Talk:Göbekli Tepe

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aimless rambling from Sussex is not useful to the TP's. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of the "headless human" it is not visible in the photograph used in the article. However you can see it in the lower right corner on photographs from other sources.  A photograph described as depicting a "headless man" is available on the Göbekli Tepe Research Project blog  which is maintained by a collaboration of several universities and institutions affiliated with the research being conducted on site .  A diagram and description of a "headless human" are included in this article  published in the journal "Current Anthropology".
 * I would consider these to be RS. On the other hand what "everyone can see that with their bare eyes" would likely be considered OR. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Section Architecture
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)


 * Thank you for pointing this out, I added a date. Hypnôs (talk) 13:28, 20 January 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. –&#8239;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.–&#8239;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)
 * Done, thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)