Talk:Abbas Ibn Firnas/Archive 1

Arab or Berber?
Was Abbas ibn Firnas an Arab or a Berber? The article says both at different points? Ashmoo 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He was an Arab. Jidan 20:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No he was not. Historical Arabic sources say he was a Barber. One of the sources is
 * ابن سعيد. المغرب في حلى الغرب. ص81. from alawaraq.


 * --Lanov 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Like ibn Battuta who is called Al-liwaeti (Arabic attribution to the Berber tribe: Liwaeta (the Roman name: Laguatan) and which is supposed to be the same Egyptian and Greek word "Libu/libyans"). Ibn Firnas was called "Abbas ibn firnas attarkrni. The name firnas is not arabic, as far as i'm and attakrni is the arabic attribution to "tarkrna" an Andalusian tribe, which was a Berber tribe according to the ancient sources. Best regards! Read3r 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation
There are only two witness references to Firnas' single flight. Both references support that Firnas performed only one flight with his framed glider; He was injured on landing and did not fly again. No reference is made of soaring flights (altitude gain) or time aloft;

The first of the two surviving versions of his flight was recorded as follows: http://www.islamonline.net/english/science/2003/05/article04.shtml

"Having constructed the final version of his glider, to celebrate its success he invited the people of Cordoba to come and witness his flight. People watched from a nearby mountain as he flew some distance, but then the glider plummeted to the ground causing him to injure his back…"

The second account adds that, "after failing to land successfully, Ibn Firnas claimed that he had not noticed how birds use their tails to land and that he had forgotten the tail on his flying apparatus."

The witness' reported that Firnas flew "some distance" is echoed by Mr. Sezgin, director of the museum of Arabic–Islamic Science he’s built up in Frankfurt:

Therefore, the text in this Wikipedia article claiming that Finas actually soared gaining height and flew for 10 minutes must be removed, as such claims are not substanciated by the actual evidence in the archives. The performance of his single flight must be described as acurately as possible: Ibn Firnas’s glider managed to stay aloft "for a few meters" as described by the curator of the Arabic-Islamic Science museum.

Please note that the quoted article entitled "First Flights" has some significant inacuracies:

Ibn Firnas had met his friends in a suit of feathers, with the actual wings of two large birds attached to his arms and legs.

The wings he used were not from actual birds but artificial, made of wood, feathers and tissue. Even the largest bird wings are not able to sustain manned flight, never mind soaring (altitude gain) or glide 'hundreds of meters'. Also, no verifiable report states that Firnas flew back to his starting point. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely return to launch
The claim that his attemt at flight allowed him to return to the launch site is very dubious and contradicts the accounts stated above. The claim is therefore removed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Better references needed
I would like to have a better translation of the original text; it is unlikely that any word similar to 'glider' was used. Furthermore, the references given are of dubious quality at best; much legend has been incorporated into cultural identity and parroted as fact or filtered through modern ideas to the point that little -if any- historical substance is retained. Mavigogun (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits and Reference Quality Feedback
Most of the ref's for 875 CE flight attempt are third hand, and none of the first hand quotes indicate that he soared or was in control of the flight ; furthermore, 'flight controls' are absent on weight shift gliders. The Saudi Armco web article is colourful, but sites no sources: this is not a credible reference.... it actually suggests that the wings were independent and that he flapped them in some precalculated manor to gain altitude! There are lots of STORIES out there to choose from- to make an assertion, we need more than third hand folk tails or fanciful retelling. "Ibn Firnas was a polymath: a physician, a rather bad poet, the first to make glass from stones (quartz), a student of music, and inventor of some sort of metronome." —Lynn Townsend White, Jr"; This quote reflects on the quality of the Townsend reference- which was it: did he devise a way to grind quarts or did he make glass using quarts as an ingredient? Why say he was a 'bad' poet, and not just provide a sample? Why express uncertanty about the nature of the metronome? Townsend's expresses a willingness to employ conjecture. Why do we even need Townsend? Let's have original sources- let's have contemporary references for descriptions of the flight and the mechanism employed. Without such, we are at risk of propagating what has developed into a folk legend. I am inclined to edit the article to reflect what can be demonstrated, not construed; for example: I have witnessed several hang glider pilots launch, fly away, make a steep banked turn, and crash on the exact same spot they launched from -without having controlled any aspect of their flight. However, for me to suggest that this is what occurred would be conjecture. What say you? Mavigogun (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lynn Townsend White, Jr. was a leading historian of technology, so I don't see any reason why his quote should not stay. As for the flight, one of the primary sources, Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari (who drew from eyewitness accounts), clearly states that Ibn Firnas was able to return to the place where he flew from, hence he was able to control his glider in some primitive kind of way. Jagged 85 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari's references? -could we use them instead? -could we quote the witness accounts instead of the interpretation, so that we can separate belief from raw data?  For example: if an eye witness said 'He flew pritty far, then turned around and crashed in the spot he launched form', and a scholar -with no aviation experience- concludes that this represents controlled flight because turning around is evidence of such so then reports this as fact, leaves us with conjecture being presented as history.   I would like to hear what Abbas Ibn Firnas said about the experience.   It strains credulity to have no substantial information.   Furthermore, it is frequently suggested that AIF employed scientific principals for this undertaking; one of the basic tenants of the scientific method is the ability to reproduce the experiment.   Imagine, if we were expected to ascribe some credence to AIF successfully creating cold fusion with little to no explanation as to his method, only anecdotal evidence -no one would take it seriously.   The claim that AIF did unskilled at the age of 65 what modern foot launched glider pilots manage only after many hours of training with highly advanced tools -and that no one sought to reproduce this miraculous occurrence- is so incredible that it requires that the highest level of scrutiny be applied.  Are we to believe that the dream and power of flight was just not all that important to the people of the 800's?   The ability to fly over enemy walls or survey enemy forces from above would have been sought after by any group with the means that had to contend with them -yet, for some inexplicable reason, no one did.   This assertion requires proof, else it is no more than a legend.   Can the party who sited the Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari and Lynn Townsend White references qualify them?Mavigogun (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My asessment of this situation is in favor of editor Mavigogun. I am an experienced hang glider pilot and hang glider historian, and I can bear witness that there are plenty of launches followed by a turn and crash at the launch site. These are not even close to being called soaring flight, nevermind "controlled flight". I do not believe the quote from Maqqari (written 7 centuries later) represent a witness account or bears objectivity, but complments the collection of folk tales on the subject. This editor from Islam Online states that Firnas' experiment was a "failure to sustained flight" and quotes another (unmamed) eyewitness acount: "Having constructed the final version of his glider, to celebrate its success he invited the people of Cordoba to come and witness his flight. People watched from a nearby mountain as he flew some distance, but then the glider plummeted to the ground causing him to injure his back…" Again, here there is no soaring, gaining height or controlled flight, but plummeting.

Of outmost importance is the bigger picture, the essence and physical possibility of the reported claims. It has to be aknowledged that some of the "information" being advanced today are in fact folk tales enhanced through the centuries. As one example of such distortion of the facts and enhancement of the truth, in the past I had to remove a quote citing that Firnas actually used real bird wings for his glider: : "Ibn Firnas had met his friends in a suit of feathers, with the actual wings of two large birds attached to his arms and legs. In the 21st century, it does not require an aeronautical engineering degree to realize that there is no bird large enough to provide enough lift to carry a grown man. Such "ancient claims by reputed historians" are easily dismissed now by the hard facts of physics and aerodynamics, and cast a very heavy shadow on any additional claim of Firnas having acomplished anything remotely resembling controlled flight and/or soaring.

Firnas undoubtly made an early attempt at flight, and I have no problem seeing it recorded here as the first "scientific" attempt at flight. Therefore I propose not to include a collection of accounts (can make footnotes to them) but write a sober statement of his attempt at flight; We could prepare a draft of that parragraph right here. Pick and chose your quotes wisely, physics will take care of their veracity and therefore inclusion in the article. While re-witing the contended article section, please keep in mind the Reliable sources policy. Respectfully, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent thinking, well spoken.Mavigogun (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Abbas Ibn Firnas and Ibn Firnas not the same person?
In 'How Invention Begins: Echoes of Old Voices in the Rise of New Machines' By John H. Lienhard, on page 22 he states that it was Avvas Ibn Firnas who made the parachute jump, and, after witnessing the feet, Iban Firnas -a different bloke entirely- who later constructed the glider. Anybody? (Half the web articles out there quote this book, word for word, unsited.)Mavigogun (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article from Islam Online explains that Firman and Firnas were two different persons that attempted flight in the Cordoba area: "The citizens of Cordoba had seen persons attempt to fly before. In 852 a Muslim inventor, Armen Firman, constructed a voluminous cloak, intending to use the garment-like wings to glide. Jumping from a tower in Cordoba, Spain, Firman survived with only minor injuries because his outfit caught enough air in its folds to break his fall. While his attempt to fly was a failure, Firman had invented a primitive version of the parachute. About 875, Abbas Ibn Firnas built a flying apparatus placing feathers on a wooden frame -- creating the first documented record of a very primitive glider."BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As a gross generalization, the agenda of many Islam-centric articles on the providence of the deeds of that faiths adherents contributions to our contemporary world, or as glorious examples of being first, are focused as a mater of pride rather than historical accuracy.  Since the material cited is not quoted, I'm wary of using this as a definitive reference for establishing identity.Mavigogun (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes
This article contains way too many statements in quote format. They must be reviewed so that the information is redacted in a text form and becomes more readable, unless citing the exact quote is essential and relevant; that would be the single quote from Firnas himself.BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight vs. controlled flight
I applaud all the the editor's effort to improve the quality of this article and work out in synergy and partnership. I am in favor of citing any and all published "witness" accounts, although they may wrong and contradictory as we can always point out any dubious qualities of the incident.

1) It must be remarked, again, that it has been established world-wide that it was Otto Lilienthal who first achieved controlled flight.

2) Lets recognize that the 'witness accounts' describing Firnas flight differ, and even contradict on the desscription of his gliding apparatus; one cites two real bird wings attached to his arms and legs while other cites wood planks covered with feathers. With so little information and contradictory evidence it is not acceptable to make assumptions on the hypothetical control surafaces and devices he may have used, especially when it is not deemed to have been a controlled flight.

I suggest we write a parragraph here, together, that mentions the different accounts of his glider construction and the different perceptions of his flight, then attach the relevant references to it. Below I present, for your review and edition, this initial draft to be modified for a consensus based on published sources:

"There is little doubt that Firnas realized the first scientific flight, although it was not a controlled flight. Having constructed the final version of his glider, he invited the people of Cordoba to come and witness his flight. Some eyewitnesses reported contradictory accounts on Firnas' glider construction; one eyewitness decribes the glider as simply being composed of two real bird wings attached to his arms and legs (ref. x) while other eyewitness describes it as two wood planks covered with feathers.(ref xy)

Based on these and other eyewitness accounts, the early 17th-century historian Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari described the event as follows:

"Among other very curious experiments which he made, one is his trying to fly. He covered himself with feathers for the purpose, attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one."[XXX)

People watched as he flew, but then the glider plummeted to the ground causing him to injure his back. The time airbourne, path and distance flown are unknown, but there is agreement in that he crashed near the launch site." -BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Issues with the suggested content: A)"There is little doubt that Firnas realized the first scientific flight" -1) There is much doubt, 2) there is no citation of method, so any assertion that the imagined method adhered to scientific principals is unsubstantiated. B) "although it was not a controlled flight." -from the references quoted thus far, we can't establish that the flight was controlled -or uncontrolled- only that we can not conclude that 'flight controls' were employed -therefore any statement regarding this as the first use of flight controls or controlled flight is unwarranted.Mavigogun (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Crystal, NPOV
The statement that 'Only the Egyptians knew how to facet crystal' is false; the important aspect, as concerned here, is that Firnas independently developed a method, allowing the working of crystal in his local region. The Chinese, Egyptians, and Mayans had ground crystal, prior; still, a noteworthy accomplishment, and duly noted -but to attach importance to the idea that he was the first person adhering to Islam to do so is not relevant. We say, 'The first man on the Moon' -not, 'The first American man' -and rightly so.Mavigogun (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diction, Substance
Reworded the following for function, succinctness:


 * from this: 'devised means of manufacturing colorless glass by additions to the frit from which it was produced'


 * to this: 'devised a means of manufacturing colorless glass'

If it is important to specify that it is a change in ingredients and NOT method that was key, then I would suggest, 'devised a recipe for producing colorless glass'. As is, it is the same as saying 'devised a means of producing a chocolate cake by additions to the doe from which it was baked.'

However, revisions were reverted without comment. What say you? Mavigogun (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here Mavigogun, it makes more sense to remove "by additions...". It seems that the goal there was to add detail, but you are correct that it doesn't actually add any detail. - DigitalC (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My edit added more information. Wikipedia is NOT a collection of indiscriminent information: existing information is to bee added by encyclopedic content, if possible. User:BatteryIncluded, the two other users who are reveerting my edits have it against me. Mavigogun seems to fit following me under the pretense, "I need to justify your 'Grsmmar crusades'; while DigitalC sees fit to revert my edits under the pretense, "you have to cite a reference stating that Abbas Ibn Firnas was alive during the Middle Ages." They're simply trying to ruin my experience here on Wikipedia seeing. Look here for more details. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NOT, unless you are trying to say that the article is a collection of indiscriminent information. Please stop posting irrelevant policy. For the record, I was mis-quoted above, and have no intention of ruining anyone's experience on Wikipedia. Please remove these personal attacks. - DigitalC (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello InternetHero, I will not get involved on the past dynamics between the three of you, but I noticed that user Mavigogun has been colaborating with this article for a few months now and now I am delighted to see this enthusiasm here from the three of you. My main interest is in the history of flight and I am not up to speed with the techniques & history of how to cut crystal, so I am not touching that aspect of the article and I encourage you to discuss it with interested editors and modify it with the required references. However, there is a reasonable doubt on whether Ibn Firman and Ibn Firnas were two different persons. As was noted before: In 'How Invention Begins: Echoes of Old Voices in the Rise of New Machines' By John H. Lienhard, on page 22 he states that it was Avvas Ibn Firnas who made the parachute jump, and, after witnessing the feet, Iban Firnas -a different bloke entirely- who later constructed the glider. (Half the web articles out there quote this book, word for word, unsited. This article from Islam Online states that Firman and Firnas were two different persons that attempted flight in the Cordoba area: "The citizens of Cordoba had seen persons attempt to fly before. In 852 a Muslim inventor, Armen Firman, constructed a voluminous cloak, intending to use the garment-like wings to glide. Jumping from a tower in Cordoba, Spain, Firman survived with only minor injuries because his outfit caught enough air in its folds to break his fall. While his attempt to fly was a failure, Firman had invented a primitive version of the parachute. About 875, Abbas Ibn Firnas built a flying apparatus placing feathers on a wooden frame -- creating the first documented record of a very primitive glider." It is therefore of imperative importance to unearth at least one more source to help clarify the identities. Failing to do that, we'll have to write some kind of note/warning that these names are not just spelling varieties, but may be separate persons. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I edited at first without discussing. I really don't know much about this article. All I saw was Mavigogun delete a contribution as he occasionally does to me. Same thing with DigitalC. Changing the sentence to "devising a recipe" seems pretty logical now that I think about it. InternetHero (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Filling out Inventions Section
The individual inventions deserve greater detail- after all, it is due to this work that he is remembered. It would be of value to see the Inventions section flushed out, and I encourage any motivated person to do so. That said, more is better so long as it serves the purpose of the article and adds substance; increased word count to convey pertinent content or for readability are valued additions. Specifically, for the reasons indicated above in this section, I found the frit reference cumbersome without adding substance. The topic would be well served by illumination -perhaps inclusion of his recipe and the changes made to that recipe to achieve a glass free of colour, with important variations in process such as timing of additions, changes to devitrification temperature, and the affects, if any, on the annealing process.Mavigogun (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: If at some point the Inventions section becomes the overwhelming majority of the article, it may warrant being split into a new article -perhaps, 'Inventions of Ibn Firnas', or some such...Mavigogun (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit I put in was about the flint being used with the making of glass, why was it remocved?? Ryan Burke (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no recent edit referring to 'flint', the mineral, but rather of 'frit', the ground glass medium; your previous contributions addressed the relevance of Frinas being the first among Muslims to work quarts -a dubious distinction, given that Egypt was under the Abbasid Kahlifat at the time; this work was noteworthy for ending an onerous dependency on distant craftsmen, not primacy.Mavigogun (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question is addressed at length on this very page -in this very section, and the section directly proceeding, in fact.Mavigogun (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Removal of Dispute Template

 * I too am satisfied with the latest changes. I suggest we remove the {disputed|} template. What say you? BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only substantive issue remaining is that of identity: if, as indicated on this talk page, We are talking about 2 different people, then the article should be split and rebuilt to reflect that.  If two people have been confused for an extended period, there is bound to be a large body of work reflecting the perception, and we should anticipate a strong difference in opinion as to the course of action.   I have only read one work making this claim, and would like to have a strong second before instigating such a move.Mavigogun (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I had forgotten that issue. I'll see what I can find aside from that one reference. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection & Consensus
It doesn't appear that any substantial discussion has occured since the page was locked due to edit warring. Further discussion is warranted, and a consensus should be reached. A request for comment may be beneficial if a consensus cannot be reached. DigitalC (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * True. InternetHero presented the grievance and has brought forth no feedback.BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BatteryIncluded asked me to comment on this controversy. I think that Abbas ibn Firnas and Armen Firman were two different people. Here's another link to that effect: . While it is true that Arabic names often get rather mangled when brought into Latin or other European languages, there is generally a correspondence between the consonants. For instance, Ibn Rushd becomes Averroes--here we see that the b became a v, the n disappeared, and the d at the end disappeared. The fact that the final d disappeared was probably due to its being hard to pronounce for Europeans. Also, the sh became s, because Latin didn't have sh. It could also be that the s was turned into a nominative case ending "es". But in the case of "Armen Firman" and "Abbas ibn Firnas", one can't really explain Abbas becoming Armen. The only similarity is the A. And normally "nas" would not turn into "man". So I think this article should be revised to take out the story of flying in 852, or to mention it as an inspiration to Abbas (as in the links). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"...by additions to the frit from which it was produced"
What was added to the frit? If we know that (and have a source), it might make it worth adding. As it is, this section of the sentence does not add any substantial content and is better left out. DigitalC (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I found no sources on his procedure. An entry could be added instead to the effect that he developed "a" process, which is all we know. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ibn Firnas was the first Muslim to develope a process for cutting the rock crystal"
Why is it important to note that he was the first Muslim to develop this process? What does religion have to do with the process of cutting rock crystal? Do we have a source that states he was the first Muslim to develop this process? DigitalC (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the word 'Muslim' is irrelevant in that context and should be removed, or substituted by 'arab' or by 'first person in Spain'. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thereafter, Spain no longer needed to export quartz to Egypt but could finish it at home."
I agree that the current wording ("developed a process for cutting rock crystal that allowed Spain to dispense with exporting quartz to Egypt for farbrication") could be made more clear. perhaps changing this to "...allowed Spain to cease exporting quartz to Egypt to be cut"? Suggestions as to how to word this are definitely welcome. The "finish at home" part of the proposed edit doesn't seems right to me. DigitalC (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposed phrase: "...allowed Spain to cease exporting quartz to Egypt to be cut"  is quite satisfactory. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar
A minor problem with this edit is grammar and spellig errors. Develope should be develop; There should be no "the" in front of rock crystal. DigitalC (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the text should be proofread and run through an automatic spellcheck. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban & proposed changes
Based on the recent discussions exposed in this page by the interested editors, a consensus seems to have been reached to implement these changes in oder to lift the editing ban and delete the neutrality dispute template:

This article will be revised to take out the story of flying in 852, or to mention it as an inspiration to Abbas, based on the reference that states that Abbas ibn Firnas and Armen Firman were two different people:.
 * Abbas ibn Firnas and Armen Firman

The current phrase will be substituded for: "...allowed Spain to cease exporting quartz to Egypt to be cut". Also, the words 'first Muslim' will be replaced by 'the first Arab in Spain'.
 * Quartz crystal cutting

Since no specific information seems available on the compounds he used, an entry will be added instead to the effect that he developed "a process".
 * Additions to the frit

Cheers --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ornithopter, Not Glider
Firnas describes his flying apparatus as gaining altitude by beating it's wings- 'By guiding these wings up and down, I should ascend like the birds'- this describes an ornithopter, not a glider.Mavigogun (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)