This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Back on 2013-09-01, a fair chunk of text was added which I think was based on a Google translation from the de article. Most of it reads reasonably in English but we still have a table-high pin which doesn't. The German article has einen etwa tischhohen Zapfen. Google does offer some alternative translations for Zapfen - spigot, cone, tenon, bung, stopper and icicle. For something presumably of solid stone, I would suggest pillar but that might be confused with the T shaped pillars that are a feature of the site. Perhaps a metre high obelisk but I'm loath to add my guess without knowing what the original source was describing. Does anyone have access to the source or an alternative description or image? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 12:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The original German is:
I would translate this as:
Not exactly Shakespeare, nor is my German what it once was, but with a German-Norwegian and a Norwegian-English dictionary, and supported by the often close relationship between the meanings of Norwegian and German words, I think it might be about right. Will consult with friend who is fluent in German and often travels to the country. I have also just ordered Klaus Schmidt's "Sie bauten die ersten Tempel," which might come in handy for further work on this article. Filursiax ( talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Found this link on the German GT page. Should be examined carefully (I don't have time right now) and (if it measures up) included in the English article... Please comment! Filursiax ( talk) 21:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In the table in the 'Relative chronology' table, there is a 'Dimiti' entry in the 1st column (which refers to Europe) and it is linked with Dumiti in Iran. This is obviously an error and should be Dimini, a neolithic settlement in Greece. I do not know how to change links in imported tables, so please anyone who knows how, make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.220.17 ( talk) 10:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello to whoever is working on this article: I am a retired academic without much experience on Wikipedia, who has recently been reading quite a lot about Göbekli Tepe, starting with the excavation's official website and blog, accessing a number of the publications mentioned there, and then going on to others that came my way. Although my reading has hardly been systematic and I am not an archaeologist (see my recently composed user page — user:filursiax — for a general impression of my credentials), it strikes me that the article could do with some updating. Below are some of the ideas I have in mind. I'm not including references at this point, just mentioning briefly what occurs to me, to see if there is any interest in following up on my suggestions. If there is, I can get some references together and we can go on from there. If we make good progress, we might even contact the GT project itself and ask them to look at the revised text and see if they have additional suggestions. OK, here are some ideas for an update:
1) Dating. Newer C14 dates place the building of Enclosure D around the middle of the 10th mill BC (c. 9600 cal BC, if I remember correctly).
2) Cereal processing. A very large number of grinding tools have been found at GT. Microscopic analysis of grind marks on the tools + of plant remains in the plaster at column foot (again, I think this was in Enclosure D - or perhaps H?), indicate that grain was processed, and that the cereals were wild, not domesticated.
3) Large numbers of (wild)-animal bones have also been found.
4) No storage spaces have been identified. Nor any sign of settlement.
5) Points 2-4 above (+ other data, including large stone basins with traces of what may have been beer!) are interpreted by the excavators as evidence of periodic communal feasting, which may prove to be a key to understanding how these large building projects could be realized by hunter-gatherers.
6) There is evidence of re-use and rearrangement of (some of) the pillars. This, if I have understood correctly, may indicate that parts of the site were relatively frequently reorganized — permitting additional feasting — even after it was (ostensibly) finished.
7) There are also some more speculative or tentative interpretations that surface in the "Tepe Telegrams" blog of the excavation, which might deserve mention (e.g. an attempted reconstruction of a "crane dance ritual").
8) Other possible inclusions are information about the geophysical survey work done, updated info on conservation efforts, etc.
9) Finally, there are some older conclusions that I cannot see are included in the present article, but might be mentioned, e.g. the abundance of flint tools (imported from fairly far off), and the perfect adequacy of such tools for carving the (relatively soft) local limestone. (A good argument against UFO's and such for one thing.)
Looking forward to any and all serious responses (no paranormals, please!). Would be happy to work cooperatively on this, particularly since I need to learn more about the technical aspects of Wikipedia editing, and also since I no longer have a univ position, and thus lack easy access to closed scientific article databases.
Filursiax ( talk) 23:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Filursiax ( talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
For health reasons, I have so far been unable to follow up on any of the above points. However, since there has been no reaction to my suggestions as yet, I judge that there is no pressing need to get to work immediately. I still hope to be able realize do some meaningful work on this project within the next few months, so any comments would be welcome.
Filursiax ( talk) 02:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
In the Relative Chronology table, the timeline heading should be changed from "BC" to "BCE" for consistency and clarity denoting the calendar era.
Bpier ( talk) 03:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
era
parameter to the template and switched it to BCE in this article. Thanks for pointing this out
Bpier.See [1]. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I notice that there has been a change from BCE to BC which has rightly been reverted by Vsmith. Anyone confused about the era style should refer to MOS:BCE which points out that either style is acceptable as long as it is consistent within the article and it should not be changed without good reason relative to content or without consensus. The established style prevails unless consensus is reached on this talk page. In this article, BCE has been in use for many years and is the established style here. Please don't be misled by the article belonging to two categories with BC in their titles. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The article used to start with Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: [ɟœbecˈli teˈpe],[1] "Potbelly Hill", "Tepe" originally from Persian word "تپه" meaning hill). I am Turkish and have an interest in etymologies so I checked a few sources for the etymology of the word "tepe" and they all seem to agree that it is a Turkic word. I believe the Persian word for it might be a loanword from Turkic languages instead.
I changed the article after realizing this. This is my first time changing an article on Wikipedia so I don't want to do anything wrong, just wanted to mention it here.
Sources I checked: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tepe#Etymology_3 https://www.etimolojiturkce.com/kelime/tepe https://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=tepe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.37.20 ( talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of a new paper in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal [2] ", the results of the analysis brought to light an underlying geometric pattern which offers a new understanding of the assemblage of architectural remains indicating that three of the stone-built large enclosures were planned and initially built as a single project." See also [3] and [4]. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This new paper from the DAI alludes to a major reappraisal of Göbekli Tepe following recent work [5]. It's just a brief summary, but the bibliography cites a number of upcoming papers which we should perhaps should watch with an eye to reworking this article to reflect the latest research. – Joe ( talk) 14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I've tried to add mention and reference to a peer-reviewed article, taking into account Joe Roe's recommendation to label the article as part of a fringe theory. GenQuest removed the revised addition. The last version was as follows: "In a 2017 peer-reviewed archaeology journal, Martin Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis interpreted much of the symbolism of Göbekli Tepe in terms of astronomical events. Working from the evidence known to date, Sweatman and Tsikristis posited that Göbekli Tepe likely operated as an observatory. [1] Some call Sweatman and Tsikritsis' interpretation a fringe theory, though it has not been discredited in any other peer-reviewed journal article."
References
is this a mulberry tree? is this mulberry tree (if that is what it is) historically significant? Is it actually part of the definition of the territory? -- 142.163.195.212 ( talk) 14:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree? Khestwol ( talk) 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Göbekli Tepe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "haven taken" to "have taken" Netsocket ( talk) 13:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
fr:Göbekli Tepe is an FA and generally much better than this one, although recent additions have made our version a bit more up-to-date in some areas. I've just added a translation of the #Art section. Doing the same with #Culture matérielle, #Subsistance, and #Interprétations would greatly improve this article. Hopefully I will find the time, but if somebody can beat me to it, please do!
#Architecture is also an improvement on ours, but it does rely heavily on the Layer I—II–III system devised by Schmidt, which according to Kinzel & Clare 2020 has to be thrown out in light of the recent re-excavations. But that's a problem that affects sources used throughout the article. – Joe ( talk) 15:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Noone knows Göbekli Tepe by its so called kurdish name. Why is it added there? The "source" leads to a kurdish website and not anything global. 88.230.179.97 ( talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Secondly, what are you going to do if there are 5 ethnicities living around an archeological site each making up 20%? Are you going to write "Also known as" in each language?
"Also known as X" suggests that the name X is alternatively used in English language publications and that knowledge of the name X is useful to locate English-language sources. It does not suggest that we are giving translations of the name in a selection of the world's languages. I do not doubt that the hill might be called Girê mirazan in the local vernacular, but this is a random factoid that may find a place in a prolongued discussion on the history of excavation, but it does not have enough notability to be listed in the lead. -- dab (𒁳) 08:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"Other names" above the picture on the right should be removed as well. There's no reason for them to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.171.227 ( talk) 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Given the Kurdish character of the area, the inclusion of the local Kurdish name, if it has any real currency, seems obviously appropriate. As someone who loves all the folk in Turkey, I do think some who differ on this issue are being just a little anti-Kurd. Onanoff ( talk) 17:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
so according to User:GenQuest it's unnecessary to add the name of the archeological site in the natural language of area (cf. article Şanlıurfa Province), reflected in the map of the article, even when if there is an article of that in kurdish ( https://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girê_Mirazan). all right. Sacdegemecs ( talk) 11:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sanliurfa is not necessarily by default Kurdish speaking. For example Harran town of Sanliurfa which is very close to Sanliurfa city is mostly Arabic speaking. Sanliurfa itself seems to be a mixture of different etnicities of Arab, Kurd and Turkmens. But today like any other urban area, you would hardly hear any other language than Turkish. Someone made a comment about hearing only police to speak Turkish. Even some of the Kurdish ethnic nationalist politicians from these regions are unable to speak Kurdish. I have been to Sanliurfa, Diyarbakir, Mardin, Batman and Adiyaman. All I heard in the streets and shops were mostly Turkish. Ofcourse in the househoulds, in the villages especially old generations probably speak Kurdish, maybe even as monolingual. But telling that no one speaks Turkish in Sanliurfa is like saying that no one speaks English in Belfast, Dublin, etc. Be a bit serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6025:A100:919C:8141:4909:C6EA ( talk) 01:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Laerodar ( talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gruwellj. Peer reviewers: Rosemary Bencher.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It has been recently discovered that structures such as Gobekli Tepe and the Mnajdra Temple were not constructed by sedentary societies, as explained by Giulio Magli in his work on Archaeoastronomy [1]. As such, the phrase "Neolithic archaeological site" in the first sentence may be improper. The debate of whether or not Gobekli Tepe was constructed by an agricultural society is mentioned later in the introduction. However, the first sentence carries significant importance in terms of what readers take away. Additionally, the majority of internet users who search Gobekli Tepe will only read the preview displayed on Google without ever learning of the debate.
In a more political sense, "hunter-gatherer" was created by sedentary societies to refer to the nomadic peoples of the past. The term carries a derogatory connotation as if they simply hunted and gathered whatever they came across. It takes away from the complexity of their society and their sophisticated knowledge of their environment, which they used to "hunt" and "gather".
I understand that the term "Neolithic" may refer to a time period, but it is also synonymous with the Neolithic Revolution. Perhaps the phrase "megalithic monument" would be a better replacement to "Neolithic archaeological site", as it still indicates the time period. Ediarai ( talk) 16:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This concerns the last passage of the section “Influence”, where a rather old article in National Geographic is referenced, suggesting that “every few decades” the pillars would be covered up and a new circle of pillars erected _inside_ the old one. Obviously, this could not happen every few decades, since the builders would quickly run out of space.
Here is the passage referred to from National Geographic:
“Every few decades people buried the pillars and put up new stones—a second, smaller ring, inside the first. Sometimes, later, they installed a third. Then the whole assemblage would be filled in with debris, and an entirely new circle created nearby. The site may have been built, filled in, and built again for centuries.”
Clearly, the reference in Wikipedia only relates to the first sentence of this quote - which is rather unclear itself - and ignores the rest of the passage - which (partly) clears things up.
I suggest the passage in Wikipedia be replaced by a clearer statement about the backfilling, preferably with a better and more updated reference.
Otherwise, thanks for a well-written and informative article! 84.212.81.79 ( talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Under the section Architecture -> Construction in the first sentence there appears to be an "and" missing between: "The plateau Göbekli Tepe is situated on has been shaped by erosion" AND: "by quarrying in both the Neolithic and later periods." I would fix it myself, but the page is semi-protected at the moment. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B ( talk) 01:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, everyone why the Kurdish (Girê Mirazan) is shown as the native name infobox? the native name is Turkish, and Kurdish can be an alternative name. Also, there is talking in Turkish Şanlıurfa, so lead the Kurdish name in the lead section also should remove. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 07:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"name in the local language or spelling [...] in some cases it is useful to mention two native names". Kurdish is the majority language in the immediate region of Göbekli Tepe, so we include it there. Again, we also include the Turkish name in the lead and infobox, far more prominently, and use it to refer to the site throughout the article. The Kurdish names are mentioned a grand total of three times. Why does that bother you so much? – Joe ( talk) 10:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
name[s] in the local language, with names in multiple languages specifically allowed. – Joe ( talk) 11:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Popular YouTube Channel Kurzgesagt have made a video on the Göbekli Tepe, referencing the creation of the monument as a mark for the Holocene Calendar. I am proposing adding a segment that references the discovery of the site as the starting point for the Holocene Calendar. FictiousLibrarian ( talk). 05:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I've opened discussion of this blog post at WP:RSN here. So far the opinion is that the author doesn't pass the SME test. Skyerise ( talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It was already mentioned in "Monumental – compared to what?" that the site was likely not intentionally backfilled.
A recently published article comes to the same conclusion: "However, in contrast to previous assumptions with their ritually charged scenarios of intentional backfilling of buildings, we now realise that the structures became inundated with displaced settlement deposits in the frame of natural “catastrophic” events." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360996154
Perhaps a rewrite of the relevant sections is in order. Same for the temple hypothesis that is still found throughout the wiki article. Hypnôs ( talk) 12:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Back on 2013-09-01, a fair chunk of text was added which I think was based on a Google translation from the de article. Most of it reads reasonably in English but we still have a table-high pin which doesn't. The German article has einen etwa tischhohen Zapfen. Google does offer some alternative translations for Zapfen - spigot, cone, tenon, bung, stopper and icicle. For something presumably of solid stone, I would suggest pillar but that might be confused with the T shaped pillars that are a feature of the site. Perhaps a metre high obelisk but I'm loath to add my guess without knowing what the original source was describing. Does anyone have access to the source or an alternative description or image? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 12:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The original German is:
I would translate this as:
Not exactly Shakespeare, nor is my German what it once was, but with a German-Norwegian and a Norwegian-English dictionary, and supported by the often close relationship between the meanings of Norwegian and German words, I think it might be about right. Will consult with friend who is fluent in German and often travels to the country. I have also just ordered Klaus Schmidt's "Sie bauten die ersten Tempel," which might come in handy for further work on this article. Filursiax ( talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Found this link on the German GT page. Should be examined carefully (I don't have time right now) and (if it measures up) included in the English article... Please comment! Filursiax ( talk) 21:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In the table in the 'Relative chronology' table, there is a 'Dimiti' entry in the 1st column (which refers to Europe) and it is linked with Dumiti in Iran. This is obviously an error and should be Dimini, a neolithic settlement in Greece. I do not know how to change links in imported tables, so please anyone who knows how, make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.220.17 ( talk) 10:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello to whoever is working on this article: I am a retired academic without much experience on Wikipedia, who has recently been reading quite a lot about Göbekli Tepe, starting with the excavation's official website and blog, accessing a number of the publications mentioned there, and then going on to others that came my way. Although my reading has hardly been systematic and I am not an archaeologist (see my recently composed user page — user:filursiax — for a general impression of my credentials), it strikes me that the article could do with some updating. Below are some of the ideas I have in mind. I'm not including references at this point, just mentioning briefly what occurs to me, to see if there is any interest in following up on my suggestions. If there is, I can get some references together and we can go on from there. If we make good progress, we might even contact the GT project itself and ask them to look at the revised text and see if they have additional suggestions. OK, here are some ideas for an update:
1) Dating. Newer C14 dates place the building of Enclosure D around the middle of the 10th mill BC (c. 9600 cal BC, if I remember correctly).
2) Cereal processing. A very large number of grinding tools have been found at GT. Microscopic analysis of grind marks on the tools + of plant remains in the plaster at column foot (again, I think this was in Enclosure D - or perhaps H?), indicate that grain was processed, and that the cereals were wild, not domesticated.
3) Large numbers of (wild)-animal bones have also been found.
4) No storage spaces have been identified. Nor any sign of settlement.
5) Points 2-4 above (+ other data, including large stone basins with traces of what may have been beer!) are interpreted by the excavators as evidence of periodic communal feasting, which may prove to be a key to understanding how these large building projects could be realized by hunter-gatherers.
6) There is evidence of re-use and rearrangement of (some of) the pillars. This, if I have understood correctly, may indicate that parts of the site were relatively frequently reorganized — permitting additional feasting — even after it was (ostensibly) finished.
7) There are also some more speculative or tentative interpretations that surface in the "Tepe Telegrams" blog of the excavation, which might deserve mention (e.g. an attempted reconstruction of a "crane dance ritual").
8) Other possible inclusions are information about the geophysical survey work done, updated info on conservation efforts, etc.
9) Finally, there are some older conclusions that I cannot see are included in the present article, but might be mentioned, e.g. the abundance of flint tools (imported from fairly far off), and the perfect adequacy of such tools for carving the (relatively soft) local limestone. (A good argument against UFO's and such for one thing.)
Looking forward to any and all serious responses (no paranormals, please!). Would be happy to work cooperatively on this, particularly since I need to learn more about the technical aspects of Wikipedia editing, and also since I no longer have a univ position, and thus lack easy access to closed scientific article databases.
Filursiax ( talk) 23:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Filursiax ( talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
For health reasons, I have so far been unable to follow up on any of the above points. However, since there has been no reaction to my suggestions as yet, I judge that there is no pressing need to get to work immediately. I still hope to be able realize do some meaningful work on this project within the next few months, so any comments would be welcome.
Filursiax ( talk) 02:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
In the Relative Chronology table, the timeline heading should be changed from "BC" to "BCE" for consistency and clarity denoting the calendar era.
Bpier ( talk) 03:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
era
parameter to the template and switched it to BCE in this article. Thanks for pointing this out
Bpier.See [1]. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I notice that there has been a change from BCE to BC which has rightly been reverted by Vsmith. Anyone confused about the era style should refer to MOS:BCE which points out that either style is acceptable as long as it is consistent within the article and it should not be changed without good reason relative to content or without consensus. The established style prevails unless consensus is reached on this talk page. In this article, BCE has been in use for many years and is the established style here. Please don't be misled by the article belonging to two categories with BC in their titles. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The article used to start with Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: [ɟœbecˈli teˈpe],[1] "Potbelly Hill", "Tepe" originally from Persian word "تپه" meaning hill). I am Turkish and have an interest in etymologies so I checked a few sources for the etymology of the word "tepe" and they all seem to agree that it is a Turkic word. I believe the Persian word for it might be a loanword from Turkic languages instead.
I changed the article after realizing this. This is my first time changing an article on Wikipedia so I don't want to do anything wrong, just wanted to mention it here.
Sources I checked: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tepe#Etymology_3 https://www.etimolojiturkce.com/kelime/tepe https://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=tepe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.37.20 ( talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of a new paper in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal [2] ", the results of the analysis brought to light an underlying geometric pattern which offers a new understanding of the assemblage of architectural remains indicating that three of the stone-built large enclosures were planned and initially built as a single project." See also [3] and [4]. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This new paper from the DAI alludes to a major reappraisal of Göbekli Tepe following recent work [5]. It's just a brief summary, but the bibliography cites a number of upcoming papers which we should perhaps should watch with an eye to reworking this article to reflect the latest research. – Joe ( talk) 14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I've tried to add mention and reference to a peer-reviewed article, taking into account Joe Roe's recommendation to label the article as part of a fringe theory. GenQuest removed the revised addition. The last version was as follows: "In a 2017 peer-reviewed archaeology journal, Martin Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis interpreted much of the symbolism of Göbekli Tepe in terms of astronomical events. Working from the evidence known to date, Sweatman and Tsikristis posited that Göbekli Tepe likely operated as an observatory. [1] Some call Sweatman and Tsikritsis' interpretation a fringe theory, though it has not been discredited in any other peer-reviewed journal article."
References
is this a mulberry tree? is this mulberry tree (if that is what it is) historically significant? Is it actually part of the definition of the territory? -- 142.163.195.212 ( talk) 14:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree? Khestwol ( talk) 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Göbekli Tepe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "haven taken" to "have taken" Netsocket ( talk) 13:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
fr:Göbekli Tepe is an FA and generally much better than this one, although recent additions have made our version a bit more up-to-date in some areas. I've just added a translation of the #Art section. Doing the same with #Culture matérielle, #Subsistance, and #Interprétations would greatly improve this article. Hopefully I will find the time, but if somebody can beat me to it, please do!
#Architecture is also an improvement on ours, but it does rely heavily on the Layer I—II–III system devised by Schmidt, which according to Kinzel & Clare 2020 has to be thrown out in light of the recent re-excavations. But that's a problem that affects sources used throughout the article. – Joe ( talk) 15:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Noone knows Göbekli Tepe by its so called kurdish name. Why is it added there? The "source" leads to a kurdish website and not anything global. 88.230.179.97 ( talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Secondly, what are you going to do if there are 5 ethnicities living around an archeological site each making up 20%? Are you going to write "Also known as" in each language?
"Also known as X" suggests that the name X is alternatively used in English language publications and that knowledge of the name X is useful to locate English-language sources. It does not suggest that we are giving translations of the name in a selection of the world's languages. I do not doubt that the hill might be called Girê mirazan in the local vernacular, but this is a random factoid that may find a place in a prolongued discussion on the history of excavation, but it does not have enough notability to be listed in the lead. -- dab (𒁳) 08:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"Other names" above the picture on the right should be removed as well. There's no reason for them to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.171.227 ( talk) 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Given the Kurdish character of the area, the inclusion of the local Kurdish name, if it has any real currency, seems obviously appropriate. As someone who loves all the folk in Turkey, I do think some who differ on this issue are being just a little anti-Kurd. Onanoff ( talk) 17:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
so according to User:GenQuest it's unnecessary to add the name of the archeological site in the natural language of area (cf. article Şanlıurfa Province), reflected in the map of the article, even when if there is an article of that in kurdish ( https://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girê_Mirazan). all right. Sacdegemecs ( talk) 11:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sanliurfa is not necessarily by default Kurdish speaking. For example Harran town of Sanliurfa which is very close to Sanliurfa city is mostly Arabic speaking. Sanliurfa itself seems to be a mixture of different etnicities of Arab, Kurd and Turkmens. But today like any other urban area, you would hardly hear any other language than Turkish. Someone made a comment about hearing only police to speak Turkish. Even some of the Kurdish ethnic nationalist politicians from these regions are unable to speak Kurdish. I have been to Sanliurfa, Diyarbakir, Mardin, Batman and Adiyaman. All I heard in the streets and shops were mostly Turkish. Ofcourse in the househoulds, in the villages especially old generations probably speak Kurdish, maybe even as monolingual. But telling that no one speaks Turkish in Sanliurfa is like saying that no one speaks English in Belfast, Dublin, etc. Be a bit serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6025:A100:919C:8141:4909:C6EA ( talk) 01:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Laerodar ( talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gruwellj. Peer reviewers: Rosemary Bencher.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It has been recently discovered that structures such as Gobekli Tepe and the Mnajdra Temple were not constructed by sedentary societies, as explained by Giulio Magli in his work on Archaeoastronomy [1]. As such, the phrase "Neolithic archaeological site" in the first sentence may be improper. The debate of whether or not Gobekli Tepe was constructed by an agricultural society is mentioned later in the introduction. However, the first sentence carries significant importance in terms of what readers take away. Additionally, the majority of internet users who search Gobekli Tepe will only read the preview displayed on Google without ever learning of the debate.
In a more political sense, "hunter-gatherer" was created by sedentary societies to refer to the nomadic peoples of the past. The term carries a derogatory connotation as if they simply hunted and gathered whatever they came across. It takes away from the complexity of their society and their sophisticated knowledge of their environment, which they used to "hunt" and "gather".
I understand that the term "Neolithic" may refer to a time period, but it is also synonymous with the Neolithic Revolution. Perhaps the phrase "megalithic monument" would be a better replacement to "Neolithic archaeological site", as it still indicates the time period. Ediarai ( talk) 16:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This concerns the last passage of the section “Influence”, where a rather old article in National Geographic is referenced, suggesting that “every few decades” the pillars would be covered up and a new circle of pillars erected _inside_ the old one. Obviously, this could not happen every few decades, since the builders would quickly run out of space.
Here is the passage referred to from National Geographic:
“Every few decades people buried the pillars and put up new stones—a second, smaller ring, inside the first. Sometimes, later, they installed a third. Then the whole assemblage would be filled in with debris, and an entirely new circle created nearby. The site may have been built, filled in, and built again for centuries.”
Clearly, the reference in Wikipedia only relates to the first sentence of this quote - which is rather unclear itself - and ignores the rest of the passage - which (partly) clears things up.
I suggest the passage in Wikipedia be replaced by a clearer statement about the backfilling, preferably with a better and more updated reference.
Otherwise, thanks for a well-written and informative article! 84.212.81.79 ( talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Under the section Architecture -> Construction in the first sentence there appears to be an "and" missing between: "The plateau Göbekli Tepe is situated on has been shaped by erosion" AND: "by quarrying in both the Neolithic and later periods." I would fix it myself, but the page is semi-protected at the moment. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B ( talk) 01:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, everyone why the Kurdish (Girê Mirazan) is shown as the native name infobox? the native name is Turkish, and Kurdish can be an alternative name. Also, there is talking in Turkish Şanlıurfa, so lead the Kurdish name in the lead section also should remove. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 07:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"name in the local language or spelling [...] in some cases it is useful to mention two native names". Kurdish is the majority language in the immediate region of Göbekli Tepe, so we include it there. Again, we also include the Turkish name in the lead and infobox, far more prominently, and use it to refer to the site throughout the article. The Kurdish names are mentioned a grand total of three times. Why does that bother you so much? – Joe ( talk) 10:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
name[s] in the local language, with names in multiple languages specifically allowed. – Joe ( talk) 11:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Popular YouTube Channel Kurzgesagt have made a video on the Göbekli Tepe, referencing the creation of the monument as a mark for the Holocene Calendar. I am proposing adding a segment that references the discovery of the site as the starting point for the Holocene Calendar. FictiousLibrarian ( talk). 05:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I've opened discussion of this blog post at WP:RSN here. So far the opinion is that the author doesn't pass the SME test. Skyerise ( talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It was already mentioned in "Monumental – compared to what?" that the site was likely not intentionally backfilled.
A recently published article comes to the same conclusion: "However, in contrast to previous assumptions with their ritually charged scenarios of intentional backfilling of buildings, we now realise that the structures became inundated with displaced settlement deposits in the frame of natural “catastrophic” events." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360996154
Perhaps a rewrite of the relevant sections is in order. Same for the temple hypothesis that is still found throughout the wiki article. Hypnôs ( talk) 12:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)