Talk:Chinese pyramids

message: What latitude and longitude are these pyramids at? Are they on Google Earth?--Darrelljon 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a map.--Darrelljon 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are in various parts of China, as they are simply tombs where ancient Chinese royalty were buried (well, not so ancient maybe if you compare them to the Giza pyramids).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should do some more research & edit this article correctly. 194.207.141.183 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite Map 

message: This article is more about American "sightings" of Chinese pyramids. There should be more info on the actual pyramids themselves. The "sightings" are irrelevant because we know the actual locations, nature, and appearance of these pyramids. I don't have any sources on-hand though so can't edit. --Sumple (Talk) 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section heading clearly says "recognition in the west", and it talks about how the pyramids became more widely known outside China. We could certainly benefit from additional content about the pyramids themselves, but I see no issues with the section under discussion that a few quick tweaks can't fix. --Gene_poole 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The actual Chinese pyramids 

message: I've restored the Great White Pyramid to the list; even if its actual existence is unconfirmed, reports of it are the main reason China's pyramid's first came to the attention of the rest of the world. --Gene_poole 06:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old message, but I really would like to know when the archaeological community (and academics interested in ancient China) first found out about Chinese mount tombs.  My guess is that the article might be different if we knew that.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great White Pyramid 

message: this pyramids was built by Ancient Turkic people.
please research this.
:Turkic did not exist at that time. It is the pyramid at earlier than 5000BCE.
::The turks had a penchant for building pyramids in honor of other country's emperors? Kechvsf 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Turks did not exist but Hans (Chinese) did huh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.250 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there are Turkic inscriptions inside is evidence that the pyramids were built by Turkic people, which means they existed when the pyramids were built (duh!?!?). By the way, what makes you think that the mummy inside was a chinese emperor? I mean, I would expect chinese inscriptions inside if he were chinese...no?
Let's see some reliable sources for Turkic inscriptions. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: See my discussion below in the "Turkic hypothesis" section. I believe this statement should be removed if no one will bother to properly cite the 'academic' source from where it came, and for a statement this bold, the article better be in English for all of us to read.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic effect 

message: Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "see also" section is meant to be a list of articles broadly related to the article subject. It is not intended merely as a list of "directly related subjects" - or in this case, a list of "authentic pyramids". Deliberately expunging links to articles on clearly related subjects as you are attempting to do constitutes an inappropriate application of a personal POV to the editing process; it is not our place to be making value judgements of this nature. I am consequently restoring the article to the default position prior to your edits. If you feel this is inappropriate, you may wish to  establish a straw poll on the subject to help establish community consensus on the subject before attempting to implement further changes. --Gene_poole 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: * Pyramids in China (utanet.at) - Looks as if translated (poorly) into English, contains photographs. Perhaps an interested party could contact them for the photos? ~Kylu (u|t)  04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional resources 

message: Having just researched on this topic, I would like to state that some scientists, especially Kazım Mirşan (a scientist born in Chinese borders) support the hypothesis that these pyramids were built by Turkic people. Although it is known that Turkic people did not exist back than, he also supports the hypothesis that they actually did exist. He states that that actual pyramids are in an izolated zone where no one can enter. I have not read any of his book (there are more than 10 I believe) so my knowlegde is very limited but I've read that the reason which made him start believe that Turkic people did exist was that the first inscriptions of Turkic people (Orhun Tablets) were so developped that these people mush have been around for another 3000 years. 85.103.8.79 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you heard of the Terracotta Army? That was found associated with the mound tomb of the First Emperor.  Some of these are big tourist attractions.  They are not in an isolated zone.  Quite a few have been excavated. There can be no question but that these are Chinese.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's Mirsan's Turkish Wikipedia page, although it does not help me very much, as I cannot read Turkish. A quick Google search for "Kazım Mirşan Chinese pyramid" yields nothing but results for public, non-academic discussion forums. In what specific article does Kazim Mirsan support this theory? In the meantime, I have added a "who?" and "citation needed" tag to the introduction of the article, until this issue about alleged ancient Turkic inscriptions can be sorted out properly. In the meantime, let's get real here. Some of these Chinese pyramids date to the Qin Dynasty and Han Dynasty, i.e. the first centuries BC and AD, and were built specifically for the purpose of housing the deceased bodies of ruling emperors. This is thoroughly documented in ancient Chinese historical sources, even down to the detail of moving families to these sites to create settlements that would perpetually care for their tombs. As far as I know, the oldest Turkic writing system is the Old Turkic script, which was created several centuries later. This throws serious doubt on the so-called Turkic inscriptions being discussed here on the talk page, and now asserted in the second sentence of this article as if it should be given the greatest prominence without even a citation or its own detailed section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if built by some proto-Turkic people, it would be strange that they would have followed not only Chinese burial customs, such as creating (in one case life-size and) miniature armies of terracotta Chinese figurines to guard and serve the deceased Chinese emperors in the afterlife, but would have randomly built pyramids for rulers they were not subject to. Even the idea that some Turkic slaves or some kind of conscripted workers forced into labor by the Chinese imperial court seems of marginal importance. I believe this hypothesis about Turkic origins hits too many brick walls to be taken seriously.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of that, I believe the statement about Turkic inscriptions should be removed no later than one week from now if no one bothers to step forth and provide necessary source material to back up this (quite frankly) bizarre assertion. We'll see how serious this is.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see this and have already removed it. Among other things, the lead is a summary of the article so claims like this don't belong in the lead. I've seen this claim in a few other places, never with a source, and when I've challenged it no one has provided a source. I've look for one, nothing has come up, and I've done quite a bit of research over the years into these tombs. This is just another attempt to publicise a fringe idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, as I heavily doubt the credibility of this. Besides, fringe theories are not to be given any ample space in Wikipedia articles.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic Hypothesis 

message: Wikipedia is not a repository of crap machine-translated from French. So I deleted it. Someone feel free to rewrite it in intellig’ble English. Bossk-Office (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crap section deleted

message: Nach Angaben von chinesischen Behörden handelt es sich bei ihnen um Grabhügel von Herrschern der westlichen Han-Dynastie. .--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Han 

message: It's not correct to call them Chinese pyramids, simple because they're located in China. China has been areas lots of non Chinese people have lived. Thus pyramids in China is more neutral and reasoable.
:? Ok. But they were built by Han people as part of a new imperial tumulus tradition of the Han Dynasty. Moreover, they were built specifically for the Han emperors. In ancient times, ethnic groups did live within the Han-majority society (which at that time was a completely new ethnic group), so it is plausible that non-Han minorities were conscripted as part of the regular community to labor on these projects. However, we have no explicit written evidence providing the names or ethnicity of the workers, only those who commissioned the projects, which would be the Han emperors. Also, calling something "Chinese" is a loaded term which does not necessarily have to mean Han people, so your preferred terminology is in fact synonymous with the one you wish to replace (i.e. "Pyramids in China" versus "Chinese pyramids").--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like another attempt at calling them Turkic. These are Chinese, quite clearly. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about that. Aside from a distinct Turkic writing system being invented centuries after the fact, is there any written evidence that "Turkic" peoples even existed in China when these pyramids were built? I say this due to the fact that the first real Turkic state was the empire of the Göktürks, established in the 6th century AD, although the Turkic peoples were perhaps subject to greater nomadic confederations beforehand (such as the Xiongnu).--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramids in China vs. Chinese Pyramids 

message: If they are really chinesse pyramids why chinesse government is hiding them with trees? And china is not using them as cultural image or touristic places Its not logical!--85.100.79.243 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions of Greeks (modern or Byzantine) have nothing to do with this. They're called Chinese pyramids because buried beneath them are the remains of ancient Chinese monarchs from the Han Dynasty. Archaeologists have excavated enough of them to find all the stereotypical ancient Chinese grave goods to help the spirit of the dead monarch in the afterlife. For example: Chinese silk clothes for him to wear, Chinese lacquer dishes for him to eat with, and miniature terracotta armies (i.e. tiny realistic ceramic soldiers) to guard him. And yes they are touristic places; my aunt and uncle went to China two years ago and visited the pyramid and tomb of Emperor Wen of Han. This conversation has run its course, because you're presenting one of the sillier fringe theories that don't belong at Wikipedia. Academia certainly doesn't support a Turkish hypothesis, if one exists beyond your own personal musings.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And btw, I'm not Greek. I'm not even a Greek American! Although I am fond of ancient Greek history. And I certainly don't speak Greek, although I can speak Kyrgyz, which is (gasp!) a Turkic language.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't being hidden by trees, they are a tourist attraction! Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  If they are chinesse pyramids ... 

message: The pyramid comparison chart was removed due to it being a piece of racial propagandist rubbish.  If you're going to include that hotel as the largest pyramid, then you ought to include the tallest building in the world as well.  The Shard was tossed in at a later date to make the racial self-aggrandizement less apparent.  Likewise, the Chinese pyramid listed is only taller than the Mesoamerican ones because of a 'projected' height speculated by scholars, rather than the actual height--hence the dashed line.  As with the Shard, a collapsed Egyptian pyramid was added later to give the impression of unbiased neutrality.  (It seems like every single time I look something up on Wikipedia, a certain group of Wikipedians is embellishing their people's history, often at the expense of another group, and it is sickening that no one opposes them!) Anti-racialpropaganda (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:BRD, you also might like to take a look at WP:NOTHERE. Heiro 04:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not racist (and swearing in edit summaries is a bad idea) but I don't like it as it stands. The Shard isn't a pyramid for a start, and in any case I don't think we should have a chart that includes modern constructions. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison Chart 

message: acknowledgement by CCN world news on Alien pyarmids of China had been acknowledge, request to edit this in " Alien theory " section http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/
BEIJING, China -- A team of Chinese scientists is to head out to the far west of the country to investigate a mystery pyramid that local legend says is a launch tower left by aliens from space.
Nine scientists will travel this month to probe the origins of the 50-60 meter (165-198 ft) tall structure -- dubbed "the ET relics" -- in the western province of Qinghai, China's state-run Xinhua agency said on Wednesday.
The mystery pyramid sits on Mount Baigong, has three caves with triangular openings on its facade and is filled with red-hued pipes leading into the mountain and a nearby salt water lake, Xinhua said.
Rusty iron scraps, pipes and unusually shaped stones are scattered around the inhospitable and largely uninhabited area, it said.
ET theory
	 CNN.com Asia
More news from our
Asia edition
 
A research fellow at a nearby observatory of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Yang Ji, told Xinhua the theory the pyramid was created by extra terrestrials was "understandable and worth looking into."
"But scientific means must be employed to prove whether or not it is true," Yang said.
Xinhua has not given any details on the age of the structure, or any other possible explanations for it.
But a study carried out by a local smeltery suggests the pipes are very old, Liu Shaolin, the engineer who carried out the analysis, told Xinhua.
These findings have made the site more mysterious, says Qin Jianwen, a spokesman for the Delingha government.
"Nature is harsh here. There are no residents let alone modern industry in the area, only a few migrant herdsmen to the north of the mountain," Qin said.
This will be the first time scientists are heading out to study the mysterious site near Delingha City in the depths of the Qaidam Basin, according to sources with the Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. --  (User:92.236.36.173 (talk)  10:55  May 20 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One small blurb saying some scientists want to go check out a site is not proof of aliens, extraterrestrials or anything else. Heiro 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: no. It would be simply laughable to create a section speculating on the Chinese pyramids being built by anyone other than the ancient Chinese for the purpose of housing the remains of deceased emperors and other members of the ruling family.  First we had a guy saying the Turks built the ancient Chinese burial mounds, and now we have another saying extraterrestrials built them as launching pads for space ships. Really? I can't help but feel that the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" show is partly if not wholly responsible for giving such ammunition to the crazies out in cyberspace. I find it odd that said people latch on to historical sites like this to support their tinfoil hat conspiracies. Surely extraterrestrials would have left behind artifacts of their superior technology associated with their spaceships, instead of piles of ancient grave goods like pottery horses ridden by Chinese-looking riders dressed in simple robes. Lol.Pericles of AthensTalk 06:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

text: CNN new link (archived) https://web.archive.org/web/20090823095054/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/
OK, it can seem weird but maybe this is backfire of wiki strict (intransigent?) policies. There are more and more findings everyday that sugests a "new inclusive history" covering strange anomalies all around the world . Wiki needs more openess, not dictatorship. Thanks and love.  --JKim (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

text: No. See WP:FRINGE. Heiro 20:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article on this nonsense at Baigong pipes. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obtain consensus on CNN reported facts on Alien pyramids in China 

message: There are enough sources to do this now. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite to include only reliably sourced pyramidal structures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chinese pyramids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712233414/http://www.hylae.com/en/brief.asp to http://www.hylae.com/en/brief.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015173104/http://caea.uchicago.edu/events_publications/symposia/051306/abstracts/eckfield.shtml to http://caea.uchicago.edu/events_publications/symposia/051306/abstracts/eckfield.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918215626/http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=3935 to http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=3935
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chinese pyramids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160813152342/http://server1.docfoc.us/uploads/Z2016/01/04/43gx58XwDT/16f3e1b3326b07aba1a7134b862e6f1b.pdf to http://server1.docfoc.us/uploads/Z2016/01/04/43gx58XwDT/16f3e1b3326b07aba1a7134b862e6f1b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)