Talk:Affair of Néry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Affair of Néry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Affair of Néry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the action at Néry on 1 September 1914, during the retreat from Mons in the First World War, three Victoria Crosses were awarded to the crew of a single British field gun (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June.

Wikipedia

Untitled

Also present per Baker: Warwickshire, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Cameronians, Middlesex, Argylls, Royal Dublin Fusiliers. Per Edmonds, the relief was a composite bn of 1 Warwicks & 2nd Dublins from 10th Brigade, then the 1/Middlesex from 19 Brigade. Other three regiments were the remainder of 19th Brigade, not mentioned by Edmonds. I Battery RHA present, plus 4th Cavalry - so Household Composite Regiment, 6th Dragoon Guards, 3rd Hussars.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28976/pages/9374 Dorrell and Nelson citations]; Bradbury citation

Possible map

German losses still unknown 96 years later?

This battle took place almost 96 years ago. The Germans certainly would have known what their losses werem and this information should have become part of the public record worldwide when the German histories of the war were written in the 1920s. Surely there must be at least one English historian or researcher who has that information by now.

I'm not criticizing the entry as written but rather asking if someone who specializes in this particular area of military history can add the information that is currently missing. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edmonds was pretty scrupulous about incorporating the German records where available, but his footnote suggests that there hadn't been anything published in the first few years - he quotes various people involved who'd published memoirs, but no casualty figures beyond vague ones. There's a recent work which I'm currently chasing up, which apparently contains a bit more information. Thanks for spotting this - "unknown" should have been more of a red flag to me!

Details may be quite sketchy even so, however; the division was scattered for several days and didn't reoccupy the ground of the fighting, meaning that it would be very hard at the time to identify who was killed versus who was just a straggler (of which there were no doubt many). Shimgray | talk | 13:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Action at Néry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/index.htm/army/OBx.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://freespace.virgin.net/howard.anderson/monsretreat.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718095416/http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=795 to http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=795
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718095547/http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=797 to http://www.chakoten.dk/cgi-bin/fm.cgi?n=797

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affair, Action or Battle?

Although the article describes this engagement as "a skirmish" which might be a fair assessment of it, I note that the article was once called 'Action at Nery', while it is now 'Affair of Nery' (I can't type acutes or graves). This seems an odd choice of title. The National Army Museum actually calls this engagement "the Battle of Nery" so is pretty happy with that and does not seem content to rely on an archaic (and somewhat dismissive-sounding) classification such as 'affair'.

https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1993-09-86-1

But, as I tend to get chided as though I were a minor whenever I put forth a case for anything on WP these days, I'll just leave it at that and walk away. Do as thou must and good tidings to you all. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:4C3D:AA4:757B:D575 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]