Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 4

message: ===relocated comments re straw poll two & the process in general ===
I find it amusing that those who so readily included information in another article about the report of a "Caucasoid" King Tut find the inclusion of information about a Negroid Sphinx so objectionable.  Clearly, such designations have relevance and importance -- as is evidenced by the recent Tut reconstructions. Such terms are still in use today by reputable professionals; they are useful in characterizing the human form. The Tut pronouncement had great relevance to Egyptologists, the press and everyone else.  But suddenly precisely the same kind of information is irrelevant here?  The telling thing is how no objection is raised when the inclusion of such information in an article militates against the notion of a black, African ancient Egypt and enures to the benefit of those who would posit another, fictional presumption, but at the first mention of "Negroid" anything, the notion is somehow fringe, or contrary to a completely irrelevant statement by a professional association about "race."  This is precisely the kind of crap the few openly black editors here have in mind when we speak of the inherent racism/racial bias of this website.  deeceevoice 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never heard that the Sphinx was a Afro-Semite until I came to this page.   Judging from the citations, seems like few outside law enforcement, orthodonture, and novelist communites have.  This is a fairly simple case of editors trying to maintain a high-quality article, not a racist conspiracy. Justforasecond 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Afro-Semite"?  No.  Judging from the information produced, the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh.  And sorry to burst your bubble, JFAS, but I'm certain there's a whole lot you've never heard of.  Indeed, the same could be said for all of us.  And, no.  This is not about what does or does not populate your conceptual universe; it's about information.  deeceevoice 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the theory, as presented in the Ethnicity section, still seems to be asserting that the sphinx does not reperesent a pharaoh at all. The issues of whether the sphinx represented a pharaoh, whether the sphinx represents a certain racial type, and whether the pharaohs were of a certain racial type, are still being confounded in my mind. Pity the poor person who is called in via the survey page and can't make sense of it. Maybe this should be sorted out. -Dan 192.75.48.150 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh - then you should have no trouble providing mainstream sources from Egyptologists to back that conclusion up.  -- Stbalbach 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are talking about the police officer, novelist, and orthodontist?  (sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, doesn't it?)  We'd be hard pressed to find similarly eclectically sourced material in wiki.  Justforasecond 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Straw polls don't "force issues", but they do show where general consensus is.  -- Stbalbach 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, "Do you want X or Y?" is intended to gauge an existing consensus. And then there's "X sucks because (several paras follow). Agreed? Oh, and please keep discussion off this page." That is something else entirely. Granted this particular survey isn't an example of something quite so terrible. But it's closer to the latter than the former. Admittedly, it might work anyway. On the other hand people just plain don't like being told what to think, so it might actually backfire. 192.75.48.150 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: i think you've got a good plan.  best to leave it out but if we must have something, link to an article dedicated to the material.  Justforasecond 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been suggesting linking to the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article for a long time but deeceevoice says that the ethnicity of the sphinx has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians .. but then above she said the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh - no one talks about the ethnicity of the sphinx without also talking about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, even deeceevoice, it just doesn't make sense out of context - why even bring it up otherwise? -- Stbalbach 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, quite remarkable that she added the exact same verbiage she inserted here  to the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article , isn't it? But she is known for this kind of POV pushing, and placed on probation. CoYep 10:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're approaching a consensus here:  Mention that Afrocentrists believe the current face on the Sphinx depicts a "black man" though scientific consensus is that race is an artificial concept.   Mention a few amateur sleuths have observed "negroid" characteristics in the statue.  Provide a link to the Controversy article. Justforasecond 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deeceevoice says it has nothing to do with Afrocentricsm, that it is as plain a fact that the statue is of a black man as the white house is white. Her supporting evidence is the picture, and the various quotes from non-Egyptologists. Anyone who disagrees with her experts is engaging in original research, and it is our responsibility to prove the position wrong. The statement from the AAA is of no relevance since it doesn't mention the Sphinx specifically, and using that to discredit her experts is original research.  My position is the question of the Sphinx can and should only be answered by Egytologists. The best we have is the AAA position on race which basically says "we make no comment" for XYZ reasons.  -- Stbalbach 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Many authors"?   Do you mean the novelist, police officer, and orthodontist?   The Sphinx originally depicted a lion; the face was just hacked into the stone later on.  Justforasecond 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that accurate? That is the first I heard that. The nose was knocked off but that's the only change I've heard of. -- Stbalbach 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting section, seems to balance both sides. -- Stbalbach 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your draft is fine for the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article (eventhough I don't know about any forensic experts (unless you call Schoch an forensic expert) who have determined the "race" of the Sphinx, and it's incorrect to claim that prognathism is "unusual in peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian", unless the goal is to write a 19th century encyclopedia), but this article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it should only link to it.  CoYep 09:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's an excellent section, Altarbo -- uses citations to describe the controversy and significance, without taking sides, and is just about the right length for addressing the issue.  — Catherine\talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A good draft.  I made a few corrections:  Great Zimbabwe was a city, as opposed to a monument (surely an inadvertent goof), some strictly copyedit stuff -- changing of the use of the passive voice, closing a split verb, etc. -- and a few additions, but it's basically good.  One concern.  Domingo doesn't classify the Sphinx as "Negro," but "Negroid."  There's a difference.  "Negroid" is a term descriptive of a set of phenotypical characteristics and is not a racial designation.  The same can be said for the term "Caucasoid," as there are some who use (IMO, ridiculously) that term to describe some black Africans and certain East Indian populations.  So, the business about "clines" and race is irrelevant.  Further, to my knowledge, Domingo is the only forensic artist who has examined the sphinx specifically, so the use of the plural there is inappropriate/inaccurate. Still, a good effort. deeceevoice 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: CoYep, you stated, "it's incorrect to claim that prognathism is "unusual in peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian", unless the goal is to write a 19th century encyclopedia), but this article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it should only link to it."How is it incorrect?  Please provide an explanation or sources.  Also, why is this not the right place to discuss the impact of the Great Sphinx's ethnicity?  Are you objecting purely to the part you quoted, or the idea in general?  If it's the former, then would you provide an explanation of what about the draft would have to be change/edited to make it good enough to be put into the article.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Deeceevoice, I would consider "Negroid" to be a racial classification.  The negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid classifications, are analagous with the Black, White, and Yellow races.  I also was under the impression, that these terms were first used in The Races of Europe, but I might be wrong about that.  I realize that it doesn't have the same conotations about mental capabilities, but I think most people would still consider them to be racial classifications.  You're right about the grammar, though.  I changed the draft section's wording, to something similar to original section.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Altarabo, no they're not. Only Craniofacially, being an Ethiopian I would be classified as a white male, while this is clearly not the case (on the other hand, using limb-proportions, I would be probably be classified as "super-negroid). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion re straw poll 2

message: I find it amusing that those who so readily included information in another article about the report of a "Caucasoid" King Tut find the inclusion of information about a Negroid Sphinx so objectionable.  Clearly, such designations have relevance and importance -- as is evidenced by the recent Tut reconstructions. Such terms are still in use today by reputable professionals; they are useful in characterizing the human form. The Tut pronouncement had great relevance to Egyptologists, the press and everyone else.  But suddenly precisely the same kind of information is irrelevant here?  The telling thing is how no objection is raised when the inclusion of such information in an article militates against the notion of a black, African ancient Egypt and enures to the benefit of those who would posit another, fictional presumption, but at the first mention of "Negroid" anything, the notion is somehow fringe, or contrary to a completely irrelevant statement by a professional association about "race."  This is precisely the kind of crap the few openly black editors here have in mind when we speak of the inherent racism/racial bias of this website.  deeceevoice 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never heard that the Sphinx was a Afro-Semite until I came to this page.   Judging from the citations, seems like few outside law enforcement, orthodonture, and novelist communites have.  This is a fairly simple case of editors trying to maintain a high-quality article, not a racist conspiracy. Justforasecond 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Afro-Semite"?  No.  Judging from the information produced, the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh.  And sorry to burst your bubble, JFAS, but I'm certain there's a whole lot you've never heard of.  Indeed, the same could be said for all of us.  And, no.  This is not about what does or does not populate your conceptual universe; it's about information.  deeceevoice 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the theory, as presented in the Ethnicity section, still seems to be asserting that the sphinx does not reperesent a pharaoh at all. The issues of whether the sphinx represented a pharaoh, whether the sphinx represents a certain racial type, and whether the pharaohs were of a certain racial type, are still being confounded in my mind. Pity the poor person who is called in via the survey page and can't make sense of it. Maybe this should be sorted out. -Dan 192.75.48.150 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh - then you should have no trouble providing mainstream sources from Egyptologists to back that conclusion up.  -- Stbalbach 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are talking about the police officer, novelist, and orthodontist?  (sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, doesn't it?)  We'd be hard pressed to find similarly eclectically sourced material in wiki.  Justforasecond 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Straw polls don't "force issues", but they do show where general consensus is.  -- Stbalbach 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, "Do you want X or Y?" is intended to gauge an existing consensus. And then there's "X sucks because (several paras follow). Agreed? Oh, and please keep discussion off this page." That is something else entirely. Granted this particular survey isn't an example of something quite so terrible. But it's closer to the latter than the former. Admittedly, it might work anyway. On the other hand people just plain don't like being told what to think, so it might actually backfire. 192.75.48.150 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: i think you've got a good plan.  best to leave it out but if we must have something, link to an article dedicated to the material.  Justforasecond 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been suggesting linking to the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article for a long time but deeceevoice says that the ethnicity of the sphinx has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians .. but then above she said the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh - no one talks about the ethnicity of the sphinx without also talking about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, even deeceevoice, it just doesn't make sense out of context - why even bring it up otherwise? -- Stbalbach 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, quite remarkable that she added the exact same verbiage she inserted here  to the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article , isn't it? But she is known for this kind of POV pushing, and placed on probation. CoYep 10:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're approaching a consensus here:  Mention that Afrocentrists believe the current face on the Sphinx depicts a "black man" though scientific consensus is that race is an artificial concept.   Mention a few amateur sleuths have observed "negroid" characteristics in the statue.  Provide a link to the Controversy article. Justforasecond 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deeceevoice says it has nothing to do with Afrocentricsm, that it is as plain a fact that the statue is of a black man as the white house is white. Her supporting evidence is the picture, and the various quotes from non-Egyptologists. Anyone who disagrees with her experts is engaging in original research, and it is our responsibility to prove the position wrong. The statement from the AAA is of no relevance since it doesn't mention the Sphinx specifically, and using that to discredit her experts is original research.  My position is the question of the Sphinx can and should only be answered by Egytologists. The best we have is the AAA position on race which basically says "we make no comment" for XYZ reasons.  -- Stbalbach 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: relocated comments re straw poll two & the process in general 

message: Here is a draft for a new ethicity section.  Opinions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza/Draft
Altarbo 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many authors"?   Do you mean the novelist, police officer, and orthodontist?   The Sphinx originally depicted a lion; the face was just hacked into the stone later on.  Justforasecond 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that accurate? That is the first I heard that. The nose was knocked off but that's the only change I've heard of. -- Stbalbach 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting section, seems to balance both sides. -- Stbalbach 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your draft is fine for the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article (eventhough I don't know about any forensic experts (unless you call Schoch an forensic expert) who have determined the "race" of the Sphinx, and it's incorrect to claim that prognathism is "unusual in peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian", unless the goal is to write a 19th century encyclopedia), but this article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it should only link to it.  CoYep 09:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's an excellent section, Altarbo -- uses citations to describe the controversy and significance, without taking sides, and is just about the right length for addressing the issue.  — Catherine\talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A good draft.  I made a few corrections:  Great Zimbabwe was a city, as opposed to a monument (surely an inadvertent goof), some strictly copyedit stuff -- changing of the use of the passive voice, closing a split verb, etc. -- and a few additions, but it's basically good.  One concern.  Domingo doesn't classify the Sphinx as "Negro," but "Negroid."  There's a difference.  "Negroid" is a term descriptive of a set of phenotypical characteristics and is not a racial designation.  The same can be said for the term "Caucasoid," as there are some who use (IMO, ridiculously) that term to describe some black Africans and certain East Indian populations.  So, the business about "clines" and race is irrelevant.  Further, to my knowledge, Domingo is the only forensic artist who has examined the sphinx specifically, so the use of the plural there is inappropriate/inaccurate. Still, a good effort. deeceevoice 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: CoYep, you stated, "it's incorrect to claim that prognathism is "unusual in peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian", unless the goal is to write a 19th century encyclopedia), but this article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it should only link to it."How is it incorrect?  Please provide an explanation or sources.  Also, why is this not the right place to discuss the impact of the Great Sphinx's ethnicity?  Are you objecting purely to the part you quoted, or the idea in general?  If it's the former, then would you provide an explanation of what about the draft would have to be change/edited to make it good enough to be put into the article.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Deeceevoice, I would consider "Negroid" to be a racial classification.  The negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid classifications, are analagous with the Black, White, and Yellow races.  I also was under the impression, that these terms were first used in The Races of Europe, but I might be wrong about that.  I realize that it doesn't have the same conotations about mental capabilities, but I think most people would still consider them to be racial classifications.  You're right about the grammar, though.  I changed the draft section's wording, to something similar to original section.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Altarabo, no they're not. Only Craniofacially, being an Ethiopian I would be classified as a white male, while this is clearly not the case (on the other hand, using limb-proportions, I would be probably be classified as "super-negroid). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft Article

message: Most of this talk page is concerned with the "race" of the Sphinx.   I'm not sure the "race" is an important thing to describe, and most educated agree that it is a false concept, but even if that weren't the case,  the smidgens of information concerning this come from a novelist, an orthodontist's letter to the editor, a police officer, and a new-age geologist.  Seeing as this is a huge distraction based on the flimsiest of evidence,  I'd suggest that we don't include any reference to the Sphinx' "race" in this article.  (discussion longer than roughly one line per comment will be relocated)
*SUPPORT Justforasecond 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  straw poll 2 -- remove race from article 

message: The 1992 New York Times article about Domingo needs to be cited - the reference from Schoch is an unreliable secondary source - also I want to read this article to verify what it says.  -- Stbalbach 01:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cant' find it.   perhaps it should be stricken.   Justforasecond 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give it a few days. -- Stbalbach 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: His [Frank Domingo] report concludes: "After reviewing my various drawings, schematics and measurements, my final conclusion concurs with my initial reactions. The two works represent two separate individuals. The proportions in the frontal view and especially the angles and facial protrusion of the lateral views convinced me that the Sphinx is not Chephren. If the ancient Egyptians were skilled technicians and capable of duplicating images, than these two works can not represent the same individual."
That is all Domingo says. He makes no conclusions or even observations about "race" (indeed, as a professional scientist, he shouldn't). It is Schoch who leaps to the conclusion of "race" - based on what? Nothing but his own racist opinion .. as a Geologist. 
Next, the second OpEd by orthodontist Sheldon Peck makes the same leap to a "racial" conclusion. Based on what? His racist opinion .. as an orthodontist. 
Conclusion:
# Frank Domingo makes no mention of race and should not be associated with this racial stuff at all. Not only is it incorrect, it is possibly damaging to him personally to be associated with racist theories that he never says. Under the Living Person's rules of Wikipedia it needs to be striken immediately.
# Schoch and Peck are not qualified to make opinions about race of ancient peoples. Qualified experts would include Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Egyptologists. See WP:Reliable sources - I'm happy to quote relevant rules as needed. Their opnions are unreliable and need to be removed.
-- Stbalbach 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tracking down the NY Times article, Stbalbach! Good that this is finally clarified. CoYep 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Domingo / New York Times 

message: :As well, it is believed that Napoléon admired history and its great structures, so it is unlikely he would have vandalized one. 
The Napoleonic troops vandalized and stole lots of heritage (mostly churches) during the Peninsula war.
That argument is not very convincing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs) .
:Agreed, it's speculation - maybe it was Napoleons troops one drunken night, who knows. -- Stbalbach 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon 

message: The article draft page originally located at Great Sphinx of Giza/Draft has been moved to Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Rough draft.  The talk page can still be found at Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Draft. Khatru2 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: An anon wishes one of editors to be acknowledged but is doing so by placing this on the article, I'm not sure who Mike is amongst the editors here so I'll put it here until it's claimed.
		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Cheers Mike for all your hard work! 130.195.86.36 12:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike's barnstar 

message: Is there not a hypothesized library under the sphinx?
As we know, Edgar Cayce predicted the discovery of a "Hall of Records" under the right paw of the sphinx, and apparently, archaeologist Zahi Hawass discovered a set of rooms, that supposedly turned out to be empty. Someone please chime in if you know anything 75.41.58.207 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library 

message: Deeceevoice, I give you a lot of credit for persistence and clever ideas. Unfortunately this latest addition is clearly a re-frame the same old sources along new lines in order to quote the same old quotes in the article. And once again the same reasons for removing it: the sources are unreliable. Notice the qualitative difference between French Egyptologist Vassil Dobrev 20-year examination and peer-reviewed study -- and the Egyptian holiday of a New York police officer who published a letter to editor in the New York Times op/ed section 20-some years ago and who we have heard nothing since. According to the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability:
::Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims require stronger sources.
Clearly these sources are not very strong, and the claims are, in light of currently accepted wisdom, outlandish. -- 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what "outlandish" claims are you referring to, and what "currently acceptedly wisdom"?  deeceevoice 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeceevoice's return 

message: There are two articles here under different names (Sphinx & Great Sphinx of Giza) which one is the original? maybe delete it. I won't though
Their talking about the same thing though as well.Sphinx and Great Sphinx of Giza
Thanks
Cool guy45 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are about two different things. This article specifically covers the Great Sphinx of Giza. Mgiganteus1 01:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sphinx & Great Sphinx of Giza which one? 

message: The given dimensions (57m x 6m), which have been in this article since the beginning, appear to be incorrect. The 57m doesn't account for the front paws. 73m which I've seen in a couple refs looks correct. And the 6m appears to just be the width of the face. The overall width looks more like 16m to me, but I can find even fewer refs mentioning the width of anything except the face, and none saying 16m. --GregU 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions 

message: I once heard a story (i think it was on a documentary but i cant remember the name) that achaelogists used ultrasound to find that there was a square hollow space under the sphinx's paw. They said it might be a hidden chamber but the egyptian government forbade its excavation due to a legend that unsealing the chamber would begin Amaggeddon (as in the biblical one).
However I have since been unable to find any info on this. Does anyone know if a hollow space was actualy dicovered? Was this a myth? for that matter maybe i dreamed it... my memory of the story is really vague. :p Mloren 12:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schoch followup seismic study - http://www.robertschoch.com/Sphinx_Seismic_Studies.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend of a hidden chamber? 

message: :Image:Sphinx in 1925.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Sphinx in 1925.jpg 

message: Have I missed something, or is everything in the article about geology POV in that it doesn't mention any of the geological work that supports the conventional dating? It makes it look as though all the geologists who have studied it disagree with the conventional date.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology and POV 

message: I "read somewhere" that the sphinx was carved using an existing outcrop - to what extent could the weathering have occurred prior to the carving rather than supposedly afterwards - ie there were not the resources/time to polish the stone down to below the level of the weathering (or it was desired to have the "largest possible construction" rather than "fully perfect version). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be a fairly simple hypothesis to test. If the 'weathering' over most of the sphinx is fairly uniform then it must have happened after carving unless the outcrop just happened to be formed naturally into a sphinx. My thoughts are that it is fairly self evident that the weathering marks were not made prior to carving. Spuzzdawg (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.80.10 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weathering and the sphinx 

message: The final paragraph, about the carving of the head, does not really belong in the Water Erosion Debate, but rather in the Origins and Identity section. Schoch's point is valid, but all he can conclude is that the face/smaller head was carved after the main body. It does not, of itself, lend support to the water erosion argument, but is important in determining the relationship between the identity of the Sphinx (Khafra, Khufu or otherwise) and the original date of construction, namely that the construction preceded the carving of the face.
In any event, it is illogical to conclude from the smaller head alone that the Sphinx was weathered by water erosion and can therefore be palaeoclimatologically dated to before 10,000 BCE. If it was carved later than the body (as many agree), any erosion affecting the main body would be missing. Furthermore, if the traditional dating of the Sphinx (the reign of Khafra, 2520-2492 BCE) is correct, the smaller head could still have been carved centuries or millennia later, as there is no evidence one way or the other about the appearance of the Sphinx's face until the Late Period/Classical antiquity (from 664 BCE onwards). gergis (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Erosion Debate