Talk:Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi

Flew

Does anyone know what means he used for his flight? --Xenophonos 16:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

- Delta wings inspired from bats. AFAIK.

• I don't know anything about this, but over the Bosporus (must be more than 2 km) in 1638...doesn't sound very convincing. Prolly over the Golden Horn. Would still be a feat, if true:83.191.191.88 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Panoramic view of the Golden Horn.jpg

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources?

There must be some Turkish sources for this, right? Wilkins is the only contemporary source mentioned, and even he isn't properly cited. 128.114.132.235 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

due to lack of reseach on ottoman achives....

There is not any formal evidence about this flight nor the identity of ahmet celebi there are some variations about the wings and end of the story the legend lived due to the heavy pressure on istanbul citizens during reign of Murat IV. And 2 kms is not much if you consider he passes over the sea and the wind of bosphorus supporting his effords. But it is more logical to consider Lagari's work as the first aviation because it has more evidence and describes the rocket technology as we use today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.183.223 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Such fantastic supposition- as is often the case, depending on profound ignorance and fabrication -is a fine example of what to avoid when editing.Mavigogun (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources/Raw Data

I have found no sources for this event that do not stem from the writings of Evliyâ Çelebi. His words very specifically indicate a flight over the channel and NOT the Golden Horn. That said, EÇ does not describe the vehicle in any way; please site a source, if you have one. If anyone has a reference to records of the award allegedly granted to Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi by Murad IV, it would be productive. I've added raw data for the locations indicated by EÇ, and comparative performance data for the most advanced foot launched glider to date. Frankly, doing anything more than quoting EÇ would be editorializing -that said, I would like to add data regarding the practice location indicated by EÇ; the raw data would illustrate vividly the probability of verisimilitude to an experienced soaring pilot, but would be of little use to a layman without words of interpretation -which would violate the Wiki policy. Mavigogun (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research?

Ubardak(talk) speculates that the information in the Substantiation section may constitute original research. I contend that all the data is directly related to topic and readily available- as such, no siting of resources is required- and that the topic is "Substantiation", not debunking. I will add a reference for the Galata Tower measurements; all other measurements are from Google Earth. Glide ratio information is a measurement of distance compared to change in height, and is a translation of commonly available information, not interpretation. This topic may well deserve OR to be performed, such as a survey of the conditions necessary to make such a flight possible -including weather, training and flight characteristics of the aircraft; if a creditable source for information on these topics can be sited, I believe they would be topically appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the references cited in this article mention anything about Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi being "legendary", and one of the references (Arslan Terzioglu) clearly states that Evliya Çelebi personally observed the flight. Jagged 85 (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Evliya Çelebi did not witness the flight. The story is prefaced with the following: "Islambol içre olan hezârfen çemşid-kâr çeber-kâr pür-kâr ukalâ Aristo üstâdları beyân eder." And in the story itself, it says "Ve Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi ... ÜskÜdar Doğancılar meydanına düşdüğü müsbetdir." The last word indicates that it was not a first-hand account. Ordtoy (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be a source for the quote used in the article. Obviously the original Çelebi text is not in English, so where did that English translation come from? Is from a published English translation? Is it a translation by a wikipedia editor? And if the latter, from what original is it derived from? Meowy 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, it comes from Terzioğlu article (ref #2). Incidentally the article on Lagari_Hasan_Çelebi needs to be changed in the same way as this one to reflect that it is a legendary and not a real flight. Ordtoy (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does your quote above in Turkish come from? There is a big, (like 6 or 7 volumes, I think) recent edition of Çelebi rendered/translated into modern Turkish script. It presumably contains the passage used in the article. It would be good if at some time a bilingual editor who has access to it were to check the current translation's correctness. Meowy 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I copied from the word-for-word transcribed edition of the Seyahatname. The passage in this article is the translation of the entire Ahmed Çelebi section. The only issue I see is that Terzioğlu doesn't make it clear that Evliya Çelebi was reporting what he had heard. The word "müsebet" means something like "It has been established that ...", which is not something you say when you see something for yourself. Ordtoy (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand Turkish. Can you translate what that sentence says into English? Jagged 85 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Legendary

According to Merriam-Webster: "1 a: a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b: a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c: a popular myth of recent origin d: a person or thing that inspires legends". Our subject fits nicely within this category- without casting aspersions on the credibility of any of the tellers. The account has been retold, fancifully, as children's stories, manipulated to be a compelling cinematic spectacle, and the landing location changed to Eminönü for the purposes of mosaic illustration at the train station entrance to the Atatürk International Airport. It is not our aim, here, to document all the ways a story can be retold, but rather to accurately convey the nature of the story -independent of ideology, affection, pride, allegiance... or desire.

I want to believe that AC performed this amazing feat; I will be thrilled to find Ottoman records of his award, plans for his craft, contemporary portraits of he and his glider -and will make efforts to find such; if, for whatever reason, you care about the syntax of the presentation of the article posted here, then do the research, publish an article, and cite your sources... I will, if able. Consider: this flight would have been a wonder if it had only reached salt water- instead, a flight is described that would be difficult for an experienced pilot employing a craft with optimized flight characteristics (adverse yaw, tracking, pitch/roll stability/instability, weight, lift-drag ratio, stall speed, etc, etc). AC should not only be celebrated for this achievement, but for being one of the greatest minds of his -or any- time- if the event can be substantiated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "legendary" is original research. None of the sources cited by the article use the term "legendary". Jagged 85 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only single reference for this flight is by an author, who, amongst other tales, reports that he once saw a cat stop mid-air while jumping between buildings -before continuing it's trajectory! There is much value in his writings, but as the sole source for an event such as this his willingness to engage in fancy is dubious at best. Still, if we lend credence to his word, the primary definition of 'legendary' -as indicated above- applies:

a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable.

Which is exactly the case here.Mavigogun (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jagged85, the translation is already in the article. I think the only primary source referring to this story (which incidentally admits that he did not see it himself) is more valuable than all the other later 'research' which only uses that one same source to construct elaborate stories. It's a legend for exactly this reason. Cheers Ordtoy (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While I admit that I have not reviewed the content in detail, I agree with Jagged 85 that if the references do not use the term "legendary" (or imply it), that it would be both original research and POV to assert that it was legendary. Follow the sources. - DigitalC (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "Legendary Flight", why don't we say "The Story of the Flight"? Ordtoy (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While not my preference, I wouldn't object -so long as it is not combined with other edits intending to express a view unsupported by the reference.Mavigogun (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I could cite the numerous articles that cite no other source for support of the 'legendary' description; my purpose is to not over state the historical certainty of the story- that is to say, lend more credit than the reference warrants. The use of the adjective, 'legendary', describes the nature of the references: 1) one root reference from a single source of antiquity and 2) all other references that base all writings on that single source. We can say, for example, 'The story of Troy', and state some happenings with relative certainty due to a large number of credible sources; however Virgil and Homer's account of a wooden horse used to gain egress into Troy is a legend -not because it is not true- but because it can't be substantiated with credible references. I suggest that we do not over reach the source material by applying a label or using diction that, even by implication, does so.Mavigogun (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any information drawn or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu should be considered unreliable. The paper was written by a doctor who is not a historian, and this source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Much speculation- but no conclusive information was supplied at the aforementioned discussion regarding the reliability of the reference in question; denouncement is premature.Mavigogun (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Mavigogun now agrees that Terzioglu is an unreliable source: Talk:Lagâri_Hasan_Çelebi#Terzio.C4.9Flu_is_an_unreliable_source Dialectric (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For sure: examples, such as citing a sources that are chronologically impossible, has demonstrated -beyond any pedigree- that Terzioglu lacks the integrity of either journalist or historian.Mavigogun (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

John Wilkins

The reference to someone flying is not in John Wilkins The Discovery Of A World In The Moone, Or, A Discovrse Tending To Prove That Tis Probable There May Be Another Habitable World In That Planet, London, Printed by E. G. for Michael Sparl and Edward Forrest, 1638, but in another of his books, Mathematicall Magick or the Wonders that may be performed by Mechanicall Geometry. In two books. Concerning Mechanicall Powers and Motions, London 1648. On p 204 of the latter work, Wilkins says, "Busbequius speaks of a Türk in Constantinople, who attempted something this way [flying]". [this book is in The Mathematical and Philosophical Works of John Wilkins to which is prefixed the authors life and an account of his works, 1708 - the 1802 edition of this book can be downloaded from www.archive.org.). I have tried to trace the Busbecqius (Ogier Ghiselin de Busbec, Austrian ambassador to Istanbul in 1554-1562) reference but it is not in Forster's English translation of 1927. However, not all of Busbecq's material is in the translations. There is nothing else in Wilkins about a Turk flying, and nothing about a brother of the person who flew. (Andelip (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Is there a page reference given anywhere for the "Discovery of a World in the Moone" citation? Adelip: please register. Your edit was reverted, I believe, by a bot. You might try adding your citation then removing the other as a secondary edit. Depending on the context of the citation, Wilkins may -or may not- be a credible source; as documenting the history of the story, a worthy citation; as a validation of the events of the story, not credible- an important distinction. Mavigogun (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The page number for the above referenced "Mathematicall works of John Wilkins" is 201, and may be found here http://books.google.com/books?id=cKwLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+wilkins#PPA201,M1 Mavigogun (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Hello Mavigogun. I know of no page reference for the "Discovery of a World in the Moone" citation. I read through it entirely at the British Library a couple of years ago to find the part supposed to be about Hezarfen Celebi and there was nothing. Then I went through the other books by Wilkins and discovered the sentence mentioned above. Yesterday I downloaded the .txt form of both books and did a digital search (for Turk, Turc, Turckie etc) just in case I had missed anything. I think someone got the book title wrong and everyone has just copied that misleading reference ever since. However, the reference to Busbecq is very interesting and needs pursuing further.(Andelip (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I did a similar search for "turk, türk, ottoman, constantinople, wing, fly, flying, flew" and variations there of, and found only the one salient quote you provided.Mavigogun (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Insignificance of Glide Ratio Granularity

Every number represents this level of granularity- 'it is neither more nor less'. 1, or 1.25: in a base 1.25 number system, 1.25 is a whole number!; ascribing a greater level of represented precision to a fraction is a mistake. Double decimal place glide ratios are every bit as likely as whole number ratios- and represent no difference in accuracy; complexity does not mandate nor intimate precision- nor simplicity represent uncertainty.Mavigogun (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The glide ratio is voiced by the measurements that precede it- which, as mentioned above, are the drawn from either a cited source or Google Earth. Shall we fact tag every use of GPS coordinates that appear here (Wikipedia)? Mavigogun (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research

The sentence "The glide ratio of the stated flight is 39.49:1" appears to be original research, certainly a supporting reference has not been given despite long standing concerns. There is something which purports to be a reference, however, it is not. It is simply a claim that data was found at Google Earth. This type of reference is akin to saying, "I read it in a book" or "A man in a pub told me." Without a proper reference this sentence is open to be challenged, and risks being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.61.154 (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

What is the relevance of a modern Belgian glider to a Ottoman of the C17th? If there is any relevance this needs to be properly explained, including appropriate references where needed.

It contrasts the performance represented in the story with that of a contemporary craft. The relevance isn't to a 17th century Ottoman, but to modern readers- providing perspective and context. Mavigogun (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

<=The glide ratio from one elevation to another over a certain distance is a simple arithmetic problem and as such is allowed in Wikipedia without deserving the 'original research' tag. However, the relevance of the historic glide to a stated glide ratio is lacking—the historic glide benefited from thermals and winds whereas a strictly calculated glide ratio from a modern glider has been stripped of such benefits. All the glide ratio information should be removed as irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the primary considerations for a glider pilot is the glide ratio from launch to primary landing zone- as is the performance of the vehicle used for the flight; of course the stability of the air is to be anticipated- whether it be lift or sink. Combined with knowledge of the site and weather potential, the pilot may then apprehend the likelihood of reaching the primary LZ, or some more distant point.

The glide ratio of the flight is of interest to any pilot reading the article- it directly illuminates the nature of the undertaking, and is one of the first questions that would occur to a glider pilot; a comparison of the performance of a modern glider provides perspective and context to the layperson, allowing them to apprehend that to make such a flight would require favorable conditions and both a pilot and glider capable of exploiting them; my preference has been to refrain from including any judgment - implicit or contrived - when illustrating the context. More than providing raw context- explaining the considerations and requirements of the undertaking -might well be overly burdensome to the article... although it would helped the confused. Mavigogun (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC),

Certainly, the glide ratio of a glider is critically important to a pilot. However, the glide ratio of the 17th century glider cannot and should not be guessed at in the article. There is no certainty about what it was—we have no way of knowing how the legendary glider would perform in a perfect calm with no thermal or external lift applied to it. The stated ratio of the historic glide path cannot be conferred upon the legendary glider because the glide path included winds and thermals which helped to increase the distance. The point of the section Hezârfen_Ahmed_Çelebi#Substantiation appears to be that the historic glider was a fantastically advanced glider, more so than today's best gliders. Trying to make this point violates WP:SYNTH. If we remove the synthesis, the whole "Substantiation" section disappears. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Calculations of the minimum glide ratio required are very needed, as it puts a "reality check" on the most basic physics required for the claimed flight. Clarifying the context of the physical distance and height are of extreme importance. This is not the same as guessing Celebi's glider specifications, but simple arithmetic.

In addition, nowhere in the single reference (from EC) it is mentioned or implied that he soared, used thermals or gained height. As a hang gliding pilot myself with 10 years experience, I see it of the highest importance to include the height and distance involved and the resulting minimum glide ratio required, as well as to mention what the most modern foot-launchable glider performance is, for context. As someone said: if this flight had been true and substanciated, it would most certainly be one of the most remarkable and widely known technological feats of humanity. But it is not. Besides, all aviation historians agree that Otto Lillienthal was the first person to achieve controlled flight. To conclude, human gliding or flapping flight using "eagle" wings has been demonstrated by scientists to be impossible (ref. included). Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The referenced material does not indicate "eagle wings", but "eagle 'winds'"; while it may be argued that this was an error of translation, that has not been established. The wording in this article regarding the University of Wisconsin reference suggest that the method of this flight was studied in particular- however, the wording is irrelevant since it is off topic: the referenced material in the Rocket Tech in Turkish History article does not indicate flapping or feathered wings -or re-engineered human arms (there is zero reference to the method of conveyance in Evliyâ Çelebi's missive!). Additionally, the author of the Rocket Tech article has been demonstrated to be a less than credible source (see the talk page for Lagari Hasan Çelebi). I suggest that we remove all material relating to the unsupported interpretation of the reference. Lastly, since there is no indication of the nature of the craft, the link-out to the hang gliding article is not appropriate: amongst other reasons, it nurtures a false connection to a modern craft- which in no way has been established.Mavigogun (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether the reference states "eagle wings" or "eagle winds", both have a serious problem; is that what was used (eagle wings)? or is it poetry (eagle winds)?. I'd erase all of that, and therefore the U of Wisconsin paper. The rocket thing is unrelated and i agree it can be deleted. I have no preference on keeping or deleting the link to hang gliding. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, while the glide ratio calculation looks like a decent contribution, I fail to see the purpose of the links provided with respect to the modern "record"s. My understanding (at least reading through the wikipedia articles that are linked) is that the glide ratio is really relevant when the air is still (it is a simple length/height ratio which would be meaningful only under constant speed etc), but we have no data about the winds over the alleged route of the flight. Furthermore the link to the videos are not of much use, unless one explicitly mentions what to look for in those videos. Therefore I suggest (1) remove the link to the videos or make them more meaningful by adding a sentence where they are referenced, (2) Rephrase the sentences to make it clear to the average reader how the record (which according to the links is a claimed record) is relevant to this, since we do not have any details about the air currents over the strait. 84.226.148.95 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to erase the current reference #6 linking to the 3 "raw footage" videos, as they are way too general and non-specific. Regarding the importance of the glide ratio, it is inherent to every glider design - regardless of what the wind is doing. That is its value, because it compares gliders' performance without variables such as atmospheric conditions, pilot's skill or "good luck". Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Turk?

Is there any indication in the originating text that Ahmed Çelebi was actually of Turkic ancestry, or is this being assumed?Mavigogun (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He was Ottoman (Osmanlı tebaası). I don't have sources mention to his ethnicity. Europeans sometimes mentioned Ottomans as "Turk" at the time. There are information about ethnicity (milliyet) of prominent Ottoman peoples such as Vezir-i 'Azam, Şeyh-ül İslam, Kapdan, Baş-defterdar, Nişancı etc. But it's difficult to determine ethnicity of others. So we have to prefer Ottoman categories. Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The only source is Evliya Çelebi's text. Before making an assertion that may easily be anticipated to be controversial, a foundation - not just a conclusion - must be established. Contemporary supposition labels him a Turk- all indications to me are that this is concluded as likely, not established from the source. The complete source text needs to be reviewed here. Mavigogun (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

According Category:Turkish people, This category includes Turkish citizens of Turkish ethnicity or descent. The claim must be WP:SOURCED in the article or the category will be removed. Now we cannot say Hezârfen Ahmed Çeleb is Turkish. If you have sources about his ethnicity, you can add sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Category

In wikipedia, Category:Turkish people is used to be categorized to citizens of Turkey. About the Ottoman era, if one's ethnicity is proved with reliable sources, we can put Category:Ottoman Turks, Category:Ottoman Greeks, Category:Ottoman Jews, Category:Ottoman Armenians etc. Takabeg (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

airship experiments

The article on Early flying machines currently claims that Çelebi studied airship design, though no reference for this is given. So, two questions: a) Is it mentioned in any sources? and b) could his flying machine have been an airship? That would explain the long distance travelled. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Very difficult to find references. I archived this one (mediocre quality) which mentions Hezarfen in passing, and refers to human-powered wings, but no mention of anything resembling an airship. The other Celebi (Lagari) and his "rocket" is also mentioned.-Godot13 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

All references to these brothers begin and end in the writings of Evliya Çelebi, with no supporting contemporary testimony.Mavigogun (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Proof

What proof for the claims in the article other than some sort of propoganda material.The article should be re-written — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbinukj (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the article makes clear the dubious nature of the... account. It is not for us to feed conclusions, only to digest without significant transformation credibly sourced narratives. In this way, we can present all lore about Santa Clause without stating "Santa isn't real" while retaining integrity of purpose.Mavigogun (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of the name

Hi Drmies, Any reason why you deleted the etymology of the name? It was perfectly fine. Thanks! 46.155.42.136 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Did I? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Blaze Wolf did by mistake but didn’t bother reverting it. 176.55.142.39 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

A useful source

Turkish skeptic Taner Edis has written on this in 'T. Edis and A.S. Bix, “Flights of Fancy: The ‘1001 Inventions’ Exhibition and Popular Misrepresentations of Medieval Muslim Science and Technology,” in S. Brentjes, T. Edis, and L. Richter-Bernburg, eds., 1001 Distortions (Würtzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 2016). It can be downloaded here[1] and looks useful for other articles. @Drmies: you might be interested. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)