Talk:Göbekli Tepe

First discovery

Page says 1963 but not by whom Inaniae (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the already-cited paper by Julia Schönicke, "There and Back Again — Towards a New Understanding of Abandonment Practices at the Neolithic Settlement of Göbekli Tepe" (2010), page 216, first full paragraph:

Göbekli Tepe was discovered in 1963 by Peter Benedict during a survey as part of a joint research project by the University of Istanbul and the University of Chicago, under the direction of Halet Çambel and Robert Braidwood.[34]

She references a 1980 paper by Benedict.

Wordreader (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That paper is also cited in this article directly: Benedict, Peter (1980). "Survey Work in Southeastern Anatolia". In Cambel, Halet; Braidwood, Robert J. (eds.). Prehistoric Research in Southeastern Anatolia. pp. 179, 181–182. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Savak Yildiz

what about Savak Yildiz, the shepherd who had a impact on the discovery of Gobekli Tepe? 70.161.8.90 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source? According to the ones used under #Research history, the site was (re)discovered by Mahmut and İbrahim Yıldız. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

[1] he's mentioned other places too. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the text to reflect the fact that multiple members of the Yıldız family were involved in the discovery. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove false statement

The following statement is false, citing [58] as a source. The article does not state this, and it's not true in any event:

, before millennia of human settlement and cultivation led to the near–Dust Bowl conditions prevalent today. 98.161.226.93 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the whole sentence (At the time the edifice was constructed, the surrounding country was likely to have been forested and capable of sustaining this variety of wildlife, before millennia of human settlement and cultivation led to the near–Dust Bowl conditions prevalent today) because it's inaccurate and because [58] is the notoriously sensationalist magazine article by Andrew Curry that really ought to be purged from the article by now.

A more accurate and up-to-date summary of the evidence for the past environment of the site is was in the section headed "Diet" (for some reason). I've restored it to its original place in the "Geography and environment" section.– Joe (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Under Slope slide events, in the end of the first paragraph, change "9th millennium BC" to "9th millennium BCE". Very minor change, just for consistency. WicCaesar (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Y Done, thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Look who is back

[2]. “Carvings at ancient monument may be world’s oldest calendar” by Martin Sweatman published in Time and Mind. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A critique:https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2024/08/edinburgh-university-text-on-gobekli.html Doug Weller talk 15:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been depressing to see the almost completely uncritical press coverage of this very fringe paper from a chemical engineer. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately breathless churnalism of press releases is not uncommon for scientific studies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

5%

Apparently, there's something wonky - the page says in two places that 'As of 2021, less than 5% of the site had been excavated', but cites a source from 2015, and it would be useful to get this straight since there are rumours going round that excavation has been all but at a standstill for years in order to cover something up and the fact that news articles from various different dates all say 5% is being used as evidence of this (to judge by comments on the videos responsible for this theory, opinions on what exactly is being covered up are about equally divided between proof that the Bible is not true, proof that the Bible is true, proof that white people built it and proof that black people built it). Wombat140 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Euronews repeated the 5% figure last year, so we can update the citation. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, this talk page is for discussing edits to the article. Beyond sourcing the 5% discover factoid, unless you have a specific edit that you are requesting that is supported by one or more reliable sources, this discussion is not appropriate for this page. Donald Albury 20:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I updated the figure and added some context. Hypnôs (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)