Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/Archive 1

message: The recently-added image :Image:Pyramids of Egypt.jpg does not appear to resemble anything now standing on the Giza plateau. Unless the illustration really is of the Giza pyramids, particularly the Great Pyramid (albeit a quite liberal interpretation), I don't think it belongs on the article. -- Wapcaplet 19:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and said as much on . If no one objects by the end of the week I'm going to change the image text or delete it entirely.  I don't care if I orphan it.  If it's near and dear to someone's heart you'd better come to its rescue. — Clarknova 03:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image addition 

message: That's Khafre, not Khufu.
* So it is. And someone also removed the "right" indicator in the caption to the other image showing all three. I've fixed to clarify (kept the image, though). -- Wapcaplet 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Close-up picture

message: This article is beginning to need a neutrality overhaul. I started, but there's much left to do. For instance:
* "As has been proven by papyrus documents, each side measured in Antiquity 440 Old Royal Cubits (230.5 m)." -- Reference is needed. What papyrus documents?
::For the reference:   Look to this document (section 2.1) of the Director of the Berlin Geodesic Institute: He mentions in his article Mr. Petrie who found  this papyrus document in 1934.
:: -- Paul Martin 22:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The metrologist Livio C. Stecchini wrote: "It is agreed amount serious scholars that the side was calculated as 440 Egyptian royal cubits."
* "The grand gallery also contained some sort of mechanism for the release of a huge stone block which plugged the ascending passage." -- I don't doubt that this is true, but some evidence for and better description of such a mechanism would be useful.
* "The entire upper part of the pyramid was thus sealed after the burial of the king." -- Again, how do we know this? As far as I know, no evidence exists that a king was even buried here. We need references one way or another. There are other references throughout to "burial chamber of the king", "king's burial chamber", etc. which should probably be rendered as simply "King's chamber," given the dispute over whether a king was actually buried here.
* An oddity about the "graffiti" on the relieving stones in the King's chamber: that it is "the only evidence which proves that pharaoh Hor Medjedu Khnum Khufu had the Great Pyramid built." If this is the only evidence, then it's hardly proof of the pyramid's builder; this matter is under dispute, and maintaining neutrality requires that we try to avoid such unilateral statements.
* In the section detailing various estimates of the labor force required, the section "Nevertheless, given the subsequent absurd implications of these theories ... they fall terribly short of providing a satisfactory explanation" is in serious need of rephrasing. Whether a theory is absurd or satisfactory is rather subjective; put the notion of absurdity in context, and make note of who finds the various theories absurd or satisfactory (or, better, simply note some of the theories, are those who dispute them, and let readers make their own judgments).
* The article is arguing with itself. "Second, if huge quantities of earth were dug and moved to support the ramps instead, geological indications would undoubtedly reveal this today. (Present day studies do yield such a revelation! But the ramp size uncovered is too small. See external links below.)" This is bad. It gets even more ridiculous in the sentences that follow.
* "Some sort of ancient Steam engine is undeniably and absolutely required for a reasonable time period within which to carefully construct such a monument of this size." This is qualified in previous sentences, but it still comes across as being a statement of fact, especially with the excessive emphasis used.
* Finally, the image at the very bottom showing "RJ or RL-shaped supports" needs some kind of reference. I couldn't find anything about these supports via Google.
The total effect of the above is to make the article seem non-credible. Let's see if we can clean it up. -- Wapcaplet 20:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I suspect that anon's recent change of the latitude and longitude of the Great Pyramid is correct, or more nearly so; it gives a location near Giza, while the earlier number (where did that come from?) gave a location a good ways north of Cairo. -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
I fixed the coordinates for the Great Pyramid. I got the coordinates from the Google Earth program that was just released to the public. The old coordinates (29|97|60|N|31|13|22|E) were incorrect, and in fact not even valid latitude/longitude values.
-Josh (June 28/05)
* How come the alteration mentioned above was reverted? The new coordinates are much closer to Giza than the old ones (plus, they're actually valid lat/long coordinates). I don't know if the new coords are correct, but the (29/97/60, 31/13/22) are definitely wrong. -- Wapcaplet 29 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)
When I use Google Earth to check out the coordinates, it reveals that wikipedia's coordinates for this page and for Khafre's Pyramid both take me to the same pyramid, which is Khafre's. So I am changing the coordinates of this page from (29°58′33.11″N, 31°07′49.19″E) to (29°58′44.68″N, 31°08′02.58″E), which is where Google Earth shows this pyramid. Does anybody know what kind of error to expect from Google Earth's data? It's not exact, but it seems to be close enough for something this big. -- MiguelMunoz 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: Dear Mr Wapcaplet:
We understand your point of view.  History says one thing, but rational logic says another.  Historical revisionism always begins this way.
History is repeating itself, because this same sort of affair happened in March of 2004 at Origins of chess when we first proposed an ancient Egyptian origin to the game.  Needless to say, the proposal was blasted off the web page and moved to "Talk."  Nevertheless, we sat quietly and watched as everyone pondered it over ... and what do you know?  Have you read Origins of chess lately?  There's even a photograph of the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid of Giza at the very top of that web page now!
So, here we go again ....  :)
The following discussion is rooted in web links that I've been able to find on the Internet.
NUMBER 1:  To respond to your earnest request,
::If anyone is interested in restoring these paragraphs, please back them up with references: facts, publications, and who, especially, has made these assertions,
let's start by quoting ... Wikipedia!!! 
::Scientific method: Our earliest records of anyone (much less a scientist) adhering to this strict process comes from ancient Egypt.
::The Edwin Smith Papyrus (ca 1600 BC), an ancient textbook on surgery, describes in exquisite detail the examination (characterization), diagnosis (hypothesis), treatment (experiment), and prognosis (review) of numerous ailments (Encyclopædia Britannica). Additionally, although the Ebers papyrus (ca 1550 BC) is full of incantations and foul applications meant to turn away disease-causing demons and other superstition, in it there is also evidence of a long tradition of empirical practice and observation.
You see.  The ancient Egyptians were using the scientific method millennia before Francis Bacon even knew how to write.  And see here: Bridge: History and Cement.  We could pile one astounding advance on top another.  Take a look at the pyramids:  Millions of stone blocks ... some weighing several tons.
Ancient history proceeds in probabilities. The ancient Egyptians knew the scientific method millennia before anyone else did.  What are the implications?  Francis Bacon lived and died only a few hundred years ago.  Isaac Newton, around the same time.  English history records only a short span of time (relatively speaking) between scientific processes and mathematical advancement.
Here are some others you'd likely find interesting:
::Demographics of Egypt:  Archeological findings show that primitive tribes lived along the Nile long before the dynastic history of the pharaohs began. By 6000 B.C., organized agriculture had appeared.
::Figurine:  Read the bit on Morocco. 
NUMBER 2:  Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri
::In summary, we cannot prove that the ancient Egyptians knew calculus. We can say however that the evidence suggests so.
::In addition to these two historical texts, there is other evidence demonstrating an ancient Egyptian knowledge of basic mathematics and even surveying as early as 3000 BC.  [1]  See also Timeline of mathematics. 
::Besides describing how to obtain an approximation of \pi accurate to within less than one per cent, it also describes one of the earliest attempts at squaring the circle and in the process provides persuasive evidence against the theory that the Egyptians deliberately built their pyramids to enshrine the value of \pi in the proportions. Even though it would be a strong overstatement to suggest that the papyrus represents even rudimentary attempts at analytical geometry, Ahmes did make use of a kind of an analogue of the cotangent. Furthermore, quoting Mathpages.com,
::::... the 2/n table of the Rhind Papyrus, which dates from more than a thousand years before Pythagoras, seems to show an awareness of prime and composite numbers, a crude version of the 'Sieve of Eratosthenes,' a knowledge of the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic means, and of the 'perfectness' of the number 6.  This all seems to suggest a greater number-theoretic sophistication than is generally credited to the ancient Egyptians. (The Rhind Papyrus 2/N Table) 
NUMBER 3:  Population Size  
::Many varied estimates have been made regarding the labor force needed to construct the Great Pyramid. Herodotus, the Greek historian in the 5th century BC, estimated that construction may have required the labor of 100,000 slaves for 30 years. Polish architect Wieslaw Kozinski believed that it took as many as 25 men to transport a 1.5-ton stone block; based on this, he estimated the workforce to be 300,000 men on the construction site, with an additional 60,000 off-site.
The key number here is 300,000, because it has been argued that the ancient Egyptians could have supplemented their work force with slaves.  Here are a couple references you'd likely be interested in:
::Timeline 3300 to 1300 BCE:  ca 2800BCE - Khufu commanded the building of the Great Pyramid. It took an estimated 100,000 people 30 years to construct. (WH, 1994, p.12)(K.I.-365D, p.122)(HT, 5/97, p.26)
::Encyclopædia Britannica:  ...three 4th-dynasty (c. 2575–c. 2465 BC) pyramids erected on a rocky plateau on the west bank of the Nile River near Al-Jizah (Giza), northern Egypt; in ancient times they were included among the Seven Wonders of the World. The ancient ruins of the Memphis area, including the Pyramids of Giza....
::Encyclopædia Britannica:  Capital of ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (c. 2575–c. 2130 BC) ... [Memphis'] ruins include the great temple of Ptah, royal palaces, and an extensive necropolis. Nearby are the pyramids of Saqqara and those at Giza.
:: Encyclopaedia of the Orient:  The main urban places of Egypt through the main part of the history of Ancient Egypt, were Memphis and Thebes.
To pause before continuing, 
*100,000 is too small a number.  Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC, didn't know what he was talking about.  Kozinski calculated a better number, but his number is too big, as evidenced by Professor Modelski's paper.
*As Encyclopædia Britannica points out, the Pyramids of Giza are included in a consideration of "the Memphis area," and I believe you will find Memphis clearly noted in several places within Professor George Modelski's paper.
*Even if you don't consider Memphis' proximity to the Great Pyramid of Giza significant, you must yield to its prominent status in ancient Egyptian history as capital and main urban place.
Nevertheless, as pointed out, population size is NOT the most serious fundamental problem.  This is an important point, as said before Ancient history proceeds in probabilities.  We may spend an entire day arguing both sides, but if we recognize what is most likely true, we may then proceed with a reasonable assumption, just to see where it leads.  If it leads nowhere (i.e., a contradiction) we immediately drop it and pick up the opposing argument to see where it might lead us.  And so forth. 
NUMBER 4:  Suez Canal 
::Around the 13th century BC, the Suez Canal was dug between the Nile River and the Red Sea.
Why?  Why would the ancient Egyptians dig a canal for ships to pass in the 13th century BC?  But wait ... there is more ... (posted at Silk Road: Origins, bottom paragraph)
::A maritime "Silk Route" opened up between Chinese-controlled Jiaozhi (centred in modern Vietnam, near Hanoi) probably by the first century CE. It extended all the way to Roman-controlled ports in Egypt and the Nabataean territories on the northeastern coast of the Red Sea. However, it is unclear whether this route circumnavigated the African continent (unlikely) or made passage through a temporarily maintained Suez Canal (more likely). The Hou Hanshu records that the first Roman envoy arrived in China by this maritime route in 166 CE.
How long would it take to paddle (against the wind, against the currents, but sometimes with the wind) from Rome to Vietnam?  Or do you think they had something more than just muscle-power on board?  My muscles get sore just thinking about it.
See also Bridge: History, Cement, and Origins of chess to think about.  Some of this is also posted at Roman Empire. 
You'd likely find Latin alphabet: Evolution interesting as well. 
Do you believe Wikipedia is a reliable encyclopedia?  Must we really provide you with more???
:This is a bit off-topic for this talk page, but: one does not need to postulate ancient steam engines to explain the trade between Rome and China. Navigation and shipbuilding being what they were in that era, the trade necessarily went in stages: from China to Southeast Asia, from Southeast Asia to the eastern coast of India and Sri Lanka; from there to the west coast of India, whence it was traded, through the Red Sea ports, to Rome. —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The general formula for a frustum was evidently known to the Egyptians.... Speculate on how the Egyptians could have known the formula for a frustum, given that its derivation depends on the methods of modern calculus.
*Allen, G. Donald, Professor, Director of Technology Assisted Instruction, Associate Head for Undergraduate Studies. Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, U.S.  April 2001. The Moscow Papyrus.
If by "modern calculus" Mr. Donald is referring to calculus as we know it (via Newton and Leibniz), then modern calculus is by no means necessary for deriving a generalized formula for the volume of a pyramid. Archmimedes did it using the method of exhaustion, and Liu Hui did it in the third century A.D. At any rate, I don't dispute that the Great Pyramid builders may have known a form of calculus, but I don't see how this reference (the speculative opinion of one professor) offers much by way of supporting the text that was removed from this article. -- Wapcaplet 02:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushing to Defend an Erroneous Deletion 

message: I have reverted some anon edits making what appeared to be wildly specultaive claims about the date of construction for the pyramid.  Does anyone know if these claims are legitimate, referenced scientific viewpoints, or are they crackpottery? --Scimitar parley 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've left some comments on the talk pages of people who regularly contribute to the article, to get some more perspective.  I worry mostly about concerns about the article's credibility if it lists these sources as references.  Surely, if the scientific theory has that many flaws, there's a less controversial work advocating an alternative? --Scimitar parley 16:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Authority is a problem. A side problem with that is that anything that challenges a long-time accepted theory is viewed as less authoritative or just provocative. New theories are often perceived badly. If you read Ellis' books there is nothing outlandish or alien in them, just alternative. Additionally, although it could probably be better constructed as an article, a discussion of different opinions is important since the truth is neither agreed on or really known. Maybe it just needs to be more cohesive.--Genesis 09:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
8/27/05 NPOV is one thing, but blatant pseudoscience is another. Giving equal mention to ancient astronaut "theories" and so forth in the name of "being fair" does a huge disservice to not only the reader who might come here looking for serious information, but also to Wikipedia itself, whose reputation is tarnished. The article needs to be cleaned up and then frozen so no more cranks and crackpots can edit it. My last edit told the reader to leave the site and visit external (mainstream archaeological) links in the second paragraph-- a violation of article formatting & usual layout that I freely admit should've been edited away on those bases, but better that than the reader be misinformed. User:Jerryb1961
What a joke! who mentioned ancient astronauts, or anything else outlandish. DO you know how long it would have taken the pyramid to have been built using the 'accepted version' of events? longer than the pharoah who supposedly commissioned it would have been pharaoh! The accepted version is incorrect. Anything that encourages people to question and re-examine the evidence is a benefit to this article. Mention of alternative theories does not detract from this article, but adds more depth to it. As more people use this site as a starting platform for their own investigations, supplying a range of theories is increasingly valuable. That you, Jerry, or others haven't bothered to spend the time looking at the FACTUAL evidence (which the accepted theories casually overlook) doesn't mean this article should. I could argue the point at far more depth, if you wish, but seeing the word 'Atlantis' (something written by a greek philosopher, if i recall) doesn't mean it contains only insubstantial or unrealistic theories. On the contrary, in this instance, in fact.--Genesis 13:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
*Agreed. Having read some very intriguing articles alone questioning the origins of the pyramids, it'd be nice if this article discussed these debates, radical or not, and provided some references to support the arguments. The current version pretty much states that it was made during the Third Millennium BC without giving any mention to other theories, disproved or not. Moogle001 04:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Construction 

message: Currently the construction / labour sections outweigh the 'facts' section by a long way.  There is also a section on construction in the Egyptian pyramids article - anyone got any thoughts on merge these 2 articles, and allowing this article to 'run-free' as it were? Obviously different construction techniques were used, but a single article for this could highlight these changes Markh 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  the construction of the pyramid is fundamental to the core article, much as the origin of the stones from Stonehenge are fundamental to understanding of it. Maybe they could be trimmed and the bulk moved, but reasonable and balanced (i.e. both or the range opinions) statements should be made, because they are core evidence to support (or undermine) the purported ages given for its construction (bearing in mind cost and labour, and technological requirements). The essence of construction also gives weight to other ideas, including those about why it was built, since more effort is put into building religious buildings than any tomb (maybe with the single exception of the Taj Mahal - and that for the 'owners' wife not himself). --Genesis 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean that these ideas are your own, then unfortunately no, this is not the place. Pls see WP:NOR, wikipedia is not intended for original research and theories which emanate from general members of the public such as we, however intriguing they may be. If however you have research materials on this written by some source which could be accepted as being a notable one, that's a different matter.--cjllw | TALK 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramid construction as an article on its own ? 

message: "According to the theory of materials scientist Joseph Davidovits, the blocks that form the pyramid are not strictly carved stone, but mostly a form of limestone concrete (not moved, but) 'cast', as with modern cement blocks, except -- because of the blocks huge 2.5-15+ tons size -- each in situ."
What is it? It cannot be two things at the same time. Concrete would explain many problems.
: This is has little sense.. Most of the blocks are low quality and plain limestone rock, some of the even have fosils... the blocks show clearly the marks of tools and were taken from a nearby quarry, where still can be seen block half cutted, showing the metod of work. Most of the blocks of the core are crudelly made, with gaps of several inches. The gaps are filled with a mixture of gipsum and rubble. And blocks of 2.5 are not huge. Egyptians (and romans) had technology to move blocks up to 900 tones, that was huge. The bigest blocks in the piramyd are 80 tones, but most of them are about 2.5 tones. The biggest are at the base and the smallers are at the top. Nanahuatzin 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carved Stone or Concrete? 

message: The quick facts section merely repeats information found elsewhere in the article, adds random factoids, and all in a sensationalistic fashion. Would anybody mind if I just deleted the whole bit? Or would somebody like to rewrite it with references? jet57 (u∴t) 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nice to see you didn't bother to discuss it with anyone else or for more than two days... i think that is pretty poor behaviour, unless of course you own all rights on revising the article. Do you? --Genesis 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the Quick Facts section 

message: Dear 70.162.188.62, thanks for your edits to this article, but I've had to revert them. Wikipedia is not original research so we must defer to other sources, and we have little choice but to choose the mainstream sources. If you wish to write more about alternative theories regarding pyramid construction, perhaps you'd like to start an article, e.g. Alternative theories regarding the Great Pyramid of Giza, although that's a horrid name and any suggestions for a (heh) alternative, would be welcome. 
: done. --Genesis 12:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what a great shame, that mistakes and misinterpretations must override more recent research, just because some people don't like some authors or their ideas. No matter than the ideas don't necessarily belong to that blackmarked author, but were only reinforced by his subsequent work. The edits were not, alas, original research as indicated, but part of a growing body of more 'eyes open' research on the issues, examining not just of the age of the buldings and the identity of their builders (where some concrete questions are asked which terminally undermine the standard and now once again given 'truths') but also the way in which they were built, based on actual archeology rather than perceived but eroneous 'wisdom'. Deletion even of mention of the existence of alternative and well based views, amounts to an undermining of the validity of the article, and thus the entire website. Where substantially incorrect statements are offered as fact, how can the article at all be considered in any way valid? --Genesis 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoarchaeology 

message: I replaced a line calling the evidence for the mainstream theories "flimsy". 
I also removed a line claiming that new theories are automatically branded pseudoscience (or something to that effect). Can the original author of that line back it up?Mystman666 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, indeed I can back it up with the evidence of this very talk page. I have attempted to raise the reasonable questions about the alternative theories, and let there be at least acknowledgement of their existence and how they rival and compete (in some areas very strongly) with the 'accepted' line, and have heard and seen them deleted and branded pseudoscience 4 times myself. Now, again, you have deleted it. How about editors examine the evidence rather than quick-clicking delete every time?! or is the principle shoot first, second, third and then if they're still alive, ask them some questions? The evidence for the branding of the pyramid as having been built under Khufu is flimsy at best. It would not even make it to trial in a court of law. Should this be overlooked just to maintain the equalibrium or is it possible to question, with evidence, these eroneous statements. I have accepted the main page is not the place to discuss them in detail; however, mention of them here is at least necessary and adds to the validity of the page through accepting the existence of weaknesses in the current assertions. --Genesis 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed, it does contradict NPOV. My bad. However, i would suggest that stating much as fact about this pyramid, at least regarding who, when and how it was build, would also be little more than opinion that covers a range of quality from 'educated' through 'not-so educated' to 'based on nothing at all except wild conjecture', and thus is also pretty much outside the NPOV, even if it IS the common point of view. Many scientific 'facts' are later discredited, and this is just another going through the process and resisting it hard. All i would like to see is a balance of opinion. If one set of 'soft facts' are asserted, the alternative should also be stated for comparison. If that isn't the purpose of this article, then all such soft facts should be removed, but that would pretty much degrade the entire article... maybe i should just take a long walk of a short cliff. --Genesis 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific facts are not discredited. Science does not work that way. Facts does not change, they can be corrected or made more precise. Theories can be challenged , but only with facts.  The peer review system may be called "stablishment" by it,s detractors, but so far is the best system we have. So far, most of the compelling alternative theories, just can´t stand a critical review. I agre they shoudl be mentioned, since they form the modern floklore around the pyramids, but they should be also criticised.Nanahuatzin 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and that's the rub; I have slightly tweaked the relevant statements in the opening of the article to clear up some of the bedding of assertions from around facts. I will now attempt to do so to the 'alternative' page. --Genesis 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  how do you prove the negative? When logic is the only defence, but is very clear and strong, is that 'fact' enough to counter circumstantial evidence? say someone shows you a picture of me performing yogic levitation a few inches off the ground. Do you believe it? or do you contend that reasonable logic would argue that the evidence is not as it seems? There is a widespread misunderstanding of the principle of NPOV. Neutral implies not siding with one or the other, but considering both sides on their merits. it doesn't mean standing with the mainstream view only.--Genesis 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, the answer to this question is: you delete the offending issue, and pretend it isn't there (see deleted 'alternative theories' article. The world is flat, remember! Don't let more recent evidence to the contrary be allowed to stand - it might make you seem less knowledgeable. Pathetic --Genesis 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, part III 

message: * Where is the evidence that wind-power was used ? Markh 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind-power ? 

message: According to Cambridge University egyptolgist Kate Spencer computer backtracing the position of two stars in the Big Bear constellation reveals the great pyramid's north direction was surveyed in 2478BC, add or take 5 years. I think her article was printed in The Nature. 195.70.32.136 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age incorrect? 

message: Some guy wrote this on the top:
I have written a paper outlining a practical, non-cranky way in which the Great Pyramid could have been built. Is this the correct forum for my ideas?
I don't think this is the appropriate forum, but you could always put up some links under this heading if you want to. --cslarsen 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insert your own pyramid theories here 

message: In the article, there is a reference to a bigger structure (in either volume or mass, I guess) that is currently being uncovered in Bosnia.
Does anyone have any more information about this? --cslarsen 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, found some by googling... See e.g. http://www.bosnianpyramids.org/ for info.  Fascinating. --cslarsen 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OT: Structure being uncovered in Bosnia 

message: (please eares it if you find irrelevant...)
- Just for the record (since it was mentioned here)... There is no myth in nahuatl of maya tradition that speaks of "white bearded men coming form the east" and there is no surviving myths from the Olmec to sustain any posible claim. Somehow, writters have meesed up the myth of Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, priest of Quetzalcaotl and ruler of Tollan Xicotitlan, born in 947 DC. According to legend, he tought his face was so hideous, that he decided to let his beard grow to hide it, Later he replaced it with a mask (froma desctiption in a Mixtec codex it has been sugested he had a tumor in his face). AND acording to nahua legends, he did not come from the east.. he WENT to the east
- In mesoamerican tradition, we live in the 5 creation, the other creations were destroyed by floods, eartquakes, fire, wind, so you can pick your choice and find it similarities with any other legend... Nanahuatzin 07:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OT 

message: I replaced this:
   "and even in the evening under moonlight they were visible from mountains in the south of Egypt as far away as 200 miles (300 km)"
because it is highly dubious (quite apart from the fact that 200 miles doesn't even get to the middle of Egypt let alone the south).  Due to the curvature of the earth, to see the tip of the pyramid from 200 miles would need a mountain of about 20,000ft but there isn't one of that height in Egypt.  The only possibility for making this claim true would be a mirage but I don't think mirages happen "in the evening under moonlight".  Anyway, this claim needs a citation to a source that explains how it is possible (not just to a source recalling the story).  13:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visibility from a distance 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 20:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic peerreview 

message: Would I be correct in assuming that the succession box referene to the pyramid being a fully habitable building, is purely a term of art? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully Habitable? 

message: The opening of the section "Historical Context" reads as follows: Believed by mainstream Egyptologists to have been constructed in approximately 20 years and 20 days... Does it strike anyone else as odd, that we have this degree of precision of the time taken to construct a building, when the constuction methods used, and the size and skill of the workforce employed, and the actual structure of the building, are all either quite unknown or known only with great uncertainty, and which therefore must be guessed at. In other words, "20 years" might well be acceptable as an estimate, but the addition of the "20 days" can not be taken seriously. Who put that in there, I wonder. I am taking it out. Hi There 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Historical Context" - Bizarre Estimate of Time Required For Construction

message: I ran across this article . Should this theory at least be mentioned in the article somewhere? --NoahElhardt 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found another article claiming the stones of the pyramids have been casted. The article claims an early form of concrete is used — limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth (maybe there's an article on this type of cement among these (:Category:Cement)? The construction technique is mentioned here: Egyptian pyramid construction techniques#Limestone concrete theory --Brz7 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for casting of stones rather than quarrying 

message: Why is the slope of 51 degrees close to the ideal for a stable pyramidal structure?  What is the ideal slope? Kenta2 06:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slope 

message: The hook rigged exactly as depicted (6/1/07) seems unlikely to work safely.  Straining the rope would tend to unhook it from the hole.  If the hook design is well-established and without a shaft in the direction of the arrow (the holes are well-known), there must have been some other kind of rigging, maybe also involving a bridle and/or a plank. 86.129.161.204 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJ hook feasibility? 

message: I printed out this article and noticed that the casing stones were described in two different places. It threw me for a loop because the first time they were mentioned, it was a bit more specific. Am I the only one that noticed that? <FONT FACE="Calibri">Laurenwhisper</FONT> 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casing stones 

message: "Egyptologist Miroslav Verner posited that the labor was organized into a hierarchy, consisting of two gangs of 100,000 men, divided into five zaa or phyle of 200 men each, which may have been further divided according to the skills of the workers"
Either these numbers are incorrect, or someone has worded this sentence very poorly. --Wafulz 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding two zeros to the number 200 gives us 20,000, and then the math works out. Although I do not know if this is exactly what was meant. (I have assumed that what is meant is "two gangs of 100,000 men EACH, and not "two gangs of 100,000 men TOTAL.) Hi There 05:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing numbers

message: The units used in this article are a touch confusing, such as a lenght given as 5ft 16inchs, unless a typo has crept in, wouldn't this usually be expressed as 6ft 4in?
Also there's a figure given as 0.523/4m. What does this mean?
And the angle of 51.50.40 should be 51 degrees, 50 minutes 40 seconds (51°50'40), or expressed as decimal.
84.64.194.247 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: The references need work - some of them are simple external hyperlinks with no further info.Burns flipper 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I added the Citecheck tag.  In general it looks like the sources could use a going over with WP:SOURCE in mind, and ones not meeting the criteria either be removed or moved to External links as appropriate. --Ronz 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There seems to be a message that says "Caboose was here bitch" next to "See also" at the bottom of the article that should be removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.115.220.74 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caboose 

message: When adding content to this page, please provide citations - especially if you are changing the facts. Markh 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a protection request for this article, due to the high amount of vandalism. Markh 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page was vandalised straight after the end of the page protection, so I may ask for  it protection again. Please don't edit this page without discussing it. Markh 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have asked for semi-protection AGAIN. Please stop reverting the changes and pushing WP:FRINGE theories Markh 19:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I was suprised to see Cayce's speculations included in the main article's "Dating evidence" section rather than exclusively under "alternative theories", especially since the paragraph states that dating techniques (the actual evidence) do not support these. I recommend that this paragraph (beginning "The Edgar Cayce Foundation") be moved into the alternative theories section. Hgilbert 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it,  mainly because the Cayce foundation funded the C14 study. I think the reason to make this study should be included in the paragraph. Specailly since the results of the study, did not suport the claims of the foundation. Nanahuatzin (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cayce 

message: The picture of the engraving by the 16th century artist is overlapping the text above it, at least on the latest Firefox browser.  Perhaps someone with the key to the lock could fix this. Pete Jacobsen 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting problem with engraving picture 

message: I have fully protected this page. You guys will need to bring your differences to the talk page and work it out among yourselves. JodyB talk 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have not doubt that as soon as protection is lifted this editor will be back in one guise or another as they have been doing for some time now.--Alf melmac 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you revert the article back to the generally accepted facts, and not the WP:FRINGE theory that is being pushed please. Markh 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rule no 75 isn't it - always protect an article in the wrong version ;) I have attempted to communicate with the editor in question more than enough times. Most of his ten socks working today had a long paragraph from me, all to no avail, not one single edit on this here talk and plenty plenty reverts, hence I have no problem in going way over 3rr here against ten sock creations for the specific purpose of keeping that one revision, despite decent work on it today by another (regular) editor.--Alf melmac 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers. Markh 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: It strikes me that this article could benefit from even a simple diagram of the interior tunnels and chambers. I'd make one myself, but others could probably do a much better job. Mycroft7 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Let me know any suggestions for improving the diagram. Jeff Dahl 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior diagram 

message: We now have a seven wonders template at the bottom of the page instead of the infobox. Jeff Dahl 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seven wonders template 

message: The casing stones of the Great Pyramid and Khafre's Pyramid (constructed directly beside it) were cut to such optical precision as to be off true plane over their entire surface area by only 0.5 mm. They were fitted together so perfectly that the tip of a knife cannot be inserted between the joints even to this day.
The passages inside the pyramid are all extremely straight and precise, such that the longest of them, referred to as the descending passage, which is 107 m long, deviates from being truly straight by less than 6 mm, while one of the shorter passages with a length of just over 15 m deviates from being truly straight by a mere 0.5 mm. 
The frequency modulation calculates into a amplidtude modultion which gradually forms into a racoon. the co-enteering angles are usually used for a highly recoomended 
                                 Written by: Piran Nanthakumar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.115.138 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: Did you know the pyramid symbolize the third eye- pineal gland?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Jackson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Pyrimad 

message: Did you know the pyramid is the exac geametry of the piece of paper now stick out under my kb? Surely this cant be a coencidence  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grat Piramuid