Battle of Katia has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
“ | Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. |
” |
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 -
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)
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)
Battle of Katia has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
“ | Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. |
” |
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 -
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)
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)