Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul

message: This article has been substantially re edited since this template was added. Could someone have a read and see if it is now neutral? Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have concerns about the POV. One example is the section "Fighting the Germans"... a section like this needs to be rewritten to be NPOV. Thats not to say that its content is not revelvant, personally I think it can and should be kept, it just needs to be redone. The main problem is that the underlying and unwritten assumptions (i.e. of being British), highlight that very POV. If you explicitly refer to the perceptions of the British officers towards other British officers then I think you remove the assumed POV and hence it becomes NPOV. You will also need to change the heading though, as the assumptions inherent in a title like "Fighting the Germans" once again seemingly make it POV (the Germans weren't fighting themselves so the assumption is that this is written from the British POV). Anotherclown (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you?--Rskp (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who asked for the opinion... Anotherclown (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I've had a go at this. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello AR, yes those changes look good to me. I'm going to remove the POV template now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I have removed the dispute tag from the article for the second time.  The article title has been established by consensus.  One editor stands alone and insists everyone else is wrong.  It reminds me of creationists claiming that the science of evolution is in dispute amongst scientists when there is in fact no dispute.  Back to the article title, until and unless the editor produces recent reliable sources that this battle is not called a battle in today's everyday usage s/he has no case.  To date the editor has relied on obsolete references and completely ignores the relevant point that the English language has changed in the last 100 years.  Accusing others of original research as this editor has done several times is at best failing to assume good faith. - Nick Thorne talk 07:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the dispute template because your consensus are not editors interested in the field. Not one has made a major or minor contribution to this article. They refuse to acknowledge WP:COMMONNAME which 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." Wikipedia common name does not mention fashion but usage and the name which has been used most in the relevant sources is "Affair of Abu Tellul." Stop threatening me Nick Thorne - you didn't contribute to this article; you don't set the agenda and you are not in a position to declare what references are obsolete or reliable for that matter.--Rskp (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag