From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WW1 Period[edit]

The original section here was very partisan - being almost more concerned with uncomplimentary remarks about non-Nieuport types than anything else! It also had the hallmarks of having been lifted word-for-word from another source, and included inappropriate "boys own" type hyperbole as well as much direct misinformation. I have given this section an obviously badly needed re-writing - remarks welcome!Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the informal style and the uncomplimentary remarks about other fighters. Unfortunalely, many of your edits show bias toward the SPAD, and not one of them is cited, making them just as unreliable as the uncited remarks they replace. One paragraph in particular says the exact opposite of what it said previously, with neither version being grounded in documentary evidence.
Having no documentary evidence of my own, I shall see what I can do about the POV. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, and do, please, sign your comments in the discussion section. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I usually manage to remember to sign discussion entries!! The paragraph with the reversed sense was, like most of the original section, straight misinformation, of course. The SPAD S.VII and S.XIII were superior to any 1914-1918 Nieuport in every respect but maneuverability - this is hardly news to anyone who has read anything whatever about either type. That is why, of course, that the French replaced virtually all their operational Nieuports with SPADs from the middle of 1917 onwards. If this sort of thing requires a note then so would every other sentence in every article in wiki! I am a little at a loss about exactly where you'd put in meaningful and useful notes in the section, anyway - perhaps you could mark anything you consider surprising or in need of documentation? Actually the whole article is perhaps a little overdone? Perhaps what it really needs is a bit of condensing? Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally - why put a request for citations on a section of an article that has no citations or references whatever? I would have thought that the whole article needed the tag if the section did? Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the entire article lacks citations. I have changed the tag to cover the entire article.
One would cite the source at the end of the sentence, paragraph, or section that uses the information from the source. Therefore, if only a sentence is traceable to the source, the citation is at the end of the sentence. If the whole paragraph is traceable to the source, the citiation is at the end of the paragraph. If the whole section is traceable to the source, the citation is at the end of the section.
Right now I have nothing but your word to say that your version is correct. Previously, there was nothing but the word of the writer of what was there to say that that version was correct. That is an excellent illustration for the need for citations. At least one of you is full of crap, and there is no indication as to which one it is, if not both. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Remarks about lack of citations are one thing - although very few article in Wiki have any real "citation" (O.K., that is probably hyperbole - let's rather say that very many DON'T!). Some (I hesitate to guess how many) apparently "well-cited" articles have more or less random "cites" drawn (or allegedly drawn) from more or less random sources. I think citation is a good idea if an idea is unusual, or surprising, or perhaps "out of the way when compared with what most people who know something about the subject would say". Lack of citation is of course disturbing when an article presents a lot of unfamiliar ideas and is full of POV. I would need to have a pretty good grasp of the subject concerned to make a judgement about that though - many subjects are inherently surprising!!
Calling other editors "full of crap" is something again. I suggest that if you are sufficiently motivated to use language like this it might be infinitely more constructive to discover something about the subject concerned for yourself, perhaps even locating some worthwhile sources that might help improve the article. Maybe even (in this case) read the articles on the individual Nieuport (and SPAD?) types, several of which are themselves quite well "cited". Otherwise, it would be pleasant if you could at least refrain from arrogant behaviour and personal abuse, especially about subjects you probably know no more about than I do about vintage cars!
When the smoke clears from all this it might be an idea if I (or you??) replace this article with a shorter, more factual one that makes no pretension at polemical judgements - more, in fact, like the other "aircraft manufacturer" articles in Wiki. I was, to be fair, probably too keen to clear out the nonsense in this case, without substituting a more appropriate KIND of article. Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Two people claiming two completely different statements to be the truth do not lend themselves to niceties of language, especially when neither of them is willing to put up any credible evidence to back their statements up.
I am not the one replacing unsourced florid statements with other unsourced florid statements. Citations are about credibility, and I have no more reason to believe you than I have to believe the guy who wrote what was originally there. I also tend to believe people rather less when they come up with duckspeak like: "The paragraph with the reversed sense was, like most of the original section, straight misinformation, of course" and "this is hardly news to anyone who has read anything whatever about either type." If it's so obvious then it must be well documented, and some good, straightforward sources will be as a lighthouse beacon to the flickering candle of self-aggrandizing rhetoric. You want respect? Fine. I respect sources. Please add them. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I want respect? Um... given the "source" of the proffered respect might one be legitimately given to a measure of indifference? Respect (and lack of it) is something that reflects in most cases much more on the giver than the given. And who is talking about "self-aggrandizing rhetoric" for goodness sake? Or were you making good-natured fun of yourself perhaps and I missed it?
Given, in fact, that I have never said that the article is particularly good, nor denied the obvious that the odd well sourced reference (at the least a nice little bibliography) might improve it - I fail to see the point. It is certainly not "my" article in any sense, and if its quality bothers you, I repeat my suggestion that you write a better one. Complete with references if you like, although personally I "respect" indiscriminate footnotes spattered everywhere for the sake of it much less than a sound basic knowledge of the subject concerned. Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
OK I've let you goad me into having another look at the article itself - I am not going to try to fix the non-WW1 bits though - I just don't have the background for the rest. (References to follow - give me a chance). Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your editing. While I do have more to say on the matter, I have the feeling that it will not make any worthwhile impression, so I shall not say it. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Thanks, folks, for your work on the Nieuport article - this article needs some work - especially, someone needs to do through with a few good sources and confirm a lot of the facts therin with references! See the Nieuprt 11 article for an example!!!

I have reverted a few recent changes - people may want to discuss this.

1. The weakness of the "V" strut arrangement was evident from the very first - not something that came with "heavier and more powerful developments". In fact it was perhaps the fighter type aerobatics required by the little N.11 that made it a real problem.

2. The Nieuport 28 had a radically different fuselage to that of the early Nieuports - among other things it was much more streamlines and narrower. It remained subject to structural problems, however due to a very light structure.

3. The Nieuport fighters remained very well known (NOT obscure) even after they were no longer used on operations, as they made excellent advanced trainers. The U.S. services, for instance, bought hundreds of "V" strut Nieuports for that very purpose. If the surplus "28s" had not been acquired for the American fighter squadrons they would have undoubtedly joined the old Nieuport types at training stations.

If I have inadvertedntly reverted some good edits that supplyed new, relevant, and accurate information, then please get on to me.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Identify these Nieuport photos?[edit]

Hi, folks -

I recently helped a new editor upload some photographs in her possession, depicting her grandfather's Nieuport around 1909 or 1911. She is not sure which model of Nieuport it is and I am not an aircraft expert. The photos in question are:

From examining other photographs online I suspect it is a Nieuport 4G but am not sure. Comments? Tim Pierce (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Followup - the body and tail look more like a 4G than any other model, but there appears to be only room for a single pilot, which seems like it might rule out that model. Any ideas? Tim Pierce (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Both photos are in the "gallery" section of the article - can't guarantee that the identifications there are 100% accurate.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am quite sure that the identifications there are not 100% accurate, since I am the one who uploaded the photos, captioned them and added them to the gallery. :-) My identification is just a guess. I'm hoping someone here is better at distinguishing between different models of Nieuport by sight. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


This article badly needs some good sources. Many of my own remarks in a verbal clash with another editor are in fact way off, as I realise nowadays. Putting tags on the various sections that completely lack references is probably unnecessary, all the same, as there is one on the article as a whole. Someone got a good source or two on French types and like to do some referencing?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few references to particular points - although the sources concerned are NOT good "further reading" as they only treat the Nieuport companies in passing. Tag at the top remains relevant! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for providing citations and references for some of the material. At least it's no longer just one citation ahead of needing the "Unreferenced" tag. That condition was the reason for the saturation with tags.
However, I still believe extra tags would focus attention on where it is most needed; in this case, the unreferenced sections. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

under the Arc de Triomph[edit]

Godfroy has a wikipedia page - this one exploit seems to be the only reason anyone has ever heard of him, and his page has a lengthy list of references. There is a video showing his Nieuport flying under the Arc de Triomph at and a photo of him doing it below:

Godefroy flight.jpg

NiD.29 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gee whiz! Learn something new every day, even at my age. But does this belong under that section head, or even in this article? How notable is it that it was in a Nieuport, especially in an article primarilly about the manufacturer? "Triomph" is the French by the way (if I've got THAT right) - if you want to do it in English it would be "Triumphal Arch".
A thought - there was quite a spate of mad bridge and other architectural under-flights about this time - they would make a lovely little article all by themselves! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added a bit for the notability; the Nieuport 11 was chosen specifically, because of its short wing-span. And I've put the picture in; it's brilliant! Xyl 54 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: I've also put the gallery picture of Nestorov's monument back; it's supposed to represent a Nieuport IV, which is what he used to fly the loop. (The Morane-Saulnier N is similar, but has a round body (viz), while the Nieuport IV is more square (and it has that socking great spinner on it!). Xyl 54 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It is too! - Goes to show (especially when the eyes are dim and aged and the hour is late) to ALWAYS enlarge any picture before casting judgement theron! The Morane N was often flown without the spinner by the way - but I don't know how I missed the typical Nieuport balanced rudder.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
If the aircraft can be positively identifies as a Nieuport 11, and was chosen specifically for a characteristic of the Nieuport 11, would this not be better placed in the article on the Nieuport 11 than in this one about Nieuports in general? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
For what my obviously fallible aircraft identification is worth (!!!) it looks to me much more like a later type actually - perhaps a 17 or one of its close relatives. For instance the engine cowling is fully circular - not a "horse shoe" shape as usually for an 11 (or 16). The whole deed was a "naughty" one - according to the French commentary on the site you cited (and what a sight!!) - it was done as a protest because the Aviation Militaire had been "forced to march in the victory parade on foot" (the French are weired) and the pilot got a severe reprimand - so Godfroy would have had to use whatever narrow span aircraft he could get hold of. All anyone can really be sure of from the photos and movie footage is that it was a vee-strut Nieuport. And incidentally - assuming we need to have this delightful snippet in this article - I think it belongs where I have put it - under the WW1 section, since it is an incident closely connected with the way - even though it occurred just after. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a Nieuport 11 as they were gone from service by then (there are however a lot of aircraft misidentified as N.11s). From the video, two features are visible to narrow things down - in the rear view, the crease dividing the flat rear fuselage sides from the curved front portion is visible (eliminating those with stringers and short metal fairings), while the front view shows a horseshoe cowl (the video shows it clearly), leaving only the 17/21/23 as possible candidates. If it had a headrest it would be a 17/23 (which differed only in the front fuselage internal layout, and a 2" difference in the length of the undercarriage legs as per info from the Belgian museum), if not then it is was a 21. All three were used in substantial numbers as advanced trainers by the flying schools such as the one Godfroy was from.
The Nieuport IV was much larger than the MoS N, had tapered wing panels, and a single center skid attached with three inverted lateral vees, while the Moranes almost always had a constant chord wing, and a more conventional undercarriage. The Morane H (which was closer in time to the IV, had a slab sided fuselage but tapered to a horizontal line, instead of vertical - a feature common to all of the Moranes before the end of WW1).NiD.29 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If that cowling IS a horse shoe type it very probably IS an 11 or a 16. They had been out of front line service since very early 1917 of course - one imagines that most, at least, of the remainder would have been used up in training units between then and 1919 - but it is perfectly possible there were a few still airworthy at the time. I am skeptical mainly because this smacks of Godfroy being able to pick and choose exactly what type he was going to fly - whereas the flight seems to have been unofficial, and done off his own bat. And anyway, that cowling STILL looks a lot like a circular one to me, even "stop framing" through the last quarter of a second of the movie (enlarged to full screen). If anything the still photo is actually clearer.
I think my misidentification of the Nieuport monoplane as a Morane was a result of catching a quick glance at the (unenlarged) picture and identifying it with the Morane N types (almost invariably with spinner removed in Russian service) used during the war. The late 1915-1916 style Russian roundels are probably anachronistic - Nesterov's aircraft most likely carried no national markings. All the same - you'd think I would have picked (as well as your identification points) the fixed tailplane as opposed to the Morane balanced elevators! As I have already admitted - not good identification at all. The picture IS out of sequence though - might fix this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to chip in: as far as Godefroy's plane is concerned, I wouldn't like to say; but the sources here (and in Godefroy's article) say it was a "Baby" Nieuport, which would be the 11. So unless we have a source that says different, we have to go with that (Or take it up with the webmasters there). As for putting it in the N11 article, I don't see why we can't have it in both; it's interesting enough.
And as for the Nestorov monument, I assume it's a piece of sculpture rather than a real aircraft (I'd guess a representation in metal, done from a picture somewhere) so a bit of artistic licence is allowed. Of the two exploits Nestorov is famed for, he was in a Nieuport for the loop, and in a Morane when he rammed the Albatros, so either would have been appropriate for the memeorial. So I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Except it is quite definitely NOT an 11 - and a general press is hardly a reliable reference when it comes to such things. In any case the term Bebe can just as readily apply to the 11 as a 17 or 21 (which also had the horseshow cowl) and I would be surprised if no more reliable source has identified it as such. NiD.29 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Going back to first indent)

1. No one's "beating" anyone (including, I hope, themselves) about the intended aircraft represented by the Nesterov memorial - it is definitely meant to be a Nieuport - even if it is a less than brilliant model and it has innapropriate markings!! We can all see that (even me, who was taken in at first glance).

2. We don't HAVE to take a source's word for a detail like the exact type of V-Strut Nieuport in the photo and film clip. I agree with Nid.29 that it's MOST unlikely to be an 11 (if for different reasons) - I would like "Nieuport 11" in the text to be replaced with "V-strut Nieuport fighter". Just a matter of being as specific as we can legitimately be - without slavishly following a source we suspect (from the visual evidence, as well as common sense) as being liable to be less than 100% technically accurate on this point. A "Bebe" was strictly an 11, but this term could very well have been applied, especially by an ordinary member of the pulic as opposed to an airman, to any Nieuport fighter. They were all very tiny aircraft, of course.

3. (edited later) I've had yet another close look at the cowling area of the photograph, and it's JUST possible it might be a horse shoe cowling after all - what I take as the line of the front of a circular cowling just MIGHT be the little circle of half-burned castor oil thrown out by the rotating rotary engine. That leaves an 11, a 16, or a 21 - I'd concur with NiD.29 about the 21 actually being the most likely. This doesn't affect para 2 above much. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here the thing: I wouldn’t like to say for sure what make of aircraft it is; it isn’t really my area.
What I do know is we have a nice paragraph here detailing an interesting event, and a source claiming it’s a Baby Nieuport, and we have an article (here) that says the Baby was the N 11.
If we bin the source, on the grounds that it's written by some lay person who doesn’t know one type of plane from another, and then state that it’s this or that type on the basis of a careful study of the photos and film footage, we will be well into WP:OR territory. And if we can’t demonstate that the plane is a Nieuport, the information has no reason to be here.
So, we’ll either need to jib the paragraph altogether, (which would be a shame) or we need to go with what we’ve got, and maybe add a footnote (Something like "an aircraft reported to be a Baby Nieuport(source) (note: the term Baby generally referred to the N 11, though this would be unusual in 1919 as as the N11 was out of service by this time (or whatever reason you have) (source) end note)"
Or turn up some other sources: Something that says the term Baby was applied to a whole range of Nieuport fighters would be nice; something authoritative that said what plane it actually was would clinch it. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes it would be nice - but every time we use a source we tend to be selective about how far we trust every detail of what it says - this is hardly "binning" the source, just gently editing out something we are not sure is entirely accurate. The souces we have are very good references for the fact that the flight took place - but not perhaps for the exact type of aircraft - especially since the source was written by a journalist rather than an airman. If we simply omit the exact type (it is very obviously some type of v-strut Nieuport - what the exact model is we are not positive, although for various reasons we have our doubts it was actually an 11) - I honestly don't think this is OR. In fact I'll do this, just to make it clear just what I am talking about - feel free to discuss the matter further.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
All of the sources clearly state that the aircraft is a Nieuport. Some of the sources claim it was a Nieuport bébé. Deciding how far we are willing to trust the sources is not OR, since the information we do include will be sourced. On the other hand, trusting the information to a greater extent than we should might give us problems with RS. I propose that, if we err, we err on the side of caution. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
… “the sources clearly state”: Your eyesight (and your French) is obviously far better than mine!
But, if we are keeping the paragraph now, and not making claims based on what is “very obvious” from photographs and film, that’s fine by me. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)