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, 4Auto-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.) |
The 2019 paper by Sweatman and Coombs is referred to by both Powell (2019) and in the Physics Today review of the book. Neither refers to it as "pseudoscience". I guess things change. We should probably also include Sweatman's earlier paper. This isn't being used to source anything. The time to argue about it is if and when it is used as a reference. Then we present opposing views if there are WP:RS describing such opposition.
As for the blog post "Buzzwords, Bogeymen, and Banalities of Pseudoarchaeology: Göbekli Tepe", it is by one Carl Feagans - who apparently is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Wouldn't a "widely recognized expert" have a Wikipedia article? Not a valid WP:SPS exception. Perhaps that's why the citation was incomplete, omitting the author, date, and other details? If you really think he's notable enough for an SPS exception, write the article. Skyerise ( talk) 06:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
a native of South Wales [with] an interest in astronomy [...] secretary of his local astronomical society, so he might even manage the difficult feat of being a less reliable source on prehistoric symbolism than Martin Sweatman. These are not good or reliable sources of further reading and we should not be recommending them to readers.
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I have already provided a link to an article written by Feagans about pseudoarchaeology, published by the Society for American Archaeology in a special issue about pseudoarchaeology (and edited, as it happens, by @ Hoopes:).
So, you're saying that one paper in a peer-reviewed journal makes someone an SME? Guess Sweatman is now an SME. Skyerise ( talk) 09:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible that the building of Göbekli Tepe was motivated by comet strikes in the local area, which led to the Younger Dryas? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
Page says 1963 but not by whom Inaniae ( talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, 4Auto-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.) |
The 2019 paper by Sweatman and Coombs is referred to by both Powell (2019) and in the Physics Today review of the book. Neither refers to it as "pseudoscience". I guess things change. We should probably also include Sweatman's earlier paper. This isn't being used to source anything. The time to argue about it is if and when it is used as a reference. Then we present opposing views if there are WP:RS describing such opposition.
As for the blog post "Buzzwords, Bogeymen, and Banalities of Pseudoarchaeology: Göbekli Tepe", it is by one Carl Feagans - who apparently is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Wouldn't a "widely recognized expert" have a Wikipedia article? Not a valid WP:SPS exception. Perhaps that's why the citation was incomplete, omitting the author, date, and other details? If you really think he's notable enough for an SPS exception, write the article. Skyerise ( talk) 06:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
a native of South Wales [with] an interest in astronomy [...] secretary of his local astronomical society, so he might even manage the difficult feat of being a less reliable source on prehistoric symbolism than Martin Sweatman. These are not good or reliable sources of further reading and we should not be recommending them to readers.
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I have already provided a link to an article written by Feagans about pseudoarchaeology, published by the Society for American Archaeology in a special issue about pseudoarchaeology (and edited, as it happens, by @ Hoopes:).
So, you're saying that one paper in a peer-reviewed journal makes someone an SME? Guess Sweatman is now an SME. Skyerise ( talk) 09:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible that the building of Göbekli Tepe was motivated by comet strikes in the local area, which led to the Younger Dryas? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
Page says 1963 but not by whom Inaniae ( talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)