Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza

Template:AncientEgyptBanner

Napoleon

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)

Napoleon's men shot at the Sphinx. AllStarZ 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Note

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)

Library

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)

Deeceevoice's return

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) TEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.109.48 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just what "outlandish" claims are you referring to, and what "currently acceptedly wisdom"? deeceevoice 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike's barnstar

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)

Origin and identity section

This section poorly represents mainstream scholarship. In fact it currently reads like a covert attack against mainstream scholarship, without fairly representing what that scholarship is. There are a number of decent books on the subject, for example chapter 3 of Sphinx: History of a Monument, with a few pages online, one can clearly see there is a lot more to the story than being represented here. Without buying the book or some other book I'm not sure how to best correct this. If anyone has decent sources available that would be a great help. -- Stbalbach 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Being I am the main contributer to Origins and Identity I suppose I should chime in here and respectfully disagree that this section is an attack, "covert" or otherwise, of mainstream scholorship, but is meant to be a responsible representation of the facts as accepted by the mainstream regardless of appearances. The reference you cite strangely supports this view so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make other than you just don't "like the way it "sounds". I would point out in passing that PBS's Nova Online, as mainstream a rag if there ever was one, says that the Sphinx is "believed" to be, not "was" built by Khafre, and responsibly gives an age of "undetermined" whereas they are otherwise relatively definitive on these matters concerning all other Giza monuments. Given they rely soley on mainstream scholorship, why is this? If it undisputably was built by Khafre, or popular consensus was overwhelming enough as to warrant no other conclusion, why not just say "was", and if so, then the age would not be "undetermined" but credited to the time he reigned. They do this to their credit because the evidence to support these claims as I have outlined in this section is tenuous at best leaving the current state of mainstream scholorship, despite what is passed off in popular media as "fact", as "believed to be" and "undetermined". While this may be unflattering to the mainstream, by their own admission it the truth of the matter nonetheless, regardless of one's point of view. After reading your comments I did edit some of the phrasing to better showcase mainstream dogma, which doesnt change the facts either way, but may make it more palatable for some.thanos5150

Of course there is dispute. But the way to approach it is to say what the "mainstream dogma" is up-front (without framing it as "dogma" which is clearly pejorative), and say why, and how, and when, and who that conclusion was reached, giving the names of the scientists and papers involved and the historiography involved. Then offer alternative theories in separate sections, again attributing them to specific named individuals and cited works. PBS Nova and other TV shows are not scientific or scholarly sources. The way it is now, the currently accepted theory is being mixed together with other theories and counter-theories so the reader is left with an impression designed by you, the author, on how you want them to receive the "mainstream dogma", instead of allowing the reader to make up their own mind based on the facts presented. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does lead with what the mainstream (who) believes point by point and consequently why there is a dispute at all (which you agree exists), and the when's are cited as well, but regardless nowhere are their pejorative words like "dogma" used. Sources are cited for all references (though I need to add one about the diorite statue) including the names of recognized scientists where applicable like Henry Salt, Auguste Mariette, Vassil Dobrev,and Rainer Stadelmann. The evidence cited, though often ommited to give the impression you desire, is a matter of academic record and is crux to why the debate continues to exist within mainstream Egytology. The "alternative theories" used to highlight the debate are limited to mainstream Egytologists themselves, so why would they not be included or separated if only to demean the descenting opinion giving the reader the impression there really is no dispute? Maybe something like this would be better:

"The Great Sphinx was built in his own likeness by Pharoah Khafre who ruled between 2558-2532 B.C.. Khafre was named in the Dream Stela as the builder and the Sphinx is part of his greater funerary complex which includes the Sphinx and Valley Temples. Though alternative theories exist as to who may have constructed the monument, most of these claims are considered psuedoscience and are not supported by mainstream Egyptologists."

Is this what you mean by not leading the reader and letting them make up their own mind? Here I have used the mainstream opinion as fact, though by their own admission none of it is, and have effectively dismissed and discredited all debate regardless of its credibility or origin. I can see where you find what is written in this section unsettling, but the facts are what they are regardless of opinion, yours or mine, and personally I fail to see how to word it as such diminishes the mainstream view because this is the mainstream view.thanos5150

See Decline of the Roman Empire for an example of how to deal with controversial topics that have multiple points of view. Create sections for each theory and list the names of the people and the works they have published. We are simply reporters, we report on what other people say. We need to cite who the people are, what they said, where they said it. That is valuable and important information. The theory on Khafre needs its own section, and should be listed first, with some qualifying statement that is the most widely accepted. You don't need to come out say "this is who the Sphinx is" in a black and white manner, I think every scientist agrees we have a "best case" or "traditional" scenario, and other scenarios as well. -- Stbalbach 15:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Empire is a good article that lends itself well to this kind of format mostly because of the open nature of the subject and debate. Egyptology on the other hand is infinitely more territorial and traditionally less condusive to such openess, and these days there is little reference of other modern mainstream opinion beyond what is offered by Lehner and Hawass. I dont think this is indicative historically of the facts, but more of the control and influence those 2 have exerted on the field over the last 25 years. When I found the Origins and Identity section it was rather lacking and deleted nothing, but only added to it to better clarify why the origin is uncertain. In many cases when editing, I've found it best to add as little as possible to start as to not create too much of a stir and once the new information has been digested to go from there as to growth of format. The opening statement of this section originally didnt even mention what the mainstream view was which in fairness is something I added. I would agree it should be clarified and expanded, but within the constraints of my own time for now I've resigned that task for others. As you say, we are "reporters", and only in an open source format like this is the opportunity even availiable to represent "both sides" of an issue, which in traditional media is generally not acceptable. To me, this is the true spirit of Wikipedia, with the challange being to fairly report all the facts and not just regurgitate mainstream opinion as such. This is what Encyclopedia Britannica is for.thanos5150

Sphinx & Great Sphinx of Giza which one?

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)

No, they are about two different things. This article specifically covers the Great Sphinx of Giza. Mgiganteus1 01:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel embarrassed now ha-ha-ha thanks MgiganteusCool guy45 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Legend of a hidden chamber?

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)

Check this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Casey

It was his biography, in a documentary on the History Channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.144.65 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

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)

Dr. Zahi Hawass and the underground 3? story structure + obelisks

Angrysky 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I saw a live show on Fox I guess in 1998 or there abouts that showed Dr.Zahi Hawass exploring a large underground multi-storied structure directly under the sphinx with a large sarcophogus in a pool of water surrounded by 4 obelisks displaying a unknown but very advanced form of hiroglyphics- I believe the conjecture was a possible tomb of Osiris.

Information and pictures on this seem essential to me as it is definitely part of the Sphinx.

It was a strange show as the main point was to open a small door in the great pyramid with a robot because the passage to get to this door was not designed for humans- Yet This event never occured on the show if I remember correctly.

Does anyone remember the show or know why this info isnt on the page? Here is a link to an article by Dr. Hawass - But there is nothing like what was on that program The obelisks were not decayed at all- He even pointed out a hiroglyph that he said "looks like an Apache helicopter" and it very much did.

http://www.zahihawass.com/recent_osiris_shaft.htm

Fox is a pretty horrible source for anything; they're highly prone to sensationalism, aren't professional, and tend not to give very good information in general. I'm dubious about anything weird they show. We all remember the "chupacabra" incident... Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No Race Please

I would like to request folowing statements removed from the article(Robert M. Schoch has stated that the sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre.[14])

Senior forensic expert Frank Domingo [12] of the New York Police Department, using his own detailed measurements taken of the Sphinx, determined through forensic drawings and computer analysis that the face of the Sphinx and the face seen on signed statues of Khafre could not be one and the same person. [13])

first these people do not know much about ancient egypt they are probaliy the type who would think that all men in ancient egypt were red ochre and all the women were yellow,first off it is a huge sphinx(exagerated) in other words it is probaly not suppose to be the spitting image of who it most likely to suppose to be which would be khafre. Its most likely to represent him not look exactly like him , the modern day people cant get over the fact that the ancients did not think and opperate as modern humans do,second of all if we all we had left of ramese the great was the jumbo statues at abu simbel people would be claiming he was negroid to because those statues he has very big lips and rather flat noses but we know better because we have his mummy and smaller statues that he had a hooked semetic type nose not flat,and french scientist found him to be a leucoderm e.t.c e.t.c,and also there is a whole wiki article about the race of ancient egyptians where these statements already made,and i consider and many people also this obsession by afrocentrism and people who suffer from white guilt on the race of the ancient egyptian is very sickening and unfounded--Mikmik2953 (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sphinx was without a doubt Khafra: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xIXPi8wiSWI