Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of claimed "pseudoscience" from further reading

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)

No, things haven't changed. Sweatman's theories are still fringe and are described as such in the reliable sources that can still summon the energy to respond to him.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The blurb of the book you cited describes its author as 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.

Carl Feagans, on the other hand, is a professional archaeologist with a background in Near Eastern prehistory who has published on pseudoarchaeology. As I've explained, subject-matter expertise is not decided by whether someone has a Wikipedia article or not. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

His about page says he only has a Master's Degree. Skyerise (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

And? – Joe (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

In anthropology. He only minored in archaeology. Perhaps you could provide reliable sources describing him as an expert in the field? Skyerise (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

In the United States archaeology is considered a subfield of anthropology, you study them together. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine. You claim he is a recognized subject-matter expert. One paper published as a forest service employee doesn't support that. Who has described him as an SME? Sources please. The burden is on you to show recognition as such. Skyerise (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar shows all of 3 papers. Two of them have been cited by 1 person. Whoop, whoop. Cite his papers, not his blog. Skyerise (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Find me a source that describes anyone cited in this article as a "recognized subject-matter expert". That's Wikipedia's language, not the real world's. WP:SPS guides us that a subject-matter expert is someone 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:).

Look, there's lots of work needed on this article and, with respect, can we perhaps agree that what is and what isn't included in the further reading section is not that high on the priority list? The three other sources with dubious archaeoastronomical interpretations you added are still there, so Dunning and Feagan's sceptical views are more than balanced out. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree to include Sweatman and I'll agree to include Feagans blog post. Otherwise cite his journal article. SPS also says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". Skyerise (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

...this isn't a negotiation? I've asked for some third opinions at WP:FRINGEN#Göbekli Tepe and removed the other dubious sources you added to the further reading section pending a consensus to include them. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Gatekeep much? You're going to throw out material published by Springer and Physics Today? You exclude Sweatman's book because it's self-published (and I agree it shouldn't be included), but accept a blog post, with comments, including from Sweatman, because some dude has a Master's degree and claims to be an expert, even though nobody has really even noticed his three papers? Skyerise (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is essential to acknowledge that there has been a great deal of pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology associated with Göbekli Tepe and now also Karahan Tepe. This includes not only the claims made by Graham Hancock in his book Magicians of the Gods but also what has been repeated in the Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse. This Wikipedia article should not become a repository for every speculative theory published by a crackpot or crank, regardless of whether it is in a published book or a documentary series on cable TV. For example, Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods: The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden by Andrew Collins should not be considered a reliable source, nor should be The Empires of Atlantis: The Origins of Ancient Civilizations and Mystery Traditions Throughout the Ages by Marco Vigato, despite the fact that the latter was featured as an "expert" on Ancient Apocalypse. It is not in the interest of Wikipedia to become laden with every cockamamie, speculative theory that somehow makes it into print or onto a television screen. The issue of disinformation is real and WP:DISINFO and appropriate edits and labeling absolutely must be taken seriously. Hoopes (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Carl Feagans, a Ph.D. is not required for recognition as a professional archaeologist. He has been credentialed by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA), which should be recognized as sufficient evidence that he is an expert in his field. "To be accepted into the RPA, applicants must hold a graduate degree in anthropological archaeology (or related discipline) from an accredited institution and have completed a thesis focused on an archaeological topic." His many publications, his blog, his experience, and his employment indicate that there should not be any question about his reliability, as User:Joe Roe has also argued. Hoopes (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

Extraordinary claims, as we all know, require extraordinary evidence from multiple reliable sources. Conversely, very ordinary claims, such as the idea that hallucinogen-driven evidence-free maundering is nonsense, merely require the published comments of somebody reasonably sensible who has a professional idea of what they're talking about. I'm suggesting that Feagan's credentials are amply sufficient to identify obvious rubbish as such. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've also found this publication from the Society for American Archaeology[http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?m=16146&i=634462&p=2&ver=html5]. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Comet

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)

We go by what reliable sources say. Unless you can provide reliable sources that present that theory, it is just speculation, i.e., original reasearch, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Donald Albury 00:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

 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 [9] which is maintained by a collaboration of several universities and institutions affiliated with the research being conducted on site [10]. A diagram and description of a "headless human" are included in this article [11] 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)

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)