Talk:Dan Gibson (author)

Untitled

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)

Per WP:Notability, this article needs citations that are independent of the subject, such as scholarly reviews. Eperoton (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I added a scholarly review, now, and a hint on coming public debates following the 2016 TV docu. So I will remove the notability hint. Thank you. --IbnTufail (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic passage

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)

It's not up to editors to analyse our sources in this way. The review seems to be a reliable source, and unless you are saying that the passage doesn't represent what Lecker says, it should stay. I think that may be what you are arguing, but it isn't clear. We definitely shouldn't be cherry picking a quote from Gibson to argue against this - that would indeed be original research. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Further comments on the "Problematic passage"

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" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_BLP_policy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.137.46 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Link to the main points of the Mecca-Petra-theory

http://www.almuslih.com/Library/Gibson,%20D%20-%20Supporting%20Evidence.pdf

62.226.89.165 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is currently incomplete

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)

@Hibernian: If you note how my own first edit was amended, it can be seen that there is a strong willed element that does not want change to the tone (as can be seen by the most recent edits). To be fair, all those opposing, including the curious red linked editors, do seem to have rounded edit histories. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hibernian You state exactly what I have in mind!

Besides his biography, there should be a paragraph which lists Gibson's hypothesis. It's a little more than: "Petra is the original Mekka".

Then another paragraph with criticism/opposition. With more than just this single work by Mr. King. I think that it's not appropriate that this article remains like this for such a long time. KingOfRay (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@KingOfRay Great, find more sources which describe his hypothesis, as I've said below, we can't use him. Or go to WP:NPOV and argue your case, but if you do please ping me. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I'm not that familiar with editing. Since when can't you cite someone's book in an article about the person? That's standard procedure. Not only for the work but also for the biography. They are his hypothesis! Who else should be cited? I'm sorry but this sounds ridiculous to me! How to make an article about Nitzsche, if you can't use his output?

I mentioned the German article before. There they state his hypothesis and compare them with counter arguments, by different sources. KingOfRay (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@KingOfRay our article on Nietzsche uses secondary sources. The Herman article wouldn’t pass muster here. Besides cherry picking, saying “in essence, Dan Gibson can demonstrate the following research results:” complfails our NPOV policy. Go to WP: NPOVN and complain. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

King not Gibson

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)

@99.42.240.192 Exactly! This is not an encyclopedic article about Dan Gibson. KingOfRay (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Mecca / Paradise

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)

Article not neutral

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)

@Azrl26 Very true! People that don't know anything about the hypothesis by Gibson in general, just find an article were his work is almost ridiculed mainly by David A. King.

The German article is way better in that regard.

There's basically a list, listing all his hypothesis. Step by step. Which followed by the next paragraph were serval people gave their critique.

This article is nothing but a slating of Dan Gibson and his work (which is definitely heavily critique worthy), which consist of nothing but the paragraph "Reception and critique'. Again the German article also includes his life, education, work and then the reception and critique. Whoever wrote this article and whoever approved it: This is not an encyclopedic article/work and should be heavily edited or deleted. The largest part of the critique could still stand. But it can't be the sole part of the article. KingOfRay (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@KingOfRay This is a year old thread and I don't intend to reply again. But the German article is terrible. Hardly any sources and some we wouldn't use for a biography, eg Amazon details about someone, his website, or his book. We need independent sources for those detail meeting WP:RS We would never allow a statement in Wikipedia's own voice such as "In essence, Dan Gibson can show the following research results:" with the list. We might, just might, attribute it to the authors who are more or less supporters of him, but we wouldn't give such details. Now if you can provide those, great. But don't count on anyone else to do that. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, someone need to do that. Mehedi Abedin 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Azrl26@Mehediabedin ok, find reliable sources doing that. Not a good idea for us to interpret it ourselves. But we do have a response by him to a critique. He is putting forward a fringe viewpoint which he could not get published. Read WP:FRINGE and say clear

y how we are violating that. We don’t try to be neutral in the sense of just presenting both sides of an argument. “To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.” Doug Weller talk 18:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller According to the Article about Fringe: "[...] in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[...]"

This is not an article about a mainstream Idea, this is the personal article of Dan Gibson. He got this article because of his theory, so it should be mentioned and explained.

What we are clearly violating with this article is the Neutral point of view: "[...] a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, [...]". If not even a single word of explanation of the theory but only critique is written then this is disproportionate and furthermore suggestive of an editorial bias against Gibsons theory. So presenting both sides of an argument is, in my opinion, the very least we can do to make this fair and proportionate.

As for the sources: We can easily use his own material for his own theory can we not? Azrl26 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a lot, no. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. This WP-article is meant to summarize what independent WP:RS has said about Dan Gibson. If they say nothing, WP should too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, if Gibson cannot be seen as reliable source, then we need to cite the very same sources in which Gibson's theory has been criticized to explain it. That should be in order should it not? Azrl26 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds ok, go for it. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Azrl26 Why can't the work by Gibso'n be cited as a source? I think that's the standard procedure. Who else is a better source of his work/hypothesis but himself?

King on the other hand is cited as a source. Which by itself is also the right way, when it comes to the antithesis. But not as the single source. I mean this article shouldn't be a "battle".

Reading this article without knowing Gibson's hypothesis leaves you completely confused.

You have a short biography and then ¾ of King contesting Gibbson's hypothesis, which are not even given it's own and "fair" paragraph.

Just stating "Gibson thinks Petra is the original Mekka" and from then on the article consists of nothing but selected antithesis by a single person, is not what I understand as an encyclopedic work.

I think the whole article needs to be written again, from A-Z.

Well, this is what I think of this article. I hope something will change in the future. This can't be it!

(Pardon my English/mistakes. I'm not a native speaker, but an autodidact and have never been to an English speaking country) KingOfRay (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@KingOfRay How could citing him be anything other than cherry-picking? We need independent secondary sources. And if those don't exist, then there shouldn't be an article as it would fail our requirements for notability. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Well, you have to first/evei bring up his hypothesis/his book(s). Or else there's no need for the article at all. How to write an article about Darwin without bringing up "The Origin Of Species"? KingOfRay (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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, mellohi! (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)

• Oppose. Pointless as neither the book nor the author seem to meet notability guidelines. I may get around to AfDing it. Andrewa (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.