Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A table-high pin

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)

Perhaps peg? This is my go-to translation site for German https://www.dict.cc/?s=zapfen— Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"block" is nice and vague, and infers no function. I think the others are too specific unless we actually know more. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A friend who knows German recommended https://www.deepl.com/translator over Google translate. This seems to translate it as "table-high cone" which is similar. According to him Zapfen (pine) also commonly means cone. —PaleoNeonate – 19:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The original German is:

"Unmittelbar nordwestlich dieser eingesenkten Fläche liegen zwei zisternenartige, ovale Vertiefungen im Fels, die als Teil dieser Anlage gewertet werden. In eine dieser Vertiefungen, die in ihrer Mitte einen etwa tischhohen Zapfen aufweist, führt eine fünfstufige Treppe hinab."

I would translate this as:

"Immediately Northwest of these sunken surfaces are two cistern-like, oval depressions in the bedrock, which are considered to be part of this installation. Down into one of these depressions, which at its center exhibits an approximately table-high protuberance, leads a stairway with five steps."

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)

Another, more general, translation problem is the German Anlage, which in Norwegian is simply anlegg, but doesn't seem to have an adequate English equivalent. In The Tepe Diaries, the official blog of the GT excavation (written by Germans in English), it seems to be translated either as "enclosure" or "building." A more adequate translation would be "site," as in "building site," but the archaeological meaning of "site" (as "excavation site"), would seem to preclude that word. I've tried "installation," but maybe "structure," "construction" or even "area" might be better. Have emailed my friend, and we'll see what he has to say... Filursiax (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Destructive construction work at the site?

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)

Wrong link

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)

 Done, thanks. – Joe (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting a round of updates for this article

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)

10) Another point: I've just had a very cursory look at the GT article in German Wikipedia, which seems very up-to-date (with continuous edits throughout 2019 and 2018). An updating of the English GT should definitely include a close reading of the German text, with import of translated exerpts where appropriate. There seem to be a number of good references here as well.

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)

"BCE" should be used in chronology table timeline

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)

I agree. It's a template though, {{Near East Neolithic}}, so the only solution would be two versions of the template. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately not! I've added an era parameter to the template and switched it to BCE in this article. Thanks for pointing this out Bpier.

I'm a little dubious as to the value of including a big general-purpose template like this on an article about one site, though. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: belated thanks. But you're probably right that it doesn't belong. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Like many such things, its content is pretty dubious, going into detail for the Middle East (I presume reasonably accurately) but not covering Europe & China properly at all (plus no mention of Japan, SE Asia etc). I think there a lot more to say about India too. Either it should be greatly expanded, or trimmed at the sides & renamed. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Watch for claims that Robert Schoch has interpreted writing

See [1]. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Era style

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)

@No Great Shaker: I agree, except "established" doesn't necessarily mean the first style. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug, that's true as there could have been an interim consensus change. I've amended my message above. All the best and take care. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Tepe"

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)

"Geometry and Architectural Planning at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey"

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)

"Göbekli Tepe, Turkey. A brief summary of research at a new World Heritage Site"

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)

Sweatman & Tsikritsis 2017 journal article re: cosmological evidence at Göbekli Tepe

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. Some call Sweatman and Tsikritsis' interpretation a fringe theory, though it has not been discredited in any other peer-reviewed journal article."

• M. B. Sweatman and D. Tsikritsis "Decoding Göbekli Tepe with archaeoastronomy: What does the fox say?" Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 17, No 1, (2017), pp. 233-25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoSaw (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the criticisms of their theory? Also, do you have a source for "it has not been discredited"? Schazjmd (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi. I'm not aware of a publication calling their interpretations in part or in full a fringe theory. Joe Roe called their article part of a fringe theory. I have not seen any published material discrediting Sweatman and Tsikritsis' interpretation. InfoSaw (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's one paper responding to theirs: Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 17, No 2, (2017), pp. 57-74. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a good article addressing some but not all of Sweatman & Tsikritsis' interpretations. Notroff et al acknowledge that "As it is not exactly our field of expertise, we do not venture into comments on complex astronomical questions about the likelihood of proposed celestial observations, the visibility of certain asterisms etc., but confine ourselves to remarks on the archaeological part of the paper." (at p. 59). In short, the authors do not discredit Sweatman and Tsikritsis' interpretation that the site could have functioned as an observatory. I think it's also worth noting that Sweatman & Tsikritsis were given an opportunity to reply to Notroff et al's article in the same issue as Notroff et al's - which means there's an open, transparent, and scholarly debate in a peer-reviewed journal over an evolving issue of historical importance.InfoSaw (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And a post on the Göbekli Tepe Research Staff blog. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly they have no expertise in archaeology, a field in which knowing the context is vital. And they are a WP:Primary source. So the issue is why in the world should we use them for a source? How do they meet WP:UNDUE? I'm not convinced that we have enough - this is an extraordinary claim and would need much better sources than we have ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" is how Jimbo put it I think). Then there's the fact that they didn't discuss this with the excavators before publishing, and finally the fact that Sweatman couldn't find a reliable publisher to publish his book Prehistory Decoded and had to self-publish through Troubador.[6] [7] Doug Weller talk 16:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. The blog post author does preface their comments with the following: "Debate regarding a possible astronomic link and interpretation of the architecture and the characteristic pillars in particular are as old as the history of research regarding Göbekli Tepe, but as of yet no convincing proof for an actual celestial orientation or observation of such phenomena could have been put forward. We always were and still are open to consider these discussions. So, of course we were looking into the new study with quite some interest, too. After all it is a new and fascinating interpretation. However, upon closer inspection we as excavators of this important site would like to raise a few points which may challenge this interpretation in our point of view:". The author takes significant issue with the archaeological aspects of Sweatman & Tsikritsis' interpretations, but does not discredit the astrological aspect of the site itself. Rather, the blog author indicates that there is an astrological link at Göbekli Tepe that archaeologists have always thought is possible.InfoSaw (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also noting that their paper seems to be widely (but on non-reliable source sites) considered to "echo" Graham Hancock's Magicians of the Gods and Andrew Collins's Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods: The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden, which might be why Joe Roe referred to it as "fringe". Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see Sweatman & Tsikritsis citing a Hancock. I do see an A. Collins cited, 2014 - but presume that the peer-review process covered that reference. Joe Roe hasn't provided a reason for his view, so I can't say anything about his opinion. But I have now seen a genuine debate among serious scholars over the issue of the astrological implications that Göbekli Tepe represents.InfoSaw (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And, then, there is this. Have there been additional scholarly endorsements of this information since the last big discussion on this page three years ago? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely and unquestionable a fringe theory, as was established in the previous discussions. Sadly, a lot of fringe theories are ignored rather than challenged by mainstream scholars (because who has the time), so we have to also look at the content: are the claims extraordinary? Does anyone else support them? No? Then it's probably fringe, whether we have a source explicitly saying so or not. And in this case we do: the formal response in the journal and the reliable self-published source from the excavators.

Also, even though it's ostensibly "peer-reviewed", it's highly questionable whether Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry is a reliable source, since they subsequently published an 11-page paper that claimed to overturn all of established geology and discover the location of Atlantis, and they list at least one dead person on their editorial board (Harald Hauptmann, mispelled "Herald" on their website). – Joe (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It doesn't look like there's been either endorsements nor refutations of Sweatman & Tsikritsis' article since 2017. But maybe I'm wrong: have you seen either endorsements or refutations of their article since 2017 that haven't yet been mentioned here? Otherwise, their article remains a peer-reviewed piece that has received scholarly criticism specific to the archaeological merits (and not astrological) of their work, and to which they have replied - all of this within the same peer-reviewed journal. I don't see anything here that doesn't merit a simple mention on this webpage. As Joe Roe said when he revised my original post: "Perhaps this paper can be mentioned (briefly) in the article, but it should be contextualised as the very, very fringe theory it is, not fact." I followed his direction to the letter in my revision, but which User:GenQuest then took down without giving any specific reason and referred me to this talk page. Just to be clear, what I wish to achieve here is to set out their view of the astrological aspect of Göbekli Tepe as I have above. If one were to include the article and blog post User:Schazjmd gave above, then my addition to this webpage would be limited in scope, balanced, and informative.InfoSaw (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Ok, the late Mr. Hauptman is still listed. But an out-of-date webpage doesn't mean that all of the other reviewers are deceased, as well? And, just to note, the editorial board features Archaeological reviewers from (among others) the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Cornell, and the Sorbonne. This doesn't strike me as a fly-by-night publication, and the fact that a reply to Sweatman and Tsikritsis was written by serious scholars, was peer-reviewed, and published in the same publication shows that the publishers care about what they publish.InfoSaw (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the previous discussion, GenQuest. It doesn't appear that anything has changed in three years; no additional academic responses or attention to the theory. Schazjmd (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of the catch-22 archaeologists face when dealing with pseudoscience: if we don't respond, it goes uncontested, and/or we're refusing to engage with ideas that challenge the orthodoxy. If we do respond, it's taken as legitimisation.

I still do think it would be a good idea to mention this paper, but it should be properly contextualised with due weight. The pseudoarchaeology surrounding GT is in itself a notable topic.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]– Joe (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Atlantis article proves out bad their peer review has been. That they gave Notroff et al the right to reply was only to be expected, it doesn't prove anything about the journal. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, all. Wouldn't talk's last comment would be a good example of what could be written about Sweatman & Tsikritsis' article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoSaw (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

a mulberry that marks an Islamic pilgrimage

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)

It was the world's oldest-known temple and this fact must be mentioned in the lede

Agree? Khestwol (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss: "Radiocarbon dating as well as comparative stylistical analysis indicate that it is the oldest known temple yet discovered anywhere."[6][42] This is in the article as written; and summarized in the Lede with, "—the world's oldest known megaliths.[8] Dated at around 9,500 BC, these megaliths are 5,500 years older than the first cities of Mesopotamia and 7,000 years older than Stonehenge.[9]. The debate on whether these megaliths constitute an actual temple is still open and ongoing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No. "World's oldest temple" is a tagline used in the popular press and tourism media, neither of which are reliable sources on archaeology. Ultimately it's traced to Schmidt's interpretation of the site, which is significant and worth mentioning in the article, but was never fully accepted by other scholars, and increasingly questioned by the current excavators of the site. It shouldn't be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe it belongs in the lead, but only if properly presented as one interpretation and balanced against opposing arguments. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

change "haven taken" to "have taken" Netsocket (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Netsocket:  Done, thanks for pointing that out. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Translations from frwiki

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)

"Also known as"?

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)

Is there a specific objection to the source? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd see no problem if it said "Also known as Potbelly Hill" because it indeed is sometimes called Potbelly Hill, but that still is a direct translation from Turkish, Göbekli Tepe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk3xdMkwMsE

Should a Georgian come up and write what they call this place in their language in the first sentence, "Also known as"? Or Russians, or Greeks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sems%C3%BBr%C3%AE > This person edited it, and he's basically only active in Kurd pages. 88.230.179.97 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. In short, we include the Kurdish names because they're relevant foreign-language names, the site being located in Kurdish-majority province. Obviously it would make no sense to include the Georgian, Russian or Greek versions, though since they're all just transliterations of the Turkish name that's not really an issue. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, it's not Kurdish majority, since there are more Arabs than Kurds.

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?

Should we change German pages, and add "Also known as" in Turkish, because there are places in Germany where Turks are majority?

All I see on that discussion is that the general verdict was: Needless, bad faith edit. And the fact is, guy who edited this, has a stake in it.

One of the users put it very clearly:

There is no reason to include differing name variants in fringe languages when the predominant name within international scientific discourse has been decided and is already in use extensively. Even the UNESCO entry for the site uses the preferred a single name. Any other additions hinder and readability of the article und might serve unnessecary confusion, thus it should be avoided. Laerodar (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 88.230.179.97 (talk) 16:08, 24 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?

If there are RS to support it, why not?

The German/Turkish question is a non sequitur. As is the rather odd claim that this "hinder accessability [sic]". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

...yes? Look at Lviv, for example: the lead includes its name in Ukrainian, Old East Slavic, Polish, Yiddish, Russian, German, Latin, and Hungarian, and lists even more in a subsequent section. That's an extreme example but it's not at all uncommon for a place in a linguistically diverse region to have multiple names in different languages. Including relevant ones in the lead is in line with WP:NPOV and, more importantly, is informative for our readers.

Before we had the Kurdish names in the lead, we regularly had Kurdish editors trying to edit-war them in. Now, we regularly have Turkish editors trying to edit-war them out. We're never going to please people who are only interested in looking at this article through a nationalist lens. What matters is we serve the bulk of our readers by sticking to policy and reliable sources. This is one of the most-viewed articles on an archaeological site on Wikipedia, most of it is in dire need of improvement, and yet a significant portion of edits in recent years have been bickering about the first sentence. It's a waste of time. – Joe (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You said it's a bad faith edit, not intending to add useful info to wiki, just here to do propaganda. You also told who started edit warring in the first place. You also know in 99.99999999% it is called Göbekli Tepe, and literally noone cares what it is called in Kurdish language with all due respect. So, why let bad faith edit go in English version of the page? They are just gonna do more of this in other pages. Look in the Kurdish version. It's totally empty. 2 sentences at best. Why didn't this person go there and enrich wikipedia? 88.230.182.66 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It was not added by one person. It was added because there was a policy- and sourced-based consensus on this talk page to do so, and since then a consensus to keep it. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus of like, 3 people? 88.230.182.66 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

LE MONDE diplomatique kurdî just another source for the Kurdish name. Also here is an interview with a local who first discovered the place and reported it to the authorithies, literally saying in Kurmanji Kurdish: Girê mirazan em dibên, lit. 'We call it Girê mirazan (The Hill of Hope/Wish)'--Balyozxane (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Balyozxane: Thanks for these, very useful sources. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"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)

No problem eliminating the "also known as" phrasing; but I don't think notability has any relevance here? The point is that it's a relevant local name, as explained above. I assume that the dismissive descriptions of the Kurdish languages, spoken by 20–30 million people, repeated on this talk page ("fringe language", "local dialect", "local vernacular") are said in ignorance of the political context rather than with malice, but we need to be very careful that this attitude doesn't leak into the article text. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 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)

Göbekli Tepe (tr) / Girê Mirazan (ku)

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)

Hi Sacdegemecs, thanks for opening this discussion. Kurdish names of the site has been added to this article several times over the years, but without any references, which is why they've been reverted. However, there are reliable sources (including both pro-Kurdish sources and Turkish state media) that verify that the site is called Girê Mirazan[18][19][20] or Xirabreşkê[21][22][23][24] in Kurdish. Since the site is in Kurdistan, I agree that these should be included in the lead as relevant foreign-language names. @GenQuest and Doug Weller: What do you think? – Joe (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I might agree if there was an actual country of Kurdistan. The country the site is in, though, is Turkey. Per naming conventions, that's what is used in our articles. These repeated insertions of Kurdish and other languages prevalent in the area tend towards disruption. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that a convention? WP:ALTNAMES and WP:OTHERNAMES only mentions that "relevant" and "significant names in other languages" should be included, nothing about sovereign status. There are many languages spoken in Turkey, and Kurdish is the majority language in the Kurdistan region, which includes Şanlıurfa. To me that clearly fits the policy criteria for a relevant foreign-language name, in the same way we include the German name of Danzig even though it's in Poland, the Italian name of Lyon even though it's in France, etc.

I don't remember names of the site in any other languages ever been added. Just Kurdish. I don't imagine the site has a different name in any other languages. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember names of the site in any other languages ever been added. Just Kurdish. Ah yes, I see there was also an attempt to add the Armenian name, which I agree would be stretch. – Joe (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

We generally go by country for place-names, not local dialects. The regions you mentioned were once part of other countries get some leeway, cuz Other Things Exist. The last few years there have been numerous attempts to – especially – insert Armenian, Assyrian, and Kurdish names here. The motivation tends to be more tied into nationalism than historical or encyclopedic context. It's a Turkish site. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but that doesn't actually seem to be written in any of the relevant guidelines? We can speculate on the motivation of the editors who have added this in the past, but what I'm proposing now is purely an editorial matter. We have an archaeological site in a region with (at least) two major spoken languages, and those languages have different names for the place. It's both helpful to our readers and a more neutral point of view to include all the significant ones.

Regarding Danzig and Lione: I don't think the current or former political status of the territory is really the issue; it's what names are or have been widely used for a place. At the risk of opening another politically contentious can of worms, a more direct analogy would be that we almost always include both the Hebrew and Arabic names for archaeological sites in Israel. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

first of all, i'm not turkish, nor kurdish, and i agree to a certain extent with User:GenQuest that stirring up the tr/ku hornet's nest might be annoying, but wikipedia must cope with that in order to be encompassing. however, as a contributor, i'd like to find relevant and meaningful information in wikipedia: just imagine i want to go to quebec and i read an article about it written and/or redacted by people who think that, as quebec is not an actual country, french is not informatively relevant. it would simply be so fu**ed up. i cannot talk specifically about the Şanlıurfa Province but in neighbouring ones i visited the turkish language was sometimes only useful to talk to policemen and soldiers. also, note that the articles in italian and german (Klaus Schmidt was a german archeologist) both include the original toponym in kurdish. Sacdegemecs (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason not to use it. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to include differing name variants in fringe languages when the predominant name within international scientific discourse has been decided and is already in use extensively. Even the UNESCO entry for the site uses the preferred a single name. Any other additions hinder accessability and readability of the article und might serve unnessecary confusion, thus it should be avoided. Laerodar (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we add the Arabic name of the site as well since the city is historically and in majority populated by Turkish Arabs? Any feedback is appreciated. BlueSisyphus (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@BlueSisyphus: Is it called something else in Arabic? – Joe (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I presume the question should not matter from now on since its Kurdish name had been put into and maintained in the article. In my opinion, the rationale behind such action smells nationalism and/or nation-building propaganda. In contrast to Kurds, Arabs are at the centre of the history of this city, and Kurds are arguably irrelevant in this region until the city has received considerable amount of Kurdish immigrants in the last several decades (e.g. Nisanyan's Index Anatolicus:Urfa). (To me, it is really sad to see that Wikipedia has been gradually evolving into a free and effective propaganda machine for nationalists). So, if this city is at the juncture of three nations, I do not see any reason why the historical residents of this city, i.e. Arabs, should not get any proper credit. Kind regards. BlueSisyphus (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, please be more considerate and be in critical-thinking-mode while carelessly dubbing cities/regions in Turkey, such as Urfa, as 'Kurdistan' (see 'Joe (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)'). Kurds had considerably suffered from denial in Turkey until a handful decades ago, yet this city has not been a part of the regions where Kurds formed the predominant ethnic group inside that country. The absolute majority of this city had been and is still non-Kurdish, and there had been no political entity with a name of or alias of 'Kurdistan' existed ever before thereat. Calling cities/regions in Turkey as part of another political/sociological entity is, I am afraid, misleading for the readers, and somewhat resembles with the strategic rhetoric of nationalists. I believe that perception is arguably the new reality of this era. Therefore, I kindly invite you (the editors in general) to be more considerate on these topics. Kind regards. BlueSisyphus (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"please be more considerate and be in critical-thinking-mode while carelessly dubbing cities/regions in Turkey, such as Urfa, as 'Kurdistan'"

Turkish Kurdistan indicates that Ufra is considered by Kurds as being within Kurdistan, the the CIA factbook map on Kurdish areas also shows Ufra too so that is in fact being careful and considerate.

"Kurds had considerably suffered from denial in Turkey until a handful decades ago"

You make it seem as if the issues Kurds face in Turkey is over..

"The absolute majority of this city had been and is still non-Kurdish"

Not true. Many sources are stating that Kurdish is a majority spoken language in the area. Turkey has neither allowed proper assessment of Kurds in the region to be making such statements. Only through language analyst were Kurds able to get some sense of their population numbers and even this is still under estimating. If the denial of Kurds in Turkey were truly over as you portrayed, we would have been able to get the true population of Kurds in Turkey by now.

"and there had been no political entity with a name of or alias of 'Kurdistan' existed ever before thereat."

Not true again, but I'm not fully sure what you mean by this, so maybe the Treaty of Sèvres and also List of Kurdish dynasties and countries For example the Ayyubid Kurdish dynasty is known to have built a mosque there in 1211 in Ufra, so nor did "Turkey" exist at that time. --TataofTata (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2021 (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)

I don't think anyone has said that nobody speaks Turkish in Şanlıurfa. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Laerodar (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: The alternative language should add if the article is a part of the alternative language country. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Changing the term Neolithic

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. 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)

The site isn't just a "megalith monument" though, that's only one component. On the other hand it's unquestionably Neolithic, regardless of the debates over whether it was permanently occupied and whether its inhabitants practised agriculture. Neolithic societies in Southwest Asia had mixed sedentary/nomadic and agricultural/foraging economies throughout that period. Maybe some readers don't know this, but hopefully the background section helps with that. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Confusing passage on backfilling

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)

Yeah, it would be good to get rid of the NatGeo reference entirely, since it wasn't a good source to begin with and is now out of date. – Joe (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Small typo?

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)

 Done, thanks. It's a shame the page has to be semi-protected, but otherwise the disruptive nationalistic edits are never-ending. – Joe (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Native Name in infobox and Kurdish name in lead

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)

The Kurdish name is a local name for the site; there doesn't have to be only one. The Turkish name is prominently displayed as the heading of the infobox, there's no reason to repeat it directly below. The inclusion of the Kurdish names in the lead has been extensively discussed above and in the archives. Long story short, we are following MOS:LEADALT in including "significant names in other languages". – Joe (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe This does not mean that it will not be discussed again. Yes, the ordinary Kurdish lang spoken in some of Turkey's cities may be but it doesn't mean it is native, according to your ague we have to change every Turkish article? I'm living in Turkey, I was born here I grow up here I never heard that Kurdish is the native language here! Turkey is not Kurdistan Region, Yes' Kurdish is spoken in some places but not native, that's the point please fix this. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 09:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, my point is that the Kurdish name is not shown as a local name, it shows like a native name in the infobox. @GGT can you look this please. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 09:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, but I'm saying it would be helpful if you looked at these discussions so we don't have to start from scratch. "native_name" is just the name of the parameter in wikicode; readers just see the names. As the template documentation says, this parameter used for "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)

@Joe Roe This doesn't bother me, unlike, I wanted to fix it because I'm a neutral person. There are a lot of articles are violate the Neutral point of view on the English Wikipedia, I just want to make a distinction between alternative and native, Armenian name can also be added, it is not neutral in my opinion to reduce the alternative nomenclature in this article to only the Kurdish alternative. I can express and discuss my opinion on what I see. I took action as per WP:BOLD but you revert it back, so, I am not insistent or bothered. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 11:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the Armenian name of the site? – Joe (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe The Armenian name is Portasar, Also the native_name and native_name_lang parameters are reserved for native inputs, let's use them properly then. We can add the alternative names into alternate_name parameter. Thank you for your understanding. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 11:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool. If you can provide a reliable source for that, we can add it to the article too. What do you understand "native" to mean here? I have already quoted the template's documentation, which says it is to be used for name[s] in the local language, with names in multiple languages specifically allowed. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You may use his source. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 11:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Armenian Origins of Basque", published by Lulu.com? – Joe (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me look the reliable sources for use, I found this one can you check this. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 12:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It's arguing that the Daredevils of Sassoun is a historical account of something that happened 17,500 years ago based on astronomy, so probably not. This is the problem. We've had people want to include Armenian names before but unlike Girê Mirazan, which is used in reliable Kurdish news media, Portasar only seems to crop up in fringe Armenian nationalist and pseudohistory sources. It's also apparently a direct translation of Turkish Göbekli Tepe. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture segment

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)

@FictiousLibrarian I'm a bit bothered by Kurzgesagt#Reliability of videos as this is a 2016 video. See also MOS:CULTURALREFS. What wording are you suggesting? Doug Weller talk 07:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The Holocene calendar just adds 10,000 to the current Gregorian year. It has nothing to do with Göbekli Tepe. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Feagans self-published blog at WP:RSN

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)

Further reading

We don't need further reading on the irrelevant Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, some fourteen centuries removed, unless and until the connection achieves more academic respectability than has so far been presented. The outer-fringe theories we probably don't need at all, unless and util they achieve enough notability to appear in reliable academic publications or comments. Feagan's blog post might be just about acceptable if there is a consensus to include it. If so, we could consider using it as the reference for a one-sentence section on pseudoarchaeology, rather than trying to slip fringe ideas into Further Reading. In the meantime I have removed the entire Further Reading section, and inserted into See also links to Pseudoarchaeology and to Graham Hancock. I await comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I had already removed the Younger Dryas material. All the entries you removed were specifically about Göbekli Tepe. I suspect you will get complaints about removing the Skeptoid article. But rather than restore the 3 topic specific entries, I've added a see also link to Archaeoastronomy. Skyerise (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Richard Keatinge: arguing over further reading is a little silly. Writing a brief section on pseudoarchaeology has been on my to-do list for a while; it was previously suggested towards the end of this discussion. There are plenty of sources. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

New article regarding the intentional backfilling

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)