This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hasanlu Lovers 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Washington/Interpersonal Media (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
The second paragraph is confusing. As a research source it is unsatisfactory. I have re-written it, using Penn University reports as sources. surfingus ( talk) 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Nnickiee: This is a good start. To establish notability it might be a good idea to try to find additional reliable sources that are outside of the museum that is hosting the artifact. — mako ๛ 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I took a look at your article and made some very minor copy-editing changes to your page (which you can in the view history section). I also wanted to suggest that you link your page to the Teppe Hasanlu Wikipedia, as it goes into detail about your site. You can, in turn, add a little info about your subject and link your page from there, too. Also. in doing a Google search, I found an excerpt from a book via Amazon that had more detail about this site. Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=g7N74BFaC90C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Hasanlu+Lovers&source=bl&ots=jQotRCJriU&sig=YXCOHwqBthYSB5ayod6yoGhLp94&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jU9GVJTdF-WCigLqyoCoAQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=Hasanlu%20Lovers&f=false. Good luck with your page. Knicoladyes ( talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for creating this topic which is a nice and interesting one to know. I did some research on this "kissing lovers", here is an article about its analysis, it might help the viewer learn more about the background and meaningful facts. http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Inspirational/6000-year-old-kiss-found-in-hasanlu-iran-facts-analysis.html
Moreover, University of Pennsylvania mentions that the University Museum has exhibited these 'Hasanlu Lovers' skeletons in 1974. You could also mention that in your article. http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0702/timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yibo719 ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
TrynaMakeADollar, please stop removing references just because they are old. Just because time has passed it doesn't make the source unreliable. This site was excavated in the 1970s so you would expect most of the primary sources to be from that time. – Joe ( talk) 13:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"Some researchers argue sensationalism about the Hasanlu Lovers and other potential examples of non-heteronormative behaviors in the past are problematic.[9][10]"
Some points on this line:
- "some researchers", of what note are these researchers to be spotlighted like this?
- "problematic" is a pretty vague word, what are they actually arguing?
- The article itself already does not note anything about the relationship between these two humans that this line is countering or clarifying, so it seems unnecessary in a jarring way to add a "Thinking these two skeletons aren't possibly/likely platonic skeletons would be problematic according to some" at the end of it like this.-
(There are no special warnings as a part of scientific discussion not to assume anything about historical sexuality at the end of the similar "skeletons in a lover's embrace" wiki articles of presumed man-woman skeletons that are linked beneath this page. It seems very specifically emphasized here, while heterosexuality is also assumed by many. As it is not deemed necessary to include such researchers' arguments there, I don't think it's necessary here.)
- This discussion of how to view potential examples of non-heteronormative behaviours is a much larger discussion that has more than one side to it. Why are "some researchers" highlighted here, and not "other researchers" who argue that while through history people have viewed sex gender and sexual behaviour differently, that there is a clear double standard in the standard of evidence we hold hetero- and homosexual behaviour to/that viewing and discussing history though our current perspective and gained knowledge still has validity including when it comes to sexual behaviours and that this doesn't replace or harm the historical perspective.
- We could add that to this article too, for the sake of presenting this information in a neutral and complete way, but personally, I don't think that's a discussion that needs to be laid out in this specific article. So I would suggest not including these arguments, rather than turning this into a whole section.
- So while yes, these articles mention the Hasanlu Lovers in arguing their case, and i understand that for that reason they have probably just been added to this wiki article with the intent to add new information and to be educational, (Good faith, I'm seriously not trying to argue anyone is trying to No Homo these skeletons, I sincerely don't think so.)(Wow, that is A Sentence.) It nonetheless reads as very pointed to only include this commentary from "some researchers" on what is a much larger discussion with multiple viewpoints within the historical and queer studies communities, just because they happen to use the Hasanlu Lovers as an example to argue their views on this. Including their arguments here in this selective way feels less educational and more steering towards a specific point of view on the larger issue and on the Hasanlu Lovers specifically, and that's not what a wikipedia article is supposed to do.
Minicactussen (
talk)
23:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hasanlu Lovers 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Washington/Interpersonal Media (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
The second paragraph is confusing. As a research source it is unsatisfactory. I have re-written it, using Penn University reports as sources. surfingus ( talk) 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Nnickiee: This is a good start. To establish notability it might be a good idea to try to find additional reliable sources that are outside of the museum that is hosting the artifact. — mako ๛ 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I took a look at your article and made some very minor copy-editing changes to your page (which you can in the view history section). I also wanted to suggest that you link your page to the Teppe Hasanlu Wikipedia, as it goes into detail about your site. You can, in turn, add a little info about your subject and link your page from there, too. Also. in doing a Google search, I found an excerpt from a book via Amazon that had more detail about this site. Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=g7N74BFaC90C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Hasanlu+Lovers&source=bl&ots=jQotRCJriU&sig=YXCOHwqBthYSB5ayod6yoGhLp94&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jU9GVJTdF-WCigLqyoCoAQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=Hasanlu%20Lovers&f=false. Good luck with your page. Knicoladyes ( talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for creating this topic which is a nice and interesting one to know. I did some research on this "kissing lovers", here is an article about its analysis, it might help the viewer learn more about the background and meaningful facts. http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Inspirational/6000-year-old-kiss-found-in-hasanlu-iran-facts-analysis.html
Moreover, University of Pennsylvania mentions that the University Museum has exhibited these 'Hasanlu Lovers' skeletons in 1974. You could also mention that in your article. http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0702/timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yibo719 ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
TrynaMakeADollar, please stop removing references just because they are old. Just because time has passed it doesn't make the source unreliable. This site was excavated in the 1970s so you would expect most of the primary sources to be from that time. – Joe ( talk) 13:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"Some researchers argue sensationalism about the Hasanlu Lovers and other potential examples of non-heteronormative behaviors in the past are problematic.[9][10]"
Some points on this line:
- "some researchers", of what note are these researchers to be spotlighted like this?
- "problematic" is a pretty vague word, what are they actually arguing?
- The article itself already does not note anything about the relationship between these two humans that this line is countering or clarifying, so it seems unnecessary in a jarring way to add a "Thinking these two skeletons aren't possibly/likely platonic skeletons would be problematic according to some" at the end of it like this.-
(There are no special warnings as a part of scientific discussion not to assume anything about historical sexuality at the end of the similar "skeletons in a lover's embrace" wiki articles of presumed man-woman skeletons that are linked beneath this page. It seems very specifically emphasized here, while heterosexuality is also assumed by many. As it is not deemed necessary to include such researchers' arguments there, I don't think it's necessary here.)
- This discussion of how to view potential examples of non-heteronormative behaviours is a much larger discussion that has more than one side to it. Why are "some researchers" highlighted here, and not "other researchers" who argue that while through history people have viewed sex gender and sexual behaviour differently, that there is a clear double standard in the standard of evidence we hold hetero- and homosexual behaviour to/that viewing and discussing history though our current perspective and gained knowledge still has validity including when it comes to sexual behaviours and that this doesn't replace or harm the historical perspective.
- We could add that to this article too, for the sake of presenting this information in a neutral and complete way, but personally, I don't think that's a discussion that needs to be laid out in this specific article. So I would suggest not including these arguments, rather than turning this into a whole section.
- So while yes, these articles mention the Hasanlu Lovers in arguing their case, and i understand that for that reason they have probably just been added to this wiki article with the intent to add new information and to be educational, (Good faith, I'm seriously not trying to argue anyone is trying to No Homo these skeletons, I sincerely don't think so.)(Wow, that is A Sentence.) It nonetheless reads as very pointed to only include this commentary from "some researchers" on what is a much larger discussion with multiple viewpoints within the historical and queer studies communities, just because they happen to use the Hasanlu Lovers as an example to argue their views on this. Including their arguments here in this selective way feels less educational and more steering towards a specific point of view on the larger issue and on the Hasanlu Lovers specifically, and that's not what a wikipedia article is supposed to do.
Minicactussen (
talk)
23:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)