Talk:Hasanlu Lovers

Edit second paragraph

The second paragraph is confusing. As a research source it is unsatisfactory. I have re-written it, using Penn University reports as sources. surfingus (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This text needs to be edited. It is unclear.Azd0815 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good start

@Nnickiee: This is a good start. To establish notability it might be a good idea to try to find additional reliable sources that are outside of the museum that is hosting the artifact. —mako๛ 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nnickiee: Also, I'm adding the course template to this page so that others can tell that this is a article you are working on for the course. —mako๛ 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Editing Review

Hi,

I took a look at your article and made some very minor copy-editing changes to your page (which you can in the view history section). I also wanted to suggest that you link your page to the Teppe Hasanlu Wikipedia, as it goes into detail about your site. You can, in turn, add a little info about your subject and link your page from there, too. Also. in doing a Google search, I found an excerpt from a book via Amazon that had more detail about this site. Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=g7N74BFaC90C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Hasanlu+Lovers&source=bl&ots=jQotRCJriU&sig=YXCOHwqBthYSB5ayod6yoGhLp94&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jU9GVJTdF-WCigLqyoCoAQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=Hasanlu%20Lovers&f=false. Good luck with your page. Knicoladyes (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Knicoladyes: Good find! —mako๛ 16:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Knicoladyes: thanks for the feedback! I was looking for places to link to other wikipedia articles and that helps:) Nnickiee (talk)

@Knicoladyes and Knicoladyes: I went ahead and added that reference in here. I think that goes a long way to establishing notability. —mako๛ 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviewing with some findings for you

Hi, thank you for creating this topic which is a nice and interesting one to know. I did some research on this "kissing lovers", here is an article about its analysis, it might help the viewer learn more about the background and meaningful facts. http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Inspirational/6000-year-old-kiss-found-in-hasanlu-iran-facts-analysis.html

Moreover, University of Pennsylvania mentions that the University Museum has exhibited these 'Hasanlu Lovers' skeletons in 1974. You could also mention that in your article. http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0702/timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yibo719 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yibo719: thank you! Nnickiee (talk)

Old references

TrynaMakeADollar, please stop removing references just because they are old. Just because time has passed it doesn't make the source unreliable. This site was excavated in the 1970s so you would expect most of the primary sources to be from that time. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think old sources are better than none. If new findings contradict with those in the past, it can be simply mentioned in the article. If the new sources confirm what was assumed in the past, or improve them, the outdated sources can be replaced with new ones. Pahlevun (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:AGE MATTERS older sources could be inaccurate and should be swapped out for newer ones. So yes, the age of the sources often does make them inaccurate. A source from 1973 is not recent and not up to date especially because there are recent sources that exist that are relevant to this article. Such as the ones from Penn Museum. If we stuck to older sources then there could be some sources that describe the second skeleton as belonging to a female, even though more recent sources have stated that it may be a male. A reliable source from 10 years ago is much better than a reliable source from 50 years ago. There's no reason to use older sources as cites if newer ones exist and are sufficient. The older sources could possibly be added to a "Further Reading" section. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:AGEMATTERS older sources may be inaccurate. Archaeology is a slow-moving field. We have no reason to believe the sources from the 1970s are outdated or inaccurate (apart from on the sexing of the second skeleton – which is mentioned). Whilst the Penn Museum source is also useful, the article is improved by using a broad range of sources and citing the original source of facts in line with scholarly norms. – Joe (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I did say above that WP:AGE MATTERS says that older sources "could" be inaccurate. Which is the same thing as "may". Archaeology may be a slow moving field but it is clear that there has been relatively recent study into the subject of this article. The sources that you are talking about keeping are almost half a century old and all of them can be replaced by the Penn Museum sources. There is no reason to include those incredibly old sources and some reason to be a bit suspicious of them because they were incorrect in definitively claiming the sex of one of the skeletons as being a female. Not including the old sources does not violate WP:NPOV at all. There is no reason to believe that either Penn Museum or the authors of the old sources were motivated by opposing point of views. NPOV applies when there is an issue with differing opinions by reliable sources. But it does not apply here.

Honestly this seems like a weird issue to make a big fuss out of. It doesn't really take away from the credibility of the statements if the old sources are removed. There is no reason to include the old sources and several reasons to remove them. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a weird issue to get hung up on, so I encourage you to stop edit warring to remove them. There is almost never a good reason to remove reliable sources, and you have not forwarded any reasons apart from your subjective assessment that fifty years is too old. But as I have said, in archaeology, it would be very unusual for a primary field report to be considered "unreliable" even if it was a hundred years old. You can only dig a site once; subsequent reanalyses of the material or interpretations can't substitute for the initial description of what was physically found. Apart from the sex issue, which we are not using these sources for, is there anything in the article that you think is actually inaccurate? If so, we can look into whether the more recent sources differ. Otherwise, arbitrarily removing sources without touching the content is definitely not an improvement to the article.

WP:NPOV is achieved by representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is easier to do that if you don't rely on one source, even if it is a useful and reliable one. – Joe (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Joe, archaeology is not medicine. Pahlevun (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You said above "If the new sources confirm what was assumed in the past, or improve them, the outdated sources can be replaced with new ones." That is exactly what I am advocating for. There is no reason to have old sources if the new ones are more than capable. It does not take away from the credibility of the article one bit. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Some researchers argue

"Some researchers argue sensationalism about the Hasanlu Lovers and other potential examples of non-heteronormative behaviors in the past are problematic.[9][10]"

Some points on this line:
- "some researchers", of what note are these researchers to be spotlighted like this?
- "problematic" is a pretty vague word, what are they actually arguing?
- The article itself already does not note anything about the relationship between these two humans that this line is countering or clarifying, so it seems unnecessary in a jarring way to add a "Thinking these two skeletons aren't possibly/likely platonic skeletons would be problematic according to some" at the end of it like this.- (There are no special warnings as a part of scientific discussion not to assume anything about historical sexuality at the end of the similar "skeletons in a lover's embrace" wiki articles of presumed man-woman skeletons that are linked beneath this page. It seems very specifically emphasized here, while heterosexuality is also assumed by many. As it is not deemed necessary to include such researchers' arguments there, I don't think it's necessary here.)
- This discussion of how to view potential examples of non-heteronormative behaviours is a much larger discussion that has more than one side to it. Why are "some researchers" highlighted here, and not "other researchers" who argue that while through history people have viewed sex gender and sexual behaviour differently, that there is a clear double standard in the standard of evidence we hold hetero- and homosexual behaviour to/that viewing and discussing history though our current perspective and gained knowledge still has validity including when it comes to sexual behaviours and that this doesn't replace or harm the historical perspective.
- We could add that to this article too, for the sake of presenting this information in a neutral and complete way, but personally, I don't think that's a discussion that needs to be laid out in this specific article. So I would suggest not including these arguments, rather than turning this into a whole section.
- So while yes, these articles mention the Hasanlu Lovers in arguing their case, and i understand that for that reason they have probably just been added to this wiki article with the intent to add new information and to be educational, (Good faith, I'm seriously not trying to argue anyone is trying to No Homo these skeletons, I sincerely don't think so.)(Wow, that is A Sentence.) It nonetheless reads as very pointed to only include this commentary from "some researchers" on what is a much larger discussion with multiple viewpoints within the historical and queer studies communities, just because they happen to use the Hasanlu Lovers as an example to argue their views on this. Including their arguments here in this selective way feels less educational and more steering towards a specific point of view on the larger issue and on the Hasanlu Lovers specifically, and that's not what a wikipedia article is supposed to do.
Minicactussen (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

In the third paragraph it says "Sex determination of the left skeleton was less definitive. Evidence suggests SK 336 is male" but in scientific analysis section the article says "The sex of the lovers was confirmed from a bone sample for an ancient DNA analysis". I think there is a contradiction between suggests and confirmed. Does anyone know which is more accurate? 24.148.88.191 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)