Talk:Ahmet Ali Çelikten

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black?[edit]

US-centric? This article seems to be applying the US slave/Negro definition of "black" to a Turk. Somalis are from the Horn of Africa, not West Africa. They are like Ethiopians, of mixed race. Can you spot the Somali in a crowd of black guys? Every single time. Turkey had lots of Gypsies. Would a full-blooded Gypsy pilot be less black than a half-blooded one? Do you know anyone from Yemen? I do. This use of "black" is really arbitrary. Varlaam (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was from Nigeria, not from Somalia nor Ethopia nor Yemen and of course he was neither a full-blooded nor a half-blooded Gypsy, he was not a Gypsy at all. So what is your point? --82.113.122.165 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if his only black ancestor was his grandmother, I wouldn´t say he was black.Xareu bs (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This simple thing to do is look up the definition of black in the dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardco (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pigmentation is nothing to be proud or ashamed of; everyone on the planet is a confirmed mutt and DNA confirms that everyone has common ancestors. All skin shade indicates is a jumbled average of the altitude of the sun at midday in the regions your ancestors lived. Beyond this, what kind of title is "first X to do Y"? Nobody cares. First 13-year-old to build a fission reactor? Nobody cares. First woman to land on the moon? Nobody cares. The only reward of exploration is either the first time for onesself or actually the very first person. People fight really stupid history battles over this junk. Like the Columbus/Vikings debate - and then someone points out what should be obvious that the Asians got there first. Like seriously everyone, grow up. Stop making the whole world about you. If there's a real first in history, great, just don't try to relate everything back to yourself using some shared characterisitic. That's so egocentric and the world would be a better place if that type of thinking went the way of the dinosaurs.

At least three black pilots in WW1[edit]

The article mentions that Ahmet was one of only two black pilots in world war one, the other being Eugene Bullard. However, there was at least one black pilot who flew for Britain during WW1 in the RFC. His name was Sgt William Robinson Clarke. I don't have a primary source but here is a link to his profile on the RAF museum's website: http://www.rafmuseumstoryvault.org.uk/sheet/spotlight-pilots-of-the-caribbean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.121.150 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First[edit]

In the article we can read "He became the first Black military pilot in aviation history when he started serving in November 1916". This is for sure false. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenico_Mondelli Domenico Mondelli started serving as a WWI pilot in 1915

Cherrypicking, misrepresentation of sources and original research[edit]

@Janissarywiki: Your selective choice of sources and your personal analysis are not according to Wikipedia principles. Please familiar yourself with Wikipedia rules like verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, to mention some of the central guidelines.

1) You have removed the source http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/americas-first-black-aviator-emory-malick, a source that clearly presents Emory C. Malick as the first Afro-American pilot. The same claim is presented in many other sources, for example here, here and here. Since these sources do not fit in with the story you want to tell, you ignore them in order to present Ahmet Ali Çelikten as the first black pilot, in clear contradiction to the sources.

2) Then you have added the source http://earlyaviators.com/emalick.htm. This is a much weaker source, since it mainly consists of personal comments from different persons to the web cite owner Ralph Cooper. But this source also says that Emory C. Malick was the "First Licensed African American Aviator" just below the picture and repeats this several times. You choose one sentence from one of the personal comments and use that to create an impression that the source says something else. You write about "speculation", "might have been", "some sources dispute", "if this were to be true", which is not covered by the source.

You are cherrypicking when you select only sources that support your own view. You are misrepresenting what the sources actually says. Then you present your own analysis that is not even based on these sources. That is bordering on plain dishonesty. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: There is no such thing as a weaker source if there is conflict with the sources then it means nothing is reaffirmed. We know this two ways one is as I mentioned If he was African-American he would be the 1st African-Amarican/Black pilot in history witch goes to Eugene Bullard. Too is that the sources which are family or close relative reflective is that he was not Black but, German. I would also like to say how critical you are to Turkish traits, I don't see you editing Eugene Bullard's page as I mentioned that if Malick was African-American he would surpass Eugene Bullard. Finally, I want to say I don't mention Ahmet Ali Çelikten as the first aviator I'm simply Implying that he may have been right behind Eugene Bullard. I like to also mention how there is not a page for Emory Malick on Wikipedia and yet here you are trying to justify something with questionable antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janissarywiki (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janissarywiki: Please learn how to indent your talk page edits and how to sign them. See WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN.
I am not quite sure I understand all you say, but I will try to answer.
Of course there are stronger and weaker sources. But even if all sources were equally valid, your edits are extremely problematic, not to say dishonest. You are ignoring all sources that are not supporting your view, like this one, this one, this one and this one, going so far that you even remove the last one from the article. Then you take the single source that you think is partly supporting your view, from that source you pick one specific statement by one person, ignores all the rest, and even presents your favorite source with a quote in the article. Finally, you make your own analysis, arguing against what the sources say.
Just a comment to the sentence "All the Malicks are white." that you base your edits on. In several of the sources, even in the source you use, it is told that the family was surpriced to find out that "uncle Emory" was black. It had obviously been a family secret. Another sentence from the sources is "Oh my god. He's black". Still another is “I was never told about Emory or my mixed heritage, although this explains my brother’s blond afro”. Why do you not use those?
By the way, there is no conflict with the Eugene Bullard article. That article states that he was the first African-American military pilot. No one is contesting that. That does not make him the first African-American pilot.
You have obviously not read the Wikipedia guidelines I mentioned, or you have not understood them. Let me repeat:
1) First read WP:CHERRYPICK. Then answer this question: "What gives you the right to remove a perfectly good source and ignore other sources that do not agree with your view?"
2) First read WP:HONESTY. Then answer the question: "What gives you the right to present only one sentence from a source when that sentence is contradicted by everything else in the same source?"
3) First read WP:NOR. Then answer this question: "What gives you the right to disregard the sources and use half the lede to present you personal belief?"
There are many ways we could make this article better. But as long as you insist on reverting to your preferred version, including several grammatical, syntactical and spelling errors, it is not easy to understand how we are to proceed. I have several suggestions, but there is not much point in presenting them unless you are willing to disuss instead of edit warring. --T*U (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Some of the sources you mentioned are cringe like istory where the slogan is "history Nah'??? The other sources well here this is from the oxfordaasc both Eugene Bullard in 1917 and Bessie Coleman in 1921 were forced to go to France to become licensed pilots? Was it due to Malick's friendship with influential aviation pioneer Glenn Curtiss? Perhaps Malick was passing for white, as there is evidence that census information described him as being white or mulatto. There is evidence that census information described him as being white or mulatto.

Even with these recent findings, there remains a great deal about Malick that is unknown --Janissarywiki (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see that you have answered any of my questions. And here is one more: "What on earth do you mean by sources being 'cringe'?" --T*U (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janissarywiki: And you are again misrepresenting sources. You quote from the oxfordaasc source, but somehow "forget" to mention that the source describes Malick as "not only the first known African American pilot, but also the first black person to earn a pilot's license in the United States". --T*U (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section[edit]

The current version of the lead section is completely unacceptable.

  1. The first sentence states that "Ahmet Ali Çelikten ... may have been the first black pilot in aviation history." This is contradicted by several sources about American aviator Emory C. Malick.
  2. The remaining two thirds of the lead is a piece of cherrypicking, synthesis and personal point of view about Emory C. Malick, trying to show that he was not black, again contradicted by the sources. It is nonsense to use most of the lead section on discussing another person than the one the article is about.
  3. Text about WWI and about his grandmothers heritage from an earlier version has been removed with no explanation.

I will remove all the text discussing Malick and reinstate the text about the Nigerian heritage and WWI, adding a couple of other black WWI pilots. Regarding the first sentence, I'll just put what we all can agree on: that Çelikten was one of the first black aviators. If the article shall elaborate more on that, we will have to reach a consensus here in the talk page first. --T*U (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahmet Ali Çelikten. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"he married Hatice Hanım" Hanım mean "Mrs" in turkish, turks did not have a surname before 1923[edit]

Hanım mean "Mrs" in turkish, turks did not have a surname before 1923 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.124.178 (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph error[edit]

The person in the picture is not Ahmet Ali Çelikten, it's his nephew Muzaffer Ali (if I am not mistaken). I had changed this to the correct picture previously, but it seems the change got reverted. This mistake keeps propagating through the Internet, making it harder and harder to source. I am a descendant of Çelikten family, I do not know what to do since everything I can provide would probably fall under original research rule. 195.142.164.95 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmet_Ali_Çelikten&oldid=1206951407"