|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Necessary improvements?
- 2 Question
- 3 Comment
- 4 Removal of "Orion Theory" section
- 5 OCT
- 6 Talk:Giza pyramid complex/10450 BC
- 7 Longitude positioning
- 8 Orion correlation
- 9 Vandalism
- 10 Speculation about an unopened door
- 11 Undue weight/rampant speculation
- 12 Height of pyramids?
- 13 Compass orientation
- 14 Orion again....
- 15 pyramids of giza
- 16 Astronomy
- 17 Name changed from Giza pyramid complex'
- 18 Took out merge tag
- 19 Scope of article
- 20 Location
- 21 Rewrite
- 22 Age of the Pyramids
- 23 History of the site
- 24 Double Project section
I was hoping to hear some fucking feedback regarding what the Wikipedia community thoughts are regarding improvements to this article. If anyone could share their thoughts on how to help this article reach "Featured" status it would be greatly appreciated. Specifically regarding how well the article itself is written, the need for more informations and the inclusion of citations where needed. Thanks.
Does anyone feel that this article could contain much more information regarding the purpose for the construction of the pyramids and the other numerous monuments in Giza. It seems that for such a highly explored and fascinating region, the article is lacking quite a bit as far as information goes. Any other thoughts regarding the presence of run-on sentences and lack of citations provided in the "Construction" section?
The entire Giza Plateau actually extends over 25 kms and includes many other ancient structures and sites.And it has people!
Problems with longitude & latitude of Kheops et Chephren pyramids. The coordinates of the Kheops are interchanged with those of Chephren. Besides small approximation error exist in the computation of the longitude & latitude of the pyramids.
Removal of "Orion Theory" section
While I wholeheartedly agree that the speculations of Bauval, Gilbert, West, Hancock et al re some purported correlation between the Giza pyramids and Orion as (as it appeared c 12000 yrs ago) are without merit anpoopd are (deservedly) dismissed by scholarship, I am not so sure that simply removing all mention of these speculations is justifiable. FWIW these ideas are widely publicised, and have sold enough books, to be notable, even if regarded as mistaken and unsupported by mainstream scientific enquiry. We already mention this theory (properly called the "Orion Correlation Theory" or OCT by its adherents, I understand) in articles such as Great Pyramid of Giza and Great Sphinx of Giza. In fact, if it's to be mentioned at all it would make more sense to do so at this present article Giza pyramid complex, than the articles on the complex's individual components. As long as the passage presents their ideas fairly, accurately but without endorsement or claiming they are accepted, and with references, I don't see an issue with at least mentioning these alternate ideas. They can and should of course be accompanied by cited refutations of the ideas, for balance and perspective. The passage which was removed was actually reasonably neutral, as far as these things go.--cjllw | TALK 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That should do for now, but if I (or anyone else) get the time or feel inspired, there's some rewriting and referencing to be done. The mention of the OCT at Great Sphinx of Giza has some of the citations (and refutations), perhaps an abridged version of it can be transposed here. There's no need to get too carried away, a few paras should suffice- the theory's detail can be more fully discussed in its authors' articles, or perhaps an Orion Correlation Theory article could be started to hold the particulars, rather than cluttering up the articles on the monuments themselves. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm adding my comment above those of Ian Chattan for reasons obvious if you read his first two-three sentences.
- Without any prior knowledge in this area the Orion Theory seems to be one among a whole bunch of more or less odd theories surrounding the pyramids. Is it common enough that it needs mentioning here while the others do not? Is it notably less "fringe"? (Granted, there are no aliens in this theory, so I guess it's more serious than some others.) Swooch (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It is well known that the layout of the Pyramids *reflects* the constellation Orion.
But because of the Mars collision which formed the cretaceous period and provided fossil fuels it is not known if the pre collision alignment is the same as the post collision alignment.
On the matter of dividing the Earth's landmass, this was probably pre-collision, pre-deluge, and before there was any great degree of continental drift.
Hope this is the right way to add this...
The Canopus Revelation and http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_2.htm
Ian Chattan 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Australia is thought to *possibly* be a large bit of Mars' mantel lying upside down upon the Earth where the surrounding Island chains have been pushed up out of the sea floor.
There might be a clue with reference to Marsupials or Mars up ials. Similarly it could refer to Mars soup as with Duck soup meaning we all end up with nothing (a duck being a cricket score of zero, being bowled out first ball. The red cricket ball representing the Sun.) and have to 'duck' when Mars nearly collides with us a *second* time (second coming) as it might have done last October.
Egyptology: The duck symbol is said to represent 'the truth'. Hnece the French newspaper 'Le Canard Enchaînée.', literally 'The truth in chains.' (Canard being the French word for duck.)
Mars as a 'brother' to the Earth.
Although not part of Egyptology as such it may help to compare the sizes of the Sun to the other planets. It may look small but is in fact very much larger than all of them.
Ian Chattan 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- er..."Mars up ials"? No offense, but if you are not actually attempting some sort of joke here (and elsewhere, I see), then this kind of material is not for wikipedia. There's a policy, No Original Research which (for good reason) precludes against such um, 'original' material. If however it is intended as japery, be aware there's also a policy which frowns upon adding nonsense to articles & associated pages.--cjllw | TALK 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No joke intended as I take ALL of these matters VERY seriously.
However you should bear in mind the lyrics 'Don't you know the Joker laughs at you?' as there is always some truth in all that is written. 'As it is written so shall it come to pass.'
I would say that the OCT is wrong as the entire Giza plateau development MUST predate the original physical collision with Mars, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Also there is no way of knowing if the planet (Earth) is revolving in the same manner as it did before the collision.
The ancient name for Mars was Nibiru which may assist you in finding out more about it.
The account is not as clear as that of Egypt but the similarities are striking. Anunnaki being those created from the Sea of the Nun, as with Egyptian creation, and probably being naked.
The 'relatively' close passing of Mars last October may well have pulled the Earth's orbit out into more of an ellipse which may explain the unseasonal weather and could also explain the tsunami and other tidal waves as the Earth's mantle is reatively soft and can be deformed by close encounters with other planetary bodies as there is a gravitational attraction effect between the two. Mars has no seas now but the Earth does and these seas are subject to height changes due to gravity as Moon and Solar tides already demonstrate. (See also: Geodesic height when looking at mean sea levels.)
This is the collision which is responsible for destroying Egypt, the Sudan, Middle East and producing the planet as we know it today. It is also responsible for the cretaceous period, fossil fuels, the appearance of dinosaurs on the Earth from eyewitness accounts in ancient scripture of 'dragons' 'flying' (falling) through the air the 'legend' of Godzilla and other 'dragons' all of which formed part of created life on Mars. Hence 'See how the mighty are fallen.' having - literally - fallen off another planet.
This desertification is reflected in the Bible passage 'Oh Father why hast thou deserted us?' The word 'deserted' also having a dual meaning.
This also produced the 'deluge' after which there was precious little, if anything, left which led to the coining of 'no' prefixes such as no-ah, no-el, no-thing.
The - *geological* - evidence is all around you and plain for all to see.
In this heaven and hell scenario there is both god and satan (gas) so Ghiza is sometimes referred to as a gas giza. (Gas geezer or gas fuelled water heater.)
Remember that is is a Necropolis and that the word Necropolis refers to Necromancy.
Ian Chattan 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Next time just type: "I'm fucking demented." That'll do fine.
Having said that the OCT might be 'wrong' on reflection it might well be the last time that this correlation took place where there have been previous correlations.
Certainly as the Giza plateau must pre-date the cretaceous period then there must have been prior correlations.
My apologies to Bauval and Hancock whose work I admire and agree with even though the date is unsure as far as I know.
This might interest you: http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/records/index.htm
However this is not quite a lost civilisation as the factors which it shows are the same as are current now.
Certainly it represents paradise lost and love's labour lost especially as we are moving into the Age of Aquarius. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes, water to water.
Ian Chattan 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to be a full quote taken from somewhere. I don't think it's got anything more to add to the part on Bauval & Co.'s Orion Correlation Theory already mentioned in this article, and also covered in a bit more detail at Great Pyramid of Giza and Great Sphinx of Giza (tho' I chuckled at the "sophisticated computer program" bit- by accounts, they simply used a form of Skyglobe software which can be bought off the shelf by anybody). The present mention of the OCT in the article is perhaps not quite representative of all that the OCT has "to offer", but we probably don't need to supply much or any further detail in this article on what is but one of a number of fringe theories.--cjllw | TALK 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting belief about the Giza pyramids is that the longitude passing through them divides the earth's landmass into two exact halves . Probably not worth mentioning. Doesn't seem to be nearly as well-known a theory as the one above it, in any case. 184.108.40.206 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice the coordinates given on this page must be incorrect. You have the Middle Pyramid (g2 or Khafre) situated to the north and west of the Great Pyramid. Having visited the site with a compass I can confirm that the middle pyramid is to the south and west of the Great Pyramid. Do these coordinates simply need reversing I wonder. It does tend to detract from the overall feeling that the author knows what's where.
I've reverted removal of this section. The theory exists, there's a reference and it is clearly indicated that it's regarded as pseudo-science. Moreover, User:Davideee who removed it is an account with only one edit which seems a bit suspicious. If anybody wants to completely remove this section, discuss it here first and if it is removed, also remove the headings. Piet | Talk 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sombody seems to have vandalized this site with several obscenities.--PeadarMaguidhir 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized this site with several obscenties, most notably the first line of the Pyramids being made of poop.
Speculation about an unopened door
I fail to understand the value of the following speculation:
What's behind that door is unknown but it is likely extremely important: ancient papyrus that was written during the First Time when Osiris walked the actual earth of Egypt or a statue of Khufu, etc.
SirWoland 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight/rampant speculation
The 10,500 BCE "theory" is pretty spurious and there is little evidence for it; while the pyramids may well have been positioned in order to represent the start of the cycle, that doesn't mean it necessarily follows they were built at the beginning of the cycle. Indeed, if the queen's pyramids really do represent the other end of the cycle, it makes it all the more likely that the pyramids were built during the 4th dynasty and simply aligned that way. But in the end, it takes up a huge amount of space yet is largely regarded as silly by the egyptology community; this is a great example of WP:Undue Weight. I find it as interesting as anyone, but there's way too much space/credibility given to it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Height of pyramids?
I was designing a class on western civilization, and I wanted to make a comment on the height of the Great Pyramid. I did not have the height in my memory, so I went to wikipedia to find out. I was somewhat surprised to see that piece of information lacking. The authors talked about how it is one of the largest extant buildings on earth, but no data was ever given. I will look elsewhere, and if I find it, I will post it to this page.
~~hulknpm, May 17, 2008~~
Article mentions that they are oriented to north-south, east-west within a few degrees. Magnetic north? Geographic north? True north? A brief summary of the dominant explanations for how they determined the directions would be excellent as well. I'm assuming that they used the north star (because that's what I would use without a compass). Wpjonathan (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, Robert Bauval has a new book coming out called (scholastically enough) The Egypt Code that presents all the pyramids and temples of ancient Egypt as a map of the night sky, corresponding to religiously significant constellations. I've been reading a review copy, but there will be readers coming here who need decent references on the Orion Correlation Theory, pro and con. The book got a decent write-up in Popular Science (a website, not the magazine).--grant (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Some information about the historical dates of the complex, and the place of that era within that of the history of ancient Egypt in general would be welcome. More welcome, certainly, than the astronomical ruminations we are treated to. The astronomy sections of Wikipedia are surely poor enough without ill-schooled historians adding to the mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
pyramids of giza
Several people are named as trying to explain the astronomical connections, but their explanations are not given. Surely what they have to say is far more interesting than their names, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didshe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Name changed from Giza pyramid complex'
- I just noticed this too. For me, "Giza pyramid complex" is a more user-friendly title, but I'm happy to defer to the experts. If "pyramid complex" is not technically correct, or is too woolly, or whatever, then fine. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
- I prefer "Giza pyramid complex", fwiw. But I think both are accurately descriptive. Mark Foskey (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Took out merge tag
I tried to reduced the redundancy, and in the process removed a merge tag. That may have been a bad call, but I really think it's a question of how much detail there needs to be about construction in this article.
Scope of article
The article concentrates too much on material already well covered elsewhere, and not on the other tombs, causeways, temples, industrial and domestic areas, etc that make this a complex and not just 3 pyramids and a sphinx. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the Necropolis officially belongs to the TOWN of Giza? In addition, here for example  it seems that they have the Pyramid kism (named after the Necropolis) twice (!) - both in the Giza Governorate and in the new 6th October Governorate (they used a different translation to English (Al-Ahram Kism) in the second case but the Arabic name is the same). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty to rewrite the page. There are still areas that need to be expanded (sphinx, maybe the individual pyramids, etc)
- I included Khentkaus' pyramid/mastaba as a main structure. I people feel it shouldn't be there then it can be deleted.
- There's more information now about the cemeteries associated with the Giza necropolis. Wasn't sure how much detail to include. Any thoughts?
- I used Porter and Moss, Verner's Pyramids and Lehner's book. Any other important sources we should think of? There are probably some books on gizapyramids.com by Reisner or Hassan that would be useful in writing a summary like this.
- The cemetery section(s) are rather large. Should that go on a separate page maybe? With just a summary here?
Age of the Pyramids
Why on earth doesn't the article mention when the Pyramids were built?
- The article is really about the rest of the site, and the linked articles discuss the dating. There's nothing mind-blowing about it, everything is linked to an article/Dynasty which discusses the relevant dating. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
History of the site
A section on the history of the site itself would be useful. Currently this article is just a catalogue of things on the site. Information on periods when the site was abandoned, vandalized, excavated, restored, &c. would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Double Project section
- User:Peter Ellis, the paper this is based on doesn't look like it's been peer-reviewed in any way yet. It's still a primary source for a theory at this point. Is there another source that vouches for this paper or theory? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think there's a possibility it might be a theory worth talking about, but I'm going to take it out for now. It's not been mentioned in any third-party source or published at this point, so there's no way of knowing if this is notable compared to other theories we haven't included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)