Talk:Egyptian pyramids

message: Since wikipedia (or certain apparently unrestrained or uncorrected powerful human editors) lately seems to be suspiciously tearing apart any explanations deemed (by suspicious choice) "unproven", and as soon as they find one single published dissenter it becomes "disproven", how about applying that logic here? Since not one mummy - not ONE - appears in a pyramid, does that not belie the encyclopedic declaration in paragraph one, "Most were built as tombs for the country's pharaohs and their consorts" ? The sourcing as shown is simply miniscule. It's absurdly weak for an encyclopedic declaration and certainly does not form scientific proof.
I propose that, consistent with the recent trend of wikipedia to bandy about the term "conspiracy theory" and such dismissals when powerful editors' sensibilities are offended by opposing [non-"mainstream"] viewpoints, that the first paragraph be modified to state that "there is a conspiracy theory that the pyramids were built as tombs for the country's pharaohs and their consorts." There are likely sources aplenty. Conversely, in order to keep the page as is, unchanged, I suppose the feat will be to discredit factual reports that deny the existence of any mummies in pyramids, yet to definitively cite any that speculate that they *were* built as tombs. Does that sound like a plan?
Evidently the only prominent source that pyramids are tombs - according to Google - is _wikipedia_ !
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+pyramids+tombs
Wait - National Geographic comes up, and they unblinkingly say "tomb" - simply based on what are theorized to be afterlife-preparation items unearthed from pyramid chambers. But, even though "tomb" is obviously unproven, NG says it. They say "tombs." So now wikipedia can say it, right? After all, National Geographic is an indisputable authority, right? /Sarcasm mode off (not that it's unfounded sarcasm).
Commenting more broadly, and very seriously, wikipedia needs to have the simple honesty to, when appropriate, say "some believe this yet many believe that" instead of bullying across a chosen point of view. It's getting out of hand. After many years where I defended wikipedia as indeed being factual and reliable (and I still do, heavily), despite mockery from the public at large (and they still mock it to a disturbing degree, and for the wrong reasons, not the one raised here), trends of late have me questioning the integrity and credibility of wikipedia. I think some serious soul searching is in order. After the incalculable amount of hard work and persistence in building this wonderful monumental structure, and with some strong success surmounting an overwhelming amount of public skepticism, fervent (and I'll call them bullying) editors may be ----ing it all away. I hope you give this appropriate thought.2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:81F2:AA55:EE6A:C005 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This page isn't on my watchlist, so I've missed the above rant. I'm more or less unaware of whatever conspiracy theory has it that pyramids are not tombs. Apparently Ben Carson thinks they are grain silos (why you'd store grain in a giant limestone construction is beyond me). I've more or less been working in my quiet corner of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty pyramids, but I claim no expertise.  Briefly,  is false. From memory, intact mummies have been found in the Pyramid of Djedkare Isesi, Pyramid of Neferefre, and Pyramid of Merenre (provenance for this mummy debated). Fragments of mummies have been found in the Pyramid of Unas, Pyramid of Pepi I, and Pyramid of Ankhesenpepi II. You can see which expert is cited to the claim in each article. I did the necessary research for all bar two of these articles (Neferefre – only partly me – and Merenre I). Mummies are often not found in these ancient pyramids because they have been plundered and, occasionally, destroyed.  Consider, briefly, the case of the Abusir pyramids, which have been so badly been damaged that the last people to ever enter them, Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi, refused to speak whilst inside out of a fear that the vibration of their vocal chords could trigger a collapse. Nothing of any consequence was found in the Pyramid of Neferirkare, for example. Ludwig Borchardt was only able to guess at the layout of the substructure of the Pyramid of Nyuserre, because the walls had been so thoroughly plundered of stone.  Now consider the Pyramid Text pyramids (Unas through Qakare Iby), particularly Pyramid of Unas and Pyramid of Pepi I. These contained thousands of lines of spells that protected the king's mummy, that urged his ba to awaken, that guided the king through the transformation into an akh, that united him with the pantheon of gods, etc, etc. What other purpose could such texts possibly serve? And what purpose would they have in a grain silo, of all places? Read the relevant literature: the Český egyptologický ústav (Czech Institute of Egyptology) is the leading authority on the Abusir pyramids, and Djedkare Isesi's pyramid in South Saqqara; the Mission archéologique franco-suisse de Saqqâra is the leading authority on the Saqqara pyramids, particularly Unas, Teti, Pepi I, and Merenre. Alternatively, just read the articles I've linked as I've done all the hard work for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would side with the original request and avoid calling ALL pyramids tombs. The pyramidal shape could very well have been nothing more than the preferred architecture of either the government or the wealthy. There have been pyramids that seem to be tombs AND pyramids that seem NOT to be tombs. Key argument - not all dwellings of a particular architecture need to be of a single purpose. Salt was a commodity worth its weight (or more) in gold AND was a preservative - so one might argue that the pyramids that are NOT tombs might be related to storage rooms for salt (valuable trade commodity) or for salt farming (evaporating salty water/brine). Majority of evidence (very first paragraph mentions salt deposits) even points to some pyramids being used to evaporate salt, especially The Great Pyramid of Giza - which also was found to have eroded copper handles on the Queens Chamber (salt). There is more evidence for salt extraction than for tombs in my opinion. Lexlieberman (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has science disproven that pyramids were built to be tombs? 

message: Could this be worded better? It sounds tautological. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Egyptian pyramids are ancient pyramid-shaped masonry structures located in Egypt." 

message: Diagram of the interior structures of the Great Pyramid. The inner line indicates the pyramid's present profile, the outer line indicates the original profile - I can see no inner or outer lines in this diagram as stated?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:215:C500:0:D2CA:4AE1:57B3 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the lines are very faint. The outer line is seemingly a pixel thick, light grey, and dashed. It's near invisible. I am unable to attend to improving the image at this time though. For any other passer-by the image referred to is this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I added a name section to talk about what pyramids were acutally called in egyptian.  I can tell this gonna be one of those edit war type article, go easy my young dudesGurdjieff (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be edit wars over how the pyramids were built, but, so far, not what they were called. I do see that you provided no source with your recent edits. That might cause objections to be raised. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Name section

message: You should add some facts about the New, Old and Middle kingdoms 146.113.241.203 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021 

message: The first reference I remember reading about the Egyptian word for "pyramid" was in an encyclopedia printed in 1990, which said it was "mer". Now I understand that the "e" is an egyptological convention. A more recent reference was in a web site from the early 2000s, which reported it as "m.r", stating that any vowel in the word was unknown. This Wikipedia page is the first text where I read it as "myr". Where does the Y come from? How is it supposed to be pronounced? Devil Master Resurrection (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does the Y in "myr" come from?