Talk:Lagâri Hasan Çelebi
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lagâri Hasan Çelebi article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Source Problems, Despotic Revisions
The primary source for this article has credibility issues raised by serious conflicts with other sources on other topics in that same article; for example, the author states that Abbas Ibn Firnas flew without injury- in direct contradiction to other sources. See also the discussion at Talk:Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi regarding the 'eye witness' claim.
Also, make an effort to discuss these revisions here, and if conflict arises, to use this venue to resolve them rather than engaging in unilateral edits that would likely result in an unproductive edit battle.Mavigogun (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is a response not to Mavigogun but rather about the reverting of the revision I did earlier. Now, I realize that there is a source (Terzioğlu) for the claims in this and the Ahmet Çelebi article. However, I think we need to use the original text as being more authoritive than a secondary sources written about that text. I question how Terzioğlu can be a better source on what Evliya Çelebi wrote than what Evliya Çelebi wrote! If you look at the Terzioğlu article, you see that he relies on only EÇ not on any other accounts. Ordtoy (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ordtoy: could you (or anybody else) cite references for the following, 'Evliya Çelebi wrote that Lagari died in the Crimea under the service of Selamet Giray Khan, although the latter reigned between 1608 and 1610.'
Factual inaccuracies such as this are not decisive, but allow the reader to make informed decisions when assessing credibility; a word to that effect, if material can be cited, would be warranted.
- The sentence is: "... bir kise altun ve yetmiş akçe ile zümre-i sipahdan olur Kırım'da Selamet Giray Han'a gidüp anda merhum oldı." In bold it says "... he went to Selamet Giray Han in the Crimea and died there." Terzioğlu doesn't bother to mention this discrepancy. I think this tells us much about the value of Terzioğlu, never mind Evliya Çelebi! Ordtoy (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Accuracy of Diction
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 Çelebi's writings, but as the sole source for an event such as this his willingness to engage in fancy renders it dubious at best. Still, if we lend credence to his word, the primary definition of 'legendary' applies:
- a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable.
- Evliya Çelebi informs the reader about the cat story that local people make jokes about. He doesn't assert it to be real. Evliya Çelebi is a reputed historian. What he writes in his papers are scientific historical documents. Who do you think you are? You think you are a legitimate scholar then Çelebi? and put him in magazine shelves?
Remove Unsupported Tags
By your logic, natural philosophers of the 17th century such as Hans Lippershey, Cornelis Drebbel, William Oughtred, Jean-Baptiste Denys, Giovanni Branca, W. Gascoigne, Blaise Pascal and Otto von Guericke were all legendary characters. Evliya Celebi was a respected historian and chronicler. Since there is no accurate and complete english translation of his works, it would be inappropriate to rely on the comments made by someone who is not a native speaker of Turkish language.Sidewinder1978 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you need an academic work which discusses the fantastical and fictional stories which are part of Evliya's Seyahatname, please refer to "An Ottoman Mentality, The World of Evliya Çelebi" by Robert Dankoff (probably the most respected Çelebi scholar). The Seyahatname is a great work, but not all of it is factual. Ordtoy (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Terzioğlu is an unreliable source
Terzioğlu was reviewed as a source on the reliable sources notice board and his history work was found to be unreliable. He is not a historian, the work was published by a vanity or single-issue press, and it is not widely available, and as noted above, the source has factual inaccuracies notable when compared to more thorough works of scholarship by practicing historians.
In the specific case of this article, I looked through the freely available (project guttenberg) version of wilkins' work and could find no mention of 'turks' 'istanbul', 'Augerius' or 'Gislenus Busbequius', all of which the Terzioğlu paper says are described. I looked for multiple spelling variants for each of these words, in addition to 'moors' and 'ottomans'. Please cite directly to wilkins to justify this statement of what the work contains. Dialectric (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I found that much of what was posted to the RSNB to be speculative, subjective, and unsubstantiated- the 'vanity press' assertion, for example; the case was made unconvincingly. The Wilkins Litmus Test is artificial and arbitrary. That said, Terzioğlu's work on this subject is imbued with a zeal that inclines one to question its reliability, for sure. These words are not meant as argument for the quality of that work, but rather as a critique of the rational that the dismissal as unreliable is predicated on. I'm not protesting the removal of the reference- but rather warning that the strength of the case for removal leaves a door open for conflict. Mavigogun (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- It has been brought to my attention that Terzioğlu: 1) mis attributes the work to the wrong book, and that 2) the material he cites refers to the century previous to the material he aims to support. A horrific oversight. Terzioğlu is not a credible source.Mavigogun (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed Terzioğlu references- copy follows:
- Arslan Terzioglu (2007). "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History", The Turks (ed. H. C. Guzel), pp. 804-10. (unreliable source)
Mythbusters testing of this story
Mythbusters tested this and found that the rocket could not have gone 1000 feet and would most likely have killed its occupant anyway. Of course just because they couldn't repeat something doesn't mean it's completely untrue, but a note about this test is probably worth putting on the page somewhere. (btw. I think this ep. doesn't show in the US until the 11th so the horde of random edits won't appear until then :p) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2009 (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) 02:56, 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) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Mythbusters, at least the episode of Lagari Hasan has no referential value. Anyone who watched the episode carefully, will notice the failure of the concluding test was due weak engine housings. You can clearly see the engine burn through its own frame. At the end, strangely they didn't even notice or just ignored the defect and labeled as debunked. This "myth" definitively needs a second try from Mythbusters in order to call it debunked, just like they made episodes over and over to proof the Archimedes mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) unless you can provide a citation with a similar assessment of the episode.Dialectric (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't original research, the video itself proves failure of the test. There were complaints to Mythbusters about the failure of the test in their own forum. Its very common Mythbusters redo some of their tests on complaints of viewers. Despite needed they didn't yet for this episode, so we can't accept this as a Mythbusters conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)