This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dan Gibson (author) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 1 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Early Islamic Qiblas. The result of the discussion was Procedural close. |
I added several sources. The book's content is mostly self-evidently sourced, because it is talk about this book. I added a reference anyway at an introductory sentence to the book's contents. -- IbnTufail ( talk) 22:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I find that passage problematic:
Another reason is that Islamicists are very careful to agree on hypotheses concerning early Islam because of the impact on today's Islamic world even if the case seems to be clear. An example for this reluctant reception is Prof. Michael Lecker's review of Gibson's Qur'ānic Geography in the Journal of Semitic Studies from 2014, ending with the telling sentence: "This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time."
Are these things that Gibson claims? If so, this needs to be sourced appropriately; if not then this passage appears to be original research. Lecker's quote (which dismisses the book as "imaginative writing") doesn't back the proposition that "Islamicists are very careful to agree on hypotheses... because of the impact on today's Islamic world even if the case seems to be clear". Besides, "the case" is far from clear as Gibson's and early Crone's theories have generally failed to convince the field.
Unless we can rework this with a quote from Gibson, I don't think this passage should stay as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.72.241 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Another part of the above referenced paragraph also seems to be problematic:
"Gibson's book was received very reluctantly by representatives of Islamic studies. One reason for this is Gibson's religious background and his lack of professional scholarship. This indeed influenced parts of his research, such as his premature assumption that the Library of Alexandria had been destroyed by the Arabs."
It should be pointed out that Dan Gibson is simply referencing the "Chronicum Syriacum" by Bar Hebreaeus (1226 - 1286 AD) when he makes these comments in his documentary movie "The Sacred City" (see section 1:08:06). As the Wikipedia article "Destruction of the Library of Alexandria" attests, there are "four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the library of Alexandria" ( /info/en/?search=Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt). The fourth occasion was in AD 642 during the Muslim conquest of Alexandria. Although the citations of this incident are somewhat suspect due to the fact that their recorded writings took place some 500 years after the incident, there are still at the very least 4 different Arabic sources all attesting to this same event. Whether the Alexandrian burnings of 642 AD are accurate or not, it should be pointed out that Dan Gibson is simply citing these sources as well known documentation about this burning. In the film "The Sacred City" it doesn't seem that he is commenting on the accuracy of this these burnings as much as he is answering a previous challenge that an Arabic commentator made in the film when he asks "Do you really want Muslims to believe this? Why is it not written in Islamic literature or recorded in the history books?" Dan Gibson is simply pointing out that it IS recorded and thus cites the Chronicum Syriacum.
This would not seem to be a good example of "his lack of professional Scholarship". Dan Gibson has many research papers as well as his documentary readily available on the internet. Anyone can research these and download them. If the accusation is to stand that he is conducting shoddy research, it needs to be cited much more accurately as these kind of accusations can seriously affect the reputation of a living person (see Wikipedia's policy on BLP: /info/en/?search=Category:Wikipedia_BLP_policy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.137.46 ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
http://www.almuslih.com/Library/Gibson,%20D%20-%20Supporting%20Evidence.pdf
62.226.89.165 ( talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This article, as it currently stands, has almost no content. All we have is a tiny introduction and then a lot of criticism of his theories. I don't know the full details of the edit waring that has clearly gone on here, but it's obvious that much material has been deleted. If Dan Gibson is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, then the theories that make him notable should be fully enumerated here. I would remind people that Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. So, regardless if you disagree with Gibson's theories, or even if all academics disagree with his theories, they can and still should be detailed in the article. And books and documentaries (regardless of how they were produced) are a valid source for citation. It is no different than any notable person putting out statements or theories, they do not have to be correct to be included in a Wikipedia article, they only have to be notable and verifiable. Even if you regard Dan Gibson as some kind of crank, please look at the articles on, for instance, Erich Von Daniken, or David Icke and see how their controversial theories are dealt this. In short, if the subject is notable, then you must always present that which is notable about it, so Gibson's theories should be written up and cited in the article (along with the criticism). -- Hibernian ( talk) 22:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to be about Mr King, Not Mr Gibson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.240.192 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I've heard legend that Mecca was once the home of Adam & Eve ? Any possible truth to this ? jcdillon333@yahoo.com 69.92.34.107 ( talk) 15:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Gibsons theory is not explained at all yet there is extensive critique about it (and Gibson and his methodology). In order to be fair and neutral, we cannot write about the critique alone and leave the theory itself out. We need to add that or we could grant the theory of Gibson an Article of its own and reduce the critique to points related to his person and methodology. -- Azrl26 ( talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree, someone need to do that. Mehedi Abedin 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. It seems that the issues raised in this RM are better solved by nominating this article for deletion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 05:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Dan Gibson (author) → Early Islamic Qiblas – The vast majority of this article's content is focused on the book Early Islamic Qiblas, specifically the theory it proposes that early mosques faced Petra. We should title this article based on its actual scope. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dan Gibson (author) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 1 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Early Islamic Qiblas. The result of the discussion was Procedural close. |
I added several sources. The book's content is mostly self-evidently sourced, because it is talk about this book. I added a reference anyway at an introductory sentence to the book's contents. -- IbnTufail ( talk) 22:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I find that passage problematic:
Another reason is that Islamicists are very careful to agree on hypotheses concerning early Islam because of the impact on today's Islamic world even if the case seems to be clear. An example for this reluctant reception is Prof. Michael Lecker's review of Gibson's Qur'ānic Geography in the Journal of Semitic Studies from 2014, ending with the telling sentence: "This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time."
Are these things that Gibson claims? If so, this needs to be sourced appropriately; if not then this passage appears to be original research. Lecker's quote (which dismisses the book as "imaginative writing") doesn't back the proposition that "Islamicists are very careful to agree on hypotheses... because of the impact on today's Islamic world even if the case seems to be clear". Besides, "the case" is far from clear as Gibson's and early Crone's theories have generally failed to convince the field.
Unless we can rework this with a quote from Gibson, I don't think this passage should stay as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.72.241 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Another part of the above referenced paragraph also seems to be problematic:
"Gibson's book was received very reluctantly by representatives of Islamic studies. One reason for this is Gibson's religious background and his lack of professional scholarship. This indeed influenced parts of his research, such as his premature assumption that the Library of Alexandria had been destroyed by the Arabs."
It should be pointed out that Dan Gibson is simply referencing the "Chronicum Syriacum" by Bar Hebreaeus (1226 - 1286 AD) when he makes these comments in his documentary movie "The Sacred City" (see section 1:08:06). As the Wikipedia article "Destruction of the Library of Alexandria" attests, there are "four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the library of Alexandria" ( /info/en/?search=Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt). The fourth occasion was in AD 642 during the Muslim conquest of Alexandria. Although the citations of this incident are somewhat suspect due to the fact that their recorded writings took place some 500 years after the incident, there are still at the very least 4 different Arabic sources all attesting to this same event. Whether the Alexandrian burnings of 642 AD are accurate or not, it should be pointed out that Dan Gibson is simply citing these sources as well known documentation about this burning. In the film "The Sacred City" it doesn't seem that he is commenting on the accuracy of this these burnings as much as he is answering a previous challenge that an Arabic commentator made in the film when he asks "Do you really want Muslims to believe this? Why is it not written in Islamic literature or recorded in the history books?" Dan Gibson is simply pointing out that it IS recorded and thus cites the Chronicum Syriacum.
This would not seem to be a good example of "his lack of professional Scholarship". Dan Gibson has many research papers as well as his documentary readily available on the internet. Anyone can research these and download them. If the accusation is to stand that he is conducting shoddy research, it needs to be cited much more accurately as these kind of accusations can seriously affect the reputation of a living person (see Wikipedia's policy on BLP: /info/en/?search=Category:Wikipedia_BLP_policy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.137.46 ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
http://www.almuslih.com/Library/Gibson,%20D%20-%20Supporting%20Evidence.pdf
62.226.89.165 ( talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This article, as it currently stands, has almost no content. All we have is a tiny introduction and then a lot of criticism of his theories. I don't know the full details of the edit waring that has clearly gone on here, but it's obvious that much material has been deleted. If Dan Gibson is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, then the theories that make him notable should be fully enumerated here. I would remind people that Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. So, regardless if you disagree with Gibson's theories, or even if all academics disagree with his theories, they can and still should be detailed in the article. And books and documentaries (regardless of how they were produced) are a valid source for citation. It is no different than any notable person putting out statements or theories, they do not have to be correct to be included in a Wikipedia article, they only have to be notable and verifiable. Even if you regard Dan Gibson as some kind of crank, please look at the articles on, for instance, Erich Von Daniken, or David Icke and see how their controversial theories are dealt this. In short, if the subject is notable, then you must always present that which is notable about it, so Gibson's theories should be written up and cited in the article (along with the criticism). -- Hibernian ( talk) 22:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to be about Mr King, Not Mr Gibson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.240.192 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I've heard legend that Mecca was once the home of Adam & Eve ? Any possible truth to this ? jcdillon333@yahoo.com 69.92.34.107 ( talk) 15:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Gibsons theory is not explained at all yet there is extensive critique about it (and Gibson and his methodology). In order to be fair and neutral, we cannot write about the critique alone and leave the theory itself out. We need to add that or we could grant the theory of Gibson an Article of its own and reduce the critique to points related to his person and methodology. -- Azrl26 ( talk) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree, someone need to do that. Mehedi Abedin 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. It seems that the issues raised in this RM are better solved by nominating this article for deletion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 05:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Dan Gibson (author) → Early Islamic Qiblas – The vast majority of this article's content is focused on the book Early Islamic Qiblas, specifically the theory it proposes that early mosques faced Petra. We should title this article based on its actual scope. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)