim Sweeney what are your several sources for Battle of Katia? --Rskp (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Erickson's "Battle of Katia" appears in his appendix G Turkey in the First World War - perhaps its the name used by the Ottoman Empire? Does anyone know? If that's the case it would be interesting to know what he calls Abu Tellul in this appendix.
I would have more confidence in the moves to battle if they were based on some credible sources rather than web searches. --Rskp (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The link to the several sources is above, you will notice they are all books not a web search. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Jim Sweeney, it is a web search its just a bit broader than Silver serene's but largely duplicates it.
I presume you are not seriously putting forward the Ladybug and the Dragon by R. Magers, The Bridge by E. Allen and The ladies' lending library by J.K. Keefer as sources? 
If you have a quick read of the previews you will find the Roland Perry and Paul Daley quotes are describing fighting at Katia during the Battle of Romani in August 1916. If you read the Battle of Romani article you will see confirmation that the battle was fought on similar ground four months after the Affair of Katia.
While Ballobar and Mazza's Jerusalem in World War I (included in Silver serene's web search) calls it the 'battle of Katia' with a footnote #7 unfortunately the bit on the web doesn't give the citation information. It appears to have been written by a first hand witness to the prisoners from Katia being paraded through Jerusalem in May 1916. It does not describe any fighting at Katia as far as I can see.
The preview of Lady Cynthia Asquith's book doesn't give enough detail to know if its footnoted or the context, while in Mrs Patrick Campbell's book its an unreferenced note adding explanation to information given in a letter of 6 February 1918.
Erickson's 2001 which is also mentioned by Silver serene formally names it a battle in one of his many appendices but not in the body of his book. I wonder what his source is? Do you know?
Out of your several sources and Silver serene's searches there is one credible source (until we know where Appendix G comes from) who calls it the battle of Katia while there are two authoritative, reliable sources which call it the affair of Katia; the Battles Nomenclature Committee and the British official historian. I think that is a ratio of 2:1 for Affair. --Rskp (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As the most common name [WP:MILMOS#NAME] quoted in reliable sources, not Google searches, is Affair of Katia by a ration of 2:1 the use of battle is incorrect. --Rskp (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You keep going over old ground. Only the British called it an Affair so that title is POV. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The fighting was between the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Until we know what the Ottomans called it - the British name cannot be POV.--Rskp (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Other nations called it the battle of Katia
Beersheba: A Journey Through Australia's Forgotten War By Paul Daley p.62 Australia called it battle of Katia
The Australian Light Horse: The Magnificent Australian Force and Its Decisive Victories in Arabia in World War I By Roland Perry called another Australian called it the battle area
Ordered to die: a history of the Ottoman army in the First World War By Edward J. Erickson p.247 Ottomans called it battle of Katia
Jerusalem in World War I: The Palestine Diary of a European Diplomat By Conde de Ballobar, Roberto Mazza p.92 Spanish called it battle of Katia
Plus many more if you delve into the books. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Daley and Perry were both referring to fighting which took place around Katia during the Battle of Romani four months later. Erickson does not name this a battle in the body of his book but in an Appendix. If we knew the source of this appendix it might be helpful.
Ballobar and Mazza quote a first hand source in Jerusalem who saw prisoners captured at the 'battle' marched through the city – hardly a reliable source for changing the name of this article.
The fighting at Katia in April 1916 and the fighting at Abu Tellul in 1918 have both been officially named and known as affairs for the last 80 or 90 years and are therefore the commonly known names. If a single recent source chooses to change these names, and this source is then relied on to change the name of an article, then the basis on which the source changed the name, should be supplied; e.g. a reference. Bou justifies his name change on the basis of Hill who used battle as an adjective not a noun and why Coultard-Clark changed the name is still unknown. So far I have read arguments based on Google searches of unreliable, inaccurate sources, or sources which are referring to a completely different engagement 4 months later. On the basis of these sources and fashion, the consensus decisions cannot be described as based on scholarly debate and must be withdrawn. --Rskp (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Roslyn, it is good to see that you are passionate about the subject, but is it really worth all this time and energy? You raise some very interesting points, however, I don't think we can discount all the sources produced above and as such I find myself seeing good arguments in both directions. Based on the posts above, it seems to me that this debate has come to a stalemate in so much as I don't think you will change your mind, nor do I think others will.  As such, wouldn't it be best for us all just to agree to disagree and focus on getting back to the main effort of improving articles? I hope you won't take this the wrong way, and I recognise that it is very easy to make this arguement when, in theory, the article is currently at the name that I support, however, I really think everyone will enjoy Wiki more if we just move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Prior to the two moves to battle, I thought that reputable sources were respected by Wikipedians. Now I know that fashion is of more interest. Jim Sweeney's decision to change the name of this article on the basis of two Google searches, just two and a half hours after those Google search results were posted on this talk page, is stunning. This quick decision allowed no time for evaluating the sources listed. Having looked into these searches in some detail, as outlined above, I find they range from the very flimsy to the completely irrelevant.
The vast majority of the creation and editing of this page has been based on solid research that was acknowledged when it was made a GA. That research does not support the move to battle and I therefore continue to dispute this name change.--Rskp (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the dispute tag again as consensus for the name has been reached, the only dispute is by one editor who is unhappy. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC
I have reinstated the dispute template because battle is not the common name see WP:Common Name where it states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." The common name used in the sources the article is based on do not call it a battle. In any case a consensus of editors, none of whom have made a significant contribution to this article is meaningless. --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney can you share, what Ottoman reference you used as a basis for naming this article 'battle', please?--Rskp (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ordered to die: a history of the Ottoman army in the First World War By Edward J. Erickson p.247 Ottomans called it battle of Katia Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that Jim Sweeney. But p. 247 is in Appendix G not in the body of Erickson's book and if you are suggesting Erickson is Ottoman, he was born in New York. Could you tell us who the Ottoman source quoted in Appendix G is, please?--Rskp (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The book is the Ottoman army in the First World War  where the author was born  does not matter. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm just interested to know who wrote the appendix and what their sources were, that's all. If you can't tell me, then I see no reason, not to undo your deletion, of the dispute template. --Rskp (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I expected you response, your editing against consensus, by not accepting the community decision on the name. This is no different to the other articles where only you dispute the name. One thing to think on the was an Ottoman attack, so why should it be known by a British name, over any other and how is this different to the Battle of Magdhaba just nominated for a Good Article review by yourself, where it starts The Battle of Magdhaba (officially known by the British as the Affair of Magdhaba) Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reliable sources that do not call it an affair;
British National Archives - battle of Katia [2]
Worcester City Museum - battle of Katia [3]
National library of New Zealand - newspaper clippings calling it a battle [4][5]
The Long Long Trail - calling it a Turkish raid [6]
Website of the Royal New South Wales Lancers Lancer Barracks and Museum - calling it attack on Katia part of the Turkish advance on the Suez Canal. [7]
New Zealand history online - calling it the Action at Katia and a Turkish raid [8]
History of War - calling it the action of Katia/Qatia [9]
New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade diary - Turkish raid on Katia [10]
First World War– Sinai and Palestine Campaign pictures of British Prisoners from the battle of Katia, marching to Jerusalem - May 1916.[11] (this one may not qualify as a RS for Wikipedia)
Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jim Sweeney but none of these are reliable sources as set out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources which states -

Two reliable sources name it 'Affair of Qatiya/Qatia' under which title this engagement has been known ever since - for some 90 odd years. These reliable sources are -

Battles Nomenclature Committee which incidentally was made up of 3 Australians, 2 Canadians, 1 South African, 1 New Zealander and one British General Staff officer, [Battles Nomenclature Committee 1922 p. 31]
and the official British historian [Falls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 162] - after all they were British regiments involved in this affair and this is the English language Wikipedia.
As you have not been able to produce any similarly reliable sources on which to base your move of the article to battle and your cutting the dispute template, I will be moving the article back to affair at the expiration of 24 hours from my request for clarification of the Erickson source. --Rskp (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Certainly if a reference to a genuine Ottoman source was found which named this engagement then this should be added to the article, as has been done in every instance when my research uncovered the Ottoman name. Further in order to understand the difference between the Affair of Katia and the Battle of Magdhaba you should read the articles. --Rskp (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ordered to die: a history of the Ottoman army in the First World War'  claims to be The first general history in English of the Ottoman Army in the First World War, Ordered to Die is based on newly available Turkish archival and official sources.
However another book A military history of the Ottomans: from Osman to Atatürk- By Mesut Uyar, Edward J. Erickson calls it A raid against the outpost around Katia p.265
Encyclopedia of World War I -  calls it a raid against the British outpost at Katia p.1092

Your adding of the template is now bordering on vandalism and I am unable to understand your inflexible stance. Reading the above links the British units involved called it a battle here [12] and here [13], some of sources have been proved reliable and others are open to scrutiny, museums, newspaper articles written about the battle and claiming a book about the Ottoman army in World War I is not reliable because the author is not Turkish. What sources did the British use for naming the battle? At least five sources above call it the Raid on Katia, this was a Turkish/Ottoman victory from a Turkish/Ottoman attack so why should it named by the losers/British? CONSENSUS for the name change was reached in this and other articles you have disputed, WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA in particular, "There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus. If you are not happy can I suggest you take the approach suggested by Nick-D and go to RFC. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You cut my dispute template giving the excuse that it was called a battle by an Ottoman source. I gave you 24 hours and you have so far failed to identify your Ottoman source. You are staring to rant. Please tone down your posts. --Rskp (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Identified above consensus reached need I say more Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
G'day, Roslyn, if you are still concerned about the article title (both this one and Abu Tellul), I really encourage you to do as Nick and Jim have suggested and open a request for comment. That should help establish a wider consensus one way or the other. I really think that that is the best way forward. You can then discuss your concerns with a much larger group of editors. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Another option would be to use Raid on Katia which is accurate and undisputed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)