Talk:Nivelle offensive

Sources?

Nice article! Would it be possible to top it off by adding a reference or external link or two? Not that I doubt the veracity of any of this, but it'll make it even more useful to future editors. --Dvyost 00:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my article. Although this is only a nephew article, (or niece or twice cousin removed...), with the main article being the Second Battle of the Aisne. So I got alot of my info from the same books & sites that I got the Aisne info from. I didn't save the sites I went on, but I think one was worldwarone.com? I can't remember the other ones... Hope that helps a bit... Spawn Man 03:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It does help. Maybe you want to copy the list of references you used from there to here? Again, nice work! --Dvyost 05:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks..again... however, I don't think they want under references websites... On most articles they only put books under references, with web sites being under the "external link" heading... Spawn Man 06:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to add some better statistics from the 'usual suspects', but it still needs some sources for the general flow of the battle. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1.2 Million Troops, 7000 Guns?

Does this mean 1,193,000 of the troops were unarmed? Or does "7000 guns" mean "7000 artillery pieces?" Please clarify. --Simoes 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. People who frequent military subject articles etc, will know that the term "guns" means artillery guns. The shortened term is used more often in place of the elongated form. Don't ask me why, but it just is, even though it does actually sound that only 7,000 were armed... Spawn Man 03:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it to "artillery pieces." I'm guessing most Wikipedia users aren't going to know military shorthand. — ceejayoz ^★ 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Most do know, but what the heck, I don't care. If you want it that way, that's fine by me...: ) Spawn Man 05:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, as the offensive was winding down The French 2nd division DID show up without guns! and drunk on the vino. This marked the start of the mutiny which helped put an end to this bloody tragedy of errors. So while you meant to be facetious, Simoes, there is some truth to your remarks. Now repeat after me-This is my rifle, this is my gun! This is for fightin', this is for fun! :)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mergence!

I Strongly oppose this article being merged with the 2nd battle of the aisne! Gosh! The battle was only a battle, where as the nivelle offensive was the whole campaign movement. They deserve two different articles at least! If it was an article such as "The part of the aisne where it got shelled", then that should be merged into the aisne article, not the entire campaign which over saw tens of battles!!!!!!! Gosh, get a grip everybody, the articles stays I say. Spawn Man 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And what Battles other than Second Aisne would be covered by this article? Moulin de Laffaux? It took place before the Nivelle Offensive. La Malmaison? This one did happen on the Chemin des Dames, but months after the Nivelle Offensive was called off and Petain replaced Nivelle. Honestly I can't see why this article is kept when all the sources I found treat 2nd Aisne and this as one and the same. I'd be in favour of deleting it and redirecting "Nivelle Offensive" to the Second Battle of the Aisne. Don Durandal (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Russians on the Western Front

The history and fate of this unit would make a useful addition to WP. Drutt (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ... I hadn't heard of them before. Indeed, it needs a citation to stand up as verifiable fact. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Towards the end of the article it describes a famous incident where soldiers from the 2nd division of the AIF arrived 'drunk and without weapons'. I don't know how to edit it myself but here is the citation it needs:

Page 243. from Lyons, Michael J. (2000). World War I: A Short History (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130205516.

Cheers, Alex

Also you need to specify that it was the 2nd colonial division of the French Army, not just 'the 2nd division'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.220.177 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

confused re: allied casualties

could someone clear up for me why the article specifies 96,000 french losses ("officially", but as the article says probably upwards of 120,000 and perhaps even 180,000), 160,000 british losses, and 5,000 russian losses but in the infobox only says 187,000 casualties? i don't have any sources but it seems to me the infobox is either only listing the high estimate for french losses, or there's a pretty big error either in the text or infobox. Capt Jim (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reorganisation

It took a while to find the pages associated with the Nivelle Offensive but I have in mind making this page the main one about the development of the Allied strategy for early 1917 and the aftermath and the other pages Battle of Arras (1917), Second Battle of the Aisne, Battle of the Hills for the details of the military operations. I did a campaign boxes to tie the pages together. Arras is pretty complete but the other two suffer from lack of English sources. I've gleaned enough to double the material on each page and added material from Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 but there's very little about the German defence of the Aisne. If anyone has suggestions for English-language sources I'd be grateful.Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Background and prelude

Needs nuch more on the strategic, tactical background and the prelude, plus more on the aftermath. German casualties too.Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Nivelle offensive → ? – Nivelle Offensive is a proper name Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) (Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name.) and should not have been moved. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree move to Nivelle Offensive as a proper noun. And just this once I won't grumble about nobody else bothering to check and fix incoming links from templates after a move. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. The great majority of sources use lowercase. A few recent books with "Nivelle Offensive" in their titles and headings have skewed the numbers since 2013, probably because they copied from when Wikipedia had it capitalized. Some with it capped in their titles actually still do use lowercase in the text (e.g. this one), and use in text is what we use to decide whether sources treat it as a proper name. Most "offensives" are not treated as proper names in sources (nor in Wikipedia, though a few are still capitalized where they should not be). Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose—Sources tend to use lowercase, which means we do it, per MOS:CAP. Tony (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Removing capitals based on a crude criterion that takes no account of the quality of what it measures or whether the source is written in English or American is crass. Keith-264 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  This is nom agreeing with himself? Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with the proposition but you can remove it if you want. Keith-264 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

@Dushnilkin: Dear Dushnilkin I moved your edit to the casualties section then got a warning notice and reverted it. You might consider looking at Wiki policies on self publishing etc. Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)