Talk:Pyramid

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FAOL

Point of this article

The discovery of inner Mogolia & Tibet " Pyramid ". There was a great culture and it is earlier than the Yellow River/the Hwang Ho-origin of ancient civilization about 1,000 years. The relic of early civilization was far different from an ancient of Chineses civilization.

Someone needs to include any information on how these things were built as well as theories as to why they are so widespread over time and distance.

Picture of the Pyramide in front of Le Louvres in Paris

We can't use pictures from this pyramid since its architect holds a copyright on it.

Esoterism

I don't know, but it seems sort of strange to talk about the "esoteric properties" of pyramids as if they were fact. AFAIK, scientific research hasn't , and my BS detector spikes on the mention of blades being dulled by moonlight. [[Userauthor (an anon): [1]. Maybe that's why the one-person style looks a bit idiosyncratic. --Menchi 23:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I deleted it. [[User:Trekphiler|, but c 1978, some French researchers published a theory in Omni that the pyramids wera actually made of a synthetic that resembled granite, which they'd produced in their lab. Comment? Trekphiler 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Architecture of Africaon [[Wikipedia:Article Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us imInsert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text herethis article to featured status.--Fenice 08:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

Since this article is about pyramids in general, not monuments, I merged all sections about acient monuments in one. I removed large section about Pyramids of Egypt because it was too large, pyramids of Egypt were alredy mentioned in this article and it seemed to be POV -- Xil - talk 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

references are essential to geometric discussions

The lack of references is a serious issue here; wikipedia is now mirrored so far and wide as the definitive source that when my wife asked (while helping the kids with homework) "must the normal to the of a pyramid be within the base?" I could not find anything but this un-referenced definition.

I do think this current definition is correct, but it would not surprise me to learn that, like trapezium and trapezoid, my well-meaning education had mis-informed me again :) and the real definition would require skewed pyramids to be called by some other name.

See this link for Bosnian pyramids

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060419/ap_on_sc/bosnia_pyramid09:02, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.15.116 (talk • contribs) 20 April 2006.

Two pages?

What's the point of having two disambiguation pages? Fredrik Johansson 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oyam's Pyramid

Hi all, Theres an article Oyam's Pyramid which is proposed for deletion. The article refers to an intersting way of constructing a pyramid, and there is one souce for this [2], however the source does not mention the name Oyam and there are 0 google hits for it.

Has anyone come across such a construction, and has anyone got a name for the constructor? --Salix alba (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia & Ukraine Pyramids

I removed these for the following reasons: I'm unable to find any references to any pyramid-shaped structures in Georgia. The "report" of pyramids in the Ukraine provides no source information for confirmation. --Ronz 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Ukraine Pyramids

I was the one who added the information about pyramids in Ukraine. Type "Ukraine" and "pyramids" in Google and you will find a number of sources. It was on TV this and last week too (French TV5 for example) with a footage of the structures. 8 September 2006.

I haven't found any verifiable, reliable sources yet, specifically reports with names of who is making the claims or who has examined whatever evidence exists. --Ronz 23:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that nothing conclusive has been reached, yet; but the BBC and The Guardian have both reported on the possible finds - just something to watch. --Jugbo 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this as well. Again, it's just something to watch. --Jugbo 02:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lugansk_Pyramid --Ronz 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Sunpyramid in Bosnia and Herzegovina

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/eng/default.asp

Virtually everyone aside from Osmanagic (sp?) believes the Bosnisan pyramid claims to be a farce. They should most definitely not be included in this article, posting links in the talk section doesn't make it so...

There are many Wikipedia articles about things that most people think are farces, for example, John Titor. As long as it's clearly noted in the article that most people dispute the theory, shouldn't it still be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bengl (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Especially given the amount of "press" the Bosnian pyramids are receiving, I think it only appropriate to add something to this article. I've added summaries of the various arguments for/against these being "real" pyramids, but even most archeologists aren't yet willing to definitvely say yes or no, without visiting themselves. Kutulu 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Bosnian pyramids. The archeologists say it's a hill and that the "excavations" of the hill are destroying real archeological and paleontological artifacts. --Ronz 00:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue over some mounds of dirt in Bosnia that I haven't personally even seen, but I believe you are being rather disingenuous by stating that "archaeologists" (implying all of them) are in agreement over this mess, or if are arguing that there's no reason to even mention the controversy in the Pyramid article. Either they are real pyramids, and thus belong here in their entirety, or else they're phony pyramids, and belong here as an example of "structures since proven not to be pyramids." In fact, it appears that any time someone comes here and adds anything about a pyramid or pyramid-like structure that's not in Egypt, you shunt it off to another article and delete it. But, of course, this is typical Wikipedia "it's my article, stop making it different" mentality. Kutulu 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained myself on your talk page. I'm happy to do it here as well:

I removed your discussion of the Bosnian pyramids because there is separate article on the topic. It's not being added to Pyramid because it's unproven. The same discussion occurred with the Ukrainian pyramids.

--Ronz 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be mentioned at least in passing, as controversial.66.10.26.253 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already has it's own article and numerous links to it. --Ronz 22:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beginning

i added to the beginning, because it didn't give a clear definition of what a pyramid was or its significance. --The Lizard Wizard 04:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point re this: the external surfaces of a pyramid are not vertical, but i know what you are saying, and can't think of a better way of putting it. Lyswim 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition of a pyramid

A pyramid can have any polygon as its base, not merely trilateral/quadrilateral shapes.

Reability of Article

I have recommended the Wikipedia website to my students, who are aged 16-19, for research purposes, however they have struggled to understand some of the articles. This is mainly due to the complexity of the language used. The readability score of the article is 13.71, which is the years of education needed to be able to understand this article on first reading, meaning it would require graduate level education to read and understand the article effectively. The article could be improved by reducing the length of the sentences, reducing the length of the paragraphs and replacing difficult words with more commonly used ones which would make the article more accessible to a wider and perhaps younger audience. Would any of the editors be prepared to review the article to make it easier to read and thus more accessible to more users? Sarahhcfe 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a special version of wikipedia written for those whose grasp of english is shaky. The articles are much easier to read, relying on simple vocabulary and grammatical constructs. Go to "simple.wikipedia.org". yandman 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The caption to picture of the Pyramids of Giza "The 7000 years old building The Pyramids Of Giza" links ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids ) to a page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids ) with the same picture with a different caption: "The 5500 year-old Pyramids Of Giza."

Polynesia

There should be at least some mention of the pyramids in polynesia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.221.138 (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You mean Pulemelei Mound? --Ronz 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Dragons build the Pyramids?

My History Teacher says they did, is this true?