Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul

name of article
Does anyone have any objections to changing the name of this article to the 'Affair of Abu Tellul' as 'battle' is a little out of line with other engagements of a similar scale in the Sinai and Palestine campaign? --Rskp (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there a number of reliable sources which call it the 'Affair of Abu Tellul'? Otherwise standard wikipedia naming conventions should be followed per WP:MILMOS. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rskp. Why did you start a discussion about moving the page and then move it without responding to my question? There is hardly consensus to do this. I request you move it back until this is more thoroughly discussed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Anotherclown but I assumed that when you saw the article moved you would know that the answer was in the affirmative. The most reliable of sources for the names of engagements is "The Official Names of the Battles and Other Engagements Fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914–1919, and the Third Afghan War, 1919: Report of the Battles Nomenclature Committee as Approved by The Army Council Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty" which confirms "Affair of Abu Tellul" and the official history by Falls uses this name. None of the other sources quoted in the article disagree although Hill does compares it to the Battle for Hamel on the Western Front. But tanks and a creeping barrage were used there so the size of the engagements are vastly dissimilar, although the fierceness of the fighting may have been on the same level. My apologies once more, --Rskp (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue I see is that none of the sources you have provided are very recent, with most of them published in the 1920s and 1930s (unless I'm mistaken). I have reveiwed a few more recent sources and none of them use "Affair of Abu Tellul", including Gullet (1944) Sinai and Palistine Campaign (the Australian Official History), Coates (2001) Atlas of Australia's Wars, Coulthard-Clark (2010) Encyclopedia of Australia's Battles, and Bou (2010) Light Horse: A History of Australia's Mounted Arm. Indeed, although there is little coverage in the later Bou specifically refers to Abu Tellul (or Abu Tullul) as a battle, quoting from page 191: "On 14 July a Turkish attack by two divisions, spearheaded by two and half German battalions who soon found the Turkish allies on their flanks unwilling participants, was launched at the Anzac Mounted Division at Abu Tulul in the Jordan Valley. They were quickly defeated by a rapid counter-attack by the 1st Light Horse Brigade, and this battle [my emphasis] proved to be the last Turkish offensive of the campaign." As such unless there are other sources which specifically refer to this action as the "Affair of Abu Tellul" standard naming conventions should be used, i.e. "Battle of Abu Tellul". Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But none of the sources name the engagement as the 'battle of Abu Tellul'. In all my reading regarding this conflict none mention two divisions being involved. What two divisions is Bou referring to? If two divisions were involved at Abu Tellul then I would happily agree it should be called a battle but the Anzac Mounted Division was certainly not on Abu Tellul at the time of the fighting. Only two regiments of the 1st Light Horse Brigade with one regiment in brigade reserve and the 4th Light Horse Brigade in divisional reserve further back again; the 4th LHB never took part in the engagement. The only other unit briefly involved in the fighting was the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment which arrived as a reinforcement. To call a defence by two regiments at Abu Tellul which were later reinforced by two more regiment, a battle is inflating the conflict to a level which is just not reasonable when you compared it with other operations which certainly were 'battles' during the Sinai and Palestine campaign.--Rskp (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "battle" is subjective and as far as I know has no quantitive criteria; so just because one battle is smaller than another battle doesn't mean it isn't a battle. I cannot elaborate on Bou's intended meaning but have quoted his description of the event, in which he clearly uses the term "battle" to describe it. Wikipedia naming conventions clearly state that unless it is known by some other name it should follow the format "Battle of X" or "Seige of Y" - see WP:MILMOS. Unless you have more reliable and recent sources which call it something else then the MILMOS should be followed. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "battle" was specified by the Battles Nomenclature Committee in their report when they assigned the names of the various actions fought throughout the First World War; this 1922 publication remains the authority in the field. Of course 'battle' has a very wide meaning including "battle it out - fight or compete to a definite conclusion" and Bou could have been using the term in this loose sense. The computer "Dictionary" gives the meaning of battle as "a sustained fight between large, organized armed forces." And Wikipedia defines 20th century battle as "the combat between opposing forces representing major components of total forces committed to a military campaign." Wikipedia goes on "Battles are, on the whole, made up of a multitude of individual combats, skirmishes and small engagements." The fighting at Abu Tellul does not fit any of these current definitions of battle; two regiments fighting two and a half battalions does not represent "major components of total forces" the several 'individual combats, skirmishes and small engagements' could never be described as a 'multitude.' The fighting at Abu Tellul has been, and is still widely "known by some other name" - that name is the Affair of Abu Tellul. --Rskp (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, everyone, can we please try to get some consensus before continuing to move this article? Roslyn, you state that the fighting described in this article does not meet the definition of a battle (in your edit summary here). Could you please elaborate on this? For me, the term "Affair" seems like a rather archaic term, which today's readers are unlikely recognise. I also found a source that calls it a battle: Coulthard-Clark, The Encyclopedia of Australia's Battles, p. 149. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your interest. Regarding the elaboration: The Battles Nomenclature Committee, the only English language publication, which authoritatively names the engagements of World War 1 states – "The only names in the military terminology which convey any real indication of proportion are "battle," "action" and "affair" and these are obviously inadequate to convey all the graduations. … The rank of "battle" has been confined as a general rule to engagements of primary importance fought out between forces not smaller than the corps. The title "action" has been employed for the next class, the limit in this case being taken as the division; lesser engagements have been styled "affairs". [Battles Nomenclature Committee 1922 p. 7]

Two regiments reinforced by two more attacked by 3 battalions do not amount to anywhere near corps size, nor were they "large organised armed forces," nor were they "major components of total forces committed to a military campaign" nor were these forces involved in "a multitude of individual combats, skirmishes and small engagements." Abu Tellul was an "exciting little fight"[Gullett 1941 p. 669] it was not an engagement of "primary importance". [Battles Nomenclature Committee 1922 p. 7]

Regarding your reference, I can only suggest that the scope of Coulthard-Clark's book would preclude him from in-depth research into all the battles he covers, it also appears to be a popular book as opposed to a more academic publication which may have used more rigour in its selection of engagements and he may have been, like Bou under the mistaken impression that two divisions fought at Abu Tellul. --Rskp (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day. Apparently Coulthard-Clark bases his entry primarily on Gullett (at least that is the ref he provides on p. 150). He states the following "...two battalions of the German Asia Corps (about 1,000 men) ahead of three Turkish regiments" (p. 149). Regarding the formula, it certainly provides food for thought. I'm not sure I agree with Wiki adopting it, though. I would never thinking of searching for the "Affair of Abu Tellul" and I can't see many of our readers doing so either. Additionally, for me, I wonder what the Germans and Turks called it. If they didn't call it "Affair of Abu Tellul", then it becomes a point of view issue. It might be less problematic to use a more generic title. In this regard, is there anything written that outlines what the German or Turkish name for this event was? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ARs comments. There must be consensus before the article gets moved again. As it was originally called "Battle of Abu Tellul" but has repeatedly been moved to "Affair of Abu Tellul" by Rskp I've moved it back again to "Battle of Abu Tellul". Rskp, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it should be changed and you need to ensure that there is a consenus for this. Until then it should remain by its current name. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sure we all have the best intentions with this article. So that we all remain friends, can I propose that we all agree to stop moving this article and ask for some others to give their opinions about what name to adopt? Personally, I'm leaning towards "Battle of Abu Tellul", however, I'm not wedded to it. I'm more than happy with moving it back to "Affair of Abu Tellul" if the majority thinks this is best. Why don't we all step back for a bit, post a request for input on the main Milhist talk page and then see what comes out of that? In the long run, it will mean that we can solve the issue and move on to improving the article (it wouldn't need much more to be B class, IMO, and from there GA is achievable). Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm disappointed that Anotherclown has taken the unreasonable step of moving the article back before this discussion could reach a consensus.

In the whole of Gullett's chapter headed "Abu Tellul" he does not mention 'battle' once, so please don't suggest he is a source for your argument. Until I started editing this article it only quoted one source; Gullett, and as Gullett does not name this engagement a 'battle' I wonder why the person who set up this article decided to use it. Certainly a cursory glance at the editing of this article will leave any reader in no doubt as to which editor has done the thorough research.

It appears you are more interested in expressing personal likes and dislikes; you ignore the naming authority and you are not interested in why Bou and Coulthard-Clark chose to use 'battle.' Carver is a third source which is under the mistaken impression that two divisions were involved in this fight, although he doesn't name the engagement, like a number of military historians working in this theatre of the war. [Carver 2003 p. 231]

Your suggestion regarding the Milhist talk page would be a good one, if only there were more informed editors working in this theatre of the war, but there don't appear to be many. So I think, AustralianRupert and Anotherclown its up to you to justify why this engagement should not be known in Wikipedia by the name it is most widely known as "Affair of Abu Tellul." --Rskp (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your suggestion that people will look for the Battle of Abu Tellul; its much more likely they will look for "Abu Tellul" and they will find it. But most people will start at the Sinai and Palestine campaign article and they will quickly learn.--Rskp (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Roslyn, I am simply trying to act as an intermediary. I've given you my opinion on the name, however, frankly I do not appreciate your comments casting my opinion as representing a lack of scholarship. I have simply pointed to a modern source that uses a different name so that we can discuss the issue (and Coulthard Clark does in fact list Gullett as his reference for the facts of the event - apologies if I was not clear, I was not suggesting that he uses it as a reference regarding name of the event, just that he lists it as a reference for the facts of the event, e.g. size of forces, etc. If you are concerned about me listing it, please review the source - I'm sure any public library system will have it - the entry is on pp. 149-150) I will reiterate so that it is clear: I have no strong feelings on this matter and I'm just trying to help you and Anotherclown solve the issue. I do lean towards "Battle of Abu Tellul", but not if the majority of sources don't support. Regarding the continued moves, I wish to point out that Wikiprotocol in situations where there is some differing opinions is to be bold, revert and then discuss (see WP:BRD). My understanding is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the article began at "Battle of", Roslyn moved it to "Affair of" (being bold, which is fine), Anotherclown reverted (which is also fine). At that point the moves should have stopped and you should both have discussed it (like I asked above). Please, both of you, stop moving the article and let others weigh in. If necessary, I will ask an admin to place a move protect on the article. So that we are clear, I don't care whether it is at "Affair of" or "Battle of" when this is done, but the moves should stop before a decision is made. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, just passing by. I read the first sentence, then pretty much made up my mind about the naming issue: The Affair of Abu Tellul was fought (...). This is one of the weirdest lead sentence I've read; soldiers don't fight affairs, they fight battles. Scholarly sources may call it a get together for all I care, the fact remains that this "affair" fits the definition of battle: there were soldiers, lines, and casualties. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And re RSKP, "So I think, AustralianRupert and Anotherclown its up to you to justify why this engagement should not be known in Wikipedia by the name it is most widely known as "Affair of Abu Tellul."". Despite your claim to the contrary, you are the one who wanted a rename and subsequently moved the page disregarding lack of consensus, it's on you (the requesting party) to convincingly demonstrate the need for a name change and garner consensus on the matter, not on others. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Affair is archaic, if we are having a vote support battle Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked up "Affair" on dictionary.com while my interpretation of the meaning(s) doesn't seem to fit the article name. Adamdaley (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, here are the results of a survey of the notes from the sources used in my editing of this article - Bou pp. 190-1 citing Hill p. 160, who refers to it as a 'brief battle' on p. 159 and on p. 160 Hill refers to an 'attack on Abu Tellul'
 * Named as battle

Hope this helps. --Rskp (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not named at all by Paget, Gullett, Bruce, Carver and Baly states 'no great battle but had lasting significance' p. 233.


 * As the most common name [WP:MILMOS#NAME] quoted in reliable sources, not Google searches, is 'Affair of Abu Tellul' by a ratio of 2:1 the use of 'battle' is incorrect.--Rskp (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm...I thought you said you had moved on. In fact, right anout here.  As you have been advised before, please drop the stick now, this is not funny any more. -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that references matter, but Nick Thorne has cut the dispute template because of a fashion consensus.


 * This page had been labelled since May 2009 as in need of additional citations for verification and called for improvement by adding citations to reliable sources. At that stage while the article was in need of verification, it was called a battle.


 * As a result of being substantially rewritten on the basis of reliable sources, during the last several weeks beginning on 4 November, the editor who has made 142 more edits than anyone else to this article, found the engagement was not called a battle, in those reliable sources.


 * On the basis of those reliable sources the name of the article was changed. Anotherclown disputed the reliable sources on the basis of fashion and Nick Thorne's consensus came to the same conclusion.


 * The name of this article is disputed by the editor, who has upgraded this article to approaching GA standard, on the basis of reliable sources. The name must be changed if the high standards of Wikipedia are to be maintained. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter how much you have edited it, you do not own this page.  Your opinion is not better than anyone else's and consensus is against you.  For the last time drop it.  Now. -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is on the basis of what the reliable sources have indicated that this article name continues to be disputed. --Rskp (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not in dispute consensus was reached for this name and you are not even consistent in your own argument. The other articles in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign for example.


 * 1) Battle of Magdhaba The Battle of Magdhaba (officially known by the British as the Affair of Magdhaba).
 * 2) Battle of Rafa The Battle of Rafa (officially referred to by the British as the "Action of Rafah,")
 * 3) Battle of Mughar Ridge (officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar)
 * 4) Battle of Jerusalem (1917) The Battle of Jerusalem (officially referred to by the British as the "Jerusalem Operations")
 * 5) Action of Tell 'Asur The Action of Tell 'Asur also known as the Battle of Turmus 'Aya,
 * 6) First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) The First Transjordan attack on Amman (known to the British as the First Attack on Amman
 * 7) Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt (1918) Officially known by the British as the Second attack at Es Salt and by the Germans as the Second Battle of the Jordan
 * 8) Battle of Abu Tellul The Battle of Abu Tellul (also known as the Affair of Abu Tellul)
 * 9) Battle of Megiddo (1918) It is less commonly known in English as the Battle of Armageddon and in Turkish as the Nablus Hezimeti ("Rout of Nablus"), the Nablus Yarması ("Breakthrough at Nablus") or the Battle of the Nablus Plain

and then there is the Battle of Katia where you are also not happy with the title. The Battle of Katia (also known as the affair at Katia) but like this article follows the precedence set above. I suggest you drop this now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney in every case, the naming of the various engagements you have listed in the Sinai and Palestine campaign article, acknowledges the sources which have been used as a basis for the editing, of each of those engagements. Following that precedent which I have set in always reflecting the sources, a precedent which is in keeping with Wikipedia the Affair of Katia and Affair of Abu Tellul came into being. Katia was similar to Abu Tellul in that it has been referred to by the sources used to edit the article, for the last 90 years as an affair. Changing either one to a battle amounts to WP:OR. I will continue to dispute the naming of this article until such time as it reflects the reliable sources.--Rskp (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Article protected from further moves
I've just protected this article from being moved for 72 hours to allow time for dispute resolution over its name. This seems to be underway now and all the editors involved here are experienced and very sensible, so please do drop me a message here or on my talk page when you think that the matter has been settled and I'll remove the protection. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion for a way to help resolve this dispute per WP:COMMONAME it might be worth going through all the books and reliable websites you can find on this topic and listing what they call it. I suspect that there might be an issue where old books call it one thing and newer books something else, but hopefully a count of what the different names of this are in the literature should provide guidance on the most appropriate name. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Sinai and Palestine campaign, unlike the western front had engagements smaller than battles, which have nevertheless, been covered quite extensively by the sources to the extent that they really should be articles. But if they were all titled battles the theatre will look a bit overdone.

Clearly this problem has not surfaced before and I'm not sure that the research effort suggested could be completed in 72 hours or that it would give the result you hope for as most sources don't actually formally name the engagement. Battle is not mentioned by Gullett the original source for the article and it became clear from my editing that 'battle' is not appropriate for the engagements described by the 15 sources I based my editing on, including Gullett.

I therefore suggest a compromise title of "action" for these lesser engagements which are still important to the understanding of the campaign.

What do others think about this?

If there is some consensus would it be possible to add to the 'Article structure' on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide another section to cover 'actions' along the same lines as for 'battle' –
 * 1)    The name of the action (including alternate names).
 * 2)    When did it happen?
 * 3)    Where did it happen?
 * 4)    Which war or campaign does it belong to?
 * 5)    Who were the combatants?
 * 6)    What was its outcome or significance?

I'm really sorry if some people have been upset by something I have written in this discussion, but believe me, at no time did I intend anything to be taken personally – its just very clear to me from the work I've done on this article that 'battle' is inappropriate in this instance. --Rskp (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree - The article has been moved repeatedly without consensus and the person that moves it has to justify it. You haven't. You use sources that are 80 to 90 years old and are therefore out of date. No modern source that I have calls this the "Affair of Abu Tellul", most only refer to it as "Abu Tellul". Hense per WP:MILMOS/C it should keep its original name, Battle of Abu Tellul. If you have a suggestion for changing wikipedia's naming conventions then do so on the relevant talk page, not here. I also question whether "Affair of Abu Tellul" is NPOV as it was only what the British called it. Anotherclown (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Paget, Gullett, Bruce and Baly are not 90 years old. The Battles Nomenclature Committee in 1922 named all the engagements of the first world war. This work had not been revised since. The original name of this article reflected the editor's knowledge at the time but now the article has been substantially rewritten and citations added. With new knowledge a reassessment of the name of this article is necessary; otherwise the Sinai and Palestine campaign will be all battles and look like it was as big as the western front - which would be silly. Arranging to have NPOV for the entire article today, which is grossly unfair, does not indicate Anotherclown is making any moves towards a consensus. --Rskp (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats circular logic because as you admit above neither Paget, Gullett, Bruce or Baly use the term "Affair of Abu Tellul" to describe the battle, the only ones that do were the ones published in the 1920s and 1930s, hence 80 to 90 years old (being Falls and Battles Nomenclature Committee). In fact I quote your statement above "Not named at all by Paget, Gullett, Bruce, Carver and Baly states 'no great battle but had lasting significance' p. 233." He even uses the term battle. Again find a MODERN source which calls it the "Affair of Abu Tellul" and I will retract my objection. Until then this article, like your research, is out of date and probably POV. Anotherclown (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree Keep the name as Battle of Abu Tellul. By the logic presented above stating what qualifies as a battle, the battle of Long Tan would not qualify.  I don't care what some 90 year old book says is the then official classification, today in the 21st century the word battle is used for any such engagment and should be reflected in the name of the article. -  Nick Thorne  talk  06:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is to do with the Sinai and Palestine campaign of WW1 and the decisions made to name these fights of almost 100 years ago. Unlike the western front there were engagements which were smaller than battles, which have nevertheless, been covered quite extensively by the sources to the extent that they really should be articles on Wikipedia. But if they were all called battles the theatre will be inaccurately portrayed and look a bit overdone, devaluing those engagements which were indeed battles, by association. In the case of Magdhaba which was officially known as an 'affair' there is no question that it was indeed a 'battle' and Rafa which is officially an 'action', is also a 'battle' because in each case three mounted brigades plus, were directly involved in the extensive fighting. The Battle of Long Tan and other engagements since WW1 are not in anyway under discussion here. I'm sorry Nick Thorne if you have misunderstood this. --Rskp (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have misunderstood nothing. That the Battle of Long Tan is not under discussion if anything strengthens my point.  I don't care what official name was used in some obscure 90 year old reference.  We are writing Wikipedia in the 21st century and the accepted standard here is to use the terms that are commonly used today.  We call all largish vessels ships even though in the 18th century the word ship had a very specific and limited meaning.  Many words change their meaning over time and when we use them today we use the current meaning.  Maybe when your reference was written, people would have understood your very narrow definition of what constituted a battle versus an affair.  Today the word battle has a much broader usage.  I have no problem with saying in the lead something like The battle of Abu Tellul, previously known in contemporary official writings as the Affair at Abu Tellal....  or some such thing, but the word affair in current usage does not convey the same meaning as that which it may have done nearly a century ago.  If anything, it is likely to make a modern reader think the article is about a different sort of subject altogether. -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not start it with The Battle of Abu Tellul (officially at the time known as the Affair of Abu Tellul). In the same series of articles there are several battles, another Affair of Katia and the Action of Tell 'Asur. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Action of Abu Tellul (officially known as the Affair of Abu Tellul). I've edited happily 'The Battle of Magdhaba (officially known by the British as the Affair of Magdhaba)' and the 'The Battle of Rafa (officially referred to by the British as the "Action of Rafah,"), because they were fought by three brigades – the equivalent of a division. But at Abu Tellul there was only one brigade – its just too small to be a battle in the First World War. Why not 'Action'? --Rskp (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That works or more accurate Action of Abu Tellul (officially known by the British as the Affair of Abu Tellul). The only problem then is the Action of Tell 'Asur was fought between corps and armies. I would still use battle after all there was a brigade on one side and a division on the other, large forces by any standard. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that 'action' has its problems too (and that 'affair' is archaic), but 'battle' indicates a larger fight than an 'action.' The actual troops at Abu Tellul, identified as being involved in the fighting against four regiments of light horsemen (including 2 regiments of reinforcements) were 1,250 Germans plus the 32nd, 53rd and 163rd Ottoman Regiments. Would these units amount to a division? I should add that these Ottoman regiments were ineffectual in supporting the German attack, probably because of the terrain. Abu Tellul remains a small engagements compared with other battles of the First World War and if 'battle' is adopted in this instance, then it will not help understanding of the Sinai and Palestine campaign as it stands beside the Western Front and other theatres of this war. It is important to resolve this problem because otherwise all the battles of the Sinai and Palestine campaign will look overdone, overstated or exaggerated. --Rskp (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There were no territorial gains or losses as a result of this fight; the front line remained the same. --Rskp (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that's your problem (trying to fit this in with the Western Front), Calling it a battle is not overdone overstated or exaggerated for that is what it was. An affair has in the last 100 years a new meaning and just leads to confusion. The Affair of Abu Tellul leaves you wondering who this Abu Tellul was. I presume for the Victorians and Edwardians sitting on the naming committee, a lot of words and there meanings have changed since the 1920s. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the above discussions 5 editors have now expressed favouring "Battle" over "Affair", and there is little if any support for the later. Given this it would seem that there was and is no consensus for the previous move. Consequently I am moving it back to Battle of Abu Tellul. If at a later date an alternative name is agreed to, through discussion in good faith, it can surely be moved again without prejudice. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just seen Battle of Magdhaba listed at GA, by Rskp. The leading sentence is The Battle of Magdhaba (officially known by the British as the Affair of Magdhaba) it would seem for consistency the same style is used on this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The only trouble is, Jim Sweeney, Magdhaba lasted a whole day and was fought between a large mounted division which included the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade, 1st Light Horse Brigade, 3rd Light Horse Brigade and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, and the strongly entrenched garrison of the Ottoman 80th Infantry Regiment, of about 1,500 +. This would compare with the attack by the British at the tip of Gallipoli where the Ottoman garrison was not large but they were exceptionally well dug in. I have no problem calling a battle, a battle even though the BNC calls it something else but am mindful of the other theatres of WW1 and how the Sinai and Palestine campaign has been portrayed. When its not a battle and its called a battle, then it concerns me, because its misleading.


 * Those who have chosen to concern themselves with the naming of this [whatever it is], don't appear to have made contributions of solid information to the Sinai and Palestine campaign article nor most of its sub articles. This debate has been between people who know a lot about Wikipedia and the Military History Project but not much about this particular theatre of WW1. The debate has been the poorer for that. --Rskp (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As distinct from yourself, no doubt, who appears to know all about this partiular theatre in WWI and not much about Wikipedia and the Miliary History Project? Is that what you wanted to say?  Really?  Well the thing is, this is Wikipedia and we are therefore bound by the conventions of Wikipedia.  Therefore your continued argument against consensus is not only pointless but very tiring.  It is time for you to drop the stick and walk away from this issue. -  Nick Thorne  talk  06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No stick involved. I've moved on, why don't you? --Rskp (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Count the posts. It's not me that's having trouble letting go of the stick. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Counting the posts - but what do they signify? Only that a group of people disagree with the naming authorities. They don't think its significant that for the last 80 or 90 years the common name of this engagement has been the Affair of Abu Tellul/Tulul. Then one source calls it a battle for an unknown reason possibly because they saw the word used as an adjective somewhere, and they decide to change the name. But there are two sources for affair and only one recent source for battle, giving a ratio of 2:1 against battle. Therefore the name of this article must be changed back to Affair of Abu Tellul otherwise it will be WP:OR.--Rskp (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying the same thing 25 times in 25 different ways is still saying the same thing 25 times. Your behaviour here is the epitome of failing to drop the stick.  Stop now, you are only making yourself look foolish and probably beginning to annoy people, at least you're certainly beginning to annoy me.  Unless you have something truly different to say, I have finished with you.  Don't bother to answer if you simply want to repeat the same old arguments that you have failed to convince anyone here with so far.  Consensus is against you.  Leave it, drop the stick, go away, find something else to do.  Whatever form of words it takes, just stop banging on and on about it.  We all have better things to do. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I really can't understand your problem Nick Thorne, its not as if you have made any major contribution to this article, except to be rude to me on this talk page. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia that articles are named appropriately and it does Wikipedia a disservice to ignore reliable sources and the knowledge that the engagement described had been known as an 'affair' for 90 years. Until someone is able to recognise the arguments I have put forward against the use of battle in this article, and take part in a reasonable and polite debate, I will continue to dispute naming this article, a battle. I will not be bullied, Nick Thorne, so you should take your rudeness elsewhere. --Rskp (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
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)
 * 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)
 * Why don't you?--Rskp (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who asked for the opinion... Anotherclown (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Dispute tag
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)


 * 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)