Talk:Göbekli Tepe
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Göbekli Tepe 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The section "Art" of this article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Göbekli Tepe from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. (This notice applies to version 1038276753 and subsequent versions of this page.) |
Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This site has still so much more to be explored that no-one can definitively say what is was for. So much mystery surrounds this site, having said that there are factual inaccuracies that have been written in this article that people will take for granted which is unacceptable. There is a lot of mention of Schmidt but no-one else, if Wikipedia is an impartial website then why are is there not an alternative view on this. As mentioned in the article only 5% of this site has been uncovered leaving so much more to be discovered. Also comments on Pillar 43 are incorrect, as you can clearly see from any photo of pillar 43 there is no "headless human" this doesn't even require a citation, everyone can see that with their bare eyes. I am not asking to change the information already here but instead provide more alternative theories as what this site is or was used for. Not even Schmidt could definitively confirm what this is/was so how do we know that this information is reliable enough to be sole focus of this article. 109.154.10.105 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Aimless rambling from Sussex is not useful to the TP's. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- In terms of the "headless human" it is not visible in the photograph used in the article. However you can see it in the lower right corner on photographs from other sources. A photograph described as depicting a "headless man" is available on the Göbekli Tepe Research Project blog [1] which is maintained by a collaboration of several universities and institutions affiliated with the research being conducted on site [2]. A diagram and description of a "headless human" are included in this article [3] published in the journal "Current Anthropology".
- I would consider these to be RS. On the other hand what "everyone can see that with their bare eyes" would likely be considered OR. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
First discovery[edit]
Page says 1963 but not by whom Inaniae (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Section Architecture[edit]
The section begins"st this time". At what time? You cant begin a major section like that. Put s date on it, regardless of dates on other places. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Savak Yildiz[edit]
what about Savak Yildiz, the shepherd who had a impact on the discovery of Gobekli Tepe? 70.161.8.90 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a source? According to the ones used under #Research history, the site was (re)discovered by Mahmut and İbrahim Yıldız. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- [4] he's mentioned other places too. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove false statement[edit]
The following statement is false, citing [58] as a source. The article does not state this, and it's not true in any event:
, before millennia of human settlement and cultivation led to the near–Dust Bowl conditions prevalent today. 98.161.226.93 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I've removed the whole sentence (
At the time the edifice was constructed, the surrounding country was likely to have been forested and capable of sustaining this variety of wildlife, before millennia of human settlement and cultivation led to the near–Dust Bowl conditions prevalent today
) because it's inaccurate and because [58] is the notoriously sensationalist magazine article by Andrew Curry that really ought to be purged from the article by now. - A more accurate and up-to-date summary of the evidence for the past environment of the site
iswas in the section headed "Diet" (for some reason). I've restored it to its original place in the "Geography and environment" section.
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Archaeology articles
- Top-importance Archaeology articles
- B-Class Turkey articles
- High-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- B-Class Kurdistan articles
- High-importance Kurdistan articles
- WikiProject Kurdistan articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Pages translated from French Wikipedia