Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza

Template:WP1.0

Messy end

I'm no expert, but the External Links it of this page is very muddled. I don't want to try and change it, because I haven't the knowledge of how to change layout of an article, so this is more of a request for someone 'in the know' to sort out the final section and make it a bit easier on the eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spurring me on to doing this, it's been bothering me also (as does the editorial bit in at least one link). I just deleted the bits about div.Doug Weller (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, remove more. -- Secisek (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More what?Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Links. The EL section is in bad shape. -- Secisek (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on them. The problem is, I think, that most of the article was created by someone who doesn't agree with the mainstream arguments on dating, construction, etc, and put emphasis on those aspects both in the article itself and the links (which is why I guess so many of the links are about construction, with few about anything else other than views). I'm sure there are a number of links that should be included and are not.Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, work must continue to preserve the GA rating. -- Secisek (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramid construction techniques

This article: Egyptian pyramid construction techniques needs serious work before this one does. -- Secisek (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)i think its fine really great info

i thinks that we dont need the rating any more

Italic text

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiskool4skool (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

Following revision, the article would likely pass GAR as is. Any new material added must be cited with reliable sources to maintain this status. -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Design of the Great gallery

The article mentions that the design reason for the small 'sockets' at regular intervals in the gallery has not been found. This is incorrect as the sockets was used to arrest the granite blocking stones now residing in the lower part of the ascending corridor (the lower extension of the gallery). The gallery was simply a necessity if you wanted to store the 'door-stones' inside the pyramid while at the same time being able to pass them before the final closure of the pyramid. This also explains the vertical shaft between the lower corridor and the base of the gallery. This shaft was the exit for the workers who sealed the pyramid (it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to ascend the shaft thus making it an effective 'one way exit' for the workers. It is also interesting to note that the 'grave robbers corridor' (The modern entrance) ends exactly behind the last of the blocking stones in the ascending corridor indicating that the people making that corridor had inside information (pun intended) about the internal arrangement of the corridors and thus likely the corridor was made less than 100 years after the pyramid was finished (possibly by the same workers who made the pyramid of relatives of officials with access to the archives where information of the pyramid may have been kept). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazeran (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfinished Chamber

Could it be that the Unfinished Chamber was excavated to check for cracking or other signs of stress in the bedrock beneath the pyramid? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) zbvhs

i think that that was the case but it could have also been for the lime stone casingMeiskool4skool (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inside the Great Pyramid: Needs More!

The Great Pyramid is such a unique, interesting building. I say we need sub-sections on:

• The ascending passage
• The gallery
• The graverobbers’ corridor
• The well shaft & grotto
• The antechamber
• The relieving chambers ...

... and perhaps the shafts, you know, the ones with ”Gantenbrink’s ’door’” and all that hoopla. I see they’re mentioned in some paragraph but a lot of the above, like the well shaft, doesn’t even get a mention.

I’m not very knowledgable about the pyramid, and I don’t have any reference books, so I’m not in the best position to write this myself ... Bossk-Office (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah sub sections would be really great for kids with projects and stuff like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiskool4skool (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Limestone concrete"

'A recent theory proposes that the building blocks were manufactured in-place from a kind of "limestone concrete".'

Surely such an unlikely sounding theory needs a citation and indeed should be from a reputable source - after all there are a myriad of strange theories about the pyramids and their construction etc and we cannot and should not include every fringe theory in the article.

This theory sounds very unlikely to me because I am sure a geologist or other scientist would be perfectly capable of distinguishing limestone from a man-made material. Booshank (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is where I think it belongs, in the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article. Doug Weller (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

Looking over the article quickly, I'm impressed with what I see and I think it will remain listed with a little bit of work. I made some fixes myself (general copyediting as well as formatting the book and internet references). At present, my concerns are:

• A "citation needed" tag in the "King's Chamber" section.
• Does the video in the "Media" section really contribute to the article (I'm flexible on this one, as I don't think it hurts anything)?
• The book in the first citation (Edgar) needs more information, including a page number.
  • Note: I replaced the reference, so this is no longer a concern. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• In the "Construction theories" section, it would be nice if at least a couple of the theories on how the stones were "conveyed and placed" were mentioned, rather than just stating that theories exist. No need to go into a lot of detail on them, though, as there is a separate article.
• There is a comment on the article's talk page (see Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza#Inside the Great Pyramid: Needs More! that subsections should be added about various locations within the pyramid. For GA level, I don't think this is the case, but I would be interested in hearing from a contributor to this article about whether mentioning (at least some of) these places in the article would make sense.
• Just to clarify, the Queen's Chamber is a misnomer because it was not the burial place for the queen, right?
  • Correct, the name stems from arabic times, but is agreed to be used in egyptology. The queens had their own pyramids right at the eastern side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.133.27 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• From the beginning of the "Inside the Great Pyramid" section: "ingenious corbel halloed" — "ingenious" is point of view, and I'm confused about "halloed" (should it be "haloed")?
  • Note: I took out the word "ingenious", as it isn't sourced (feel free to add it back with a source). I also changed the other word to "haloed" (feel free it back with an explanation if "halloed" was correct). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• The lead section should summarize the article, but it currently contains information that isn't included later in the article. I think that most of the second paragraph (starting at "Despite..." and going to the end of the paragraph) would be better if it was moved to the relevant section(s) of the main text.
  • Note: I moved the other information to the relevant sections, so this should be find if nobody has any complaints about my changes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• The title of the "Wonder of the Ancient World" section doesn't seem particularly appropriate, as it doesn't deal with the pyramid's status as a wonder of the ancient world. Something along the lines of "Construction" or "Building the pyramid" would be better, in my opinion.
  • I changed the title to "Building the pyramid" (I wanted to avoid repeating "construction", as this is already the title of a subheading). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to keep this listed if these changes are made, but I did feel as I read the article that more detail would have been nice. For example, is the inside of the pyramid decorated? Has anyone found out what is behind those doors? This doesn't need to be included now, but I recommend adding more detail if you plan to nominate this as a possible Featured Article.

I will place this reassessment on hold for seven days to allow for these changes to be made. If more time is needed, the reassessment can be extended if progress is being made. Please feel free to respond here with comments or questions, as I have this article and this reassessment on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't be home for a week, but when I get home I've got the resources to help if I remember! Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am out of wiki-work right now, but would like a final 24 hour warning if the article is to be de-listed, perhaps I can bring it up to standard. It already passed a review earlier this year in more or less the same condition it is in now. -- Secisek (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Dougweller's request, I have extended the hold to allow more time for the fixes. To summarize what remains to be done:

1. Cite the last paragraph in the "King's Chamber" section.
2. Briefly mention a couple more theories in the "Construction theories" section.
3. Either confirm that the misnomer is the fact that the queen isn't buried there or clarify what it is.
4. Reply with thoughts about whether any other parts of the structure should be added at this time.

I will allow one week for work to be done; if needed, an extension will be granted at that time if progress has been made. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to lack of progress, I have delisted the article. I urge editors to address the remaining concerns regarding breadth of coverage and to renominate the article once these have been addressed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed the world's tallest buildings infobox from this article. Not only is the really most notable information about the pyramids not the fact it was once, several millenia ago, the world's tallest building, but is also carries the rider "Fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top;" which just makes no sense whatsoever.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cost?

It might seem like a rather odd question, but has anyone got an idea of what the cost (in modern USD) would be, for instance if a construction company were comissioned to build an exact replica, what would be the likley cost? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rj2.JPG listed for deletion

Image:Rj2.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Construction Time Frame

The Pyramid of Cheops has sides measuring 230 meters long and it is 146 meters high. the volume is aproximatly 2,500,000 cubic meters. Limestone is aproximatly 2.5 tons per cubic meter. The weight is aproximatly 6,250,000 tons

Cheops ruled for 23 years He alledgedly built the Pyramid of Cheops while ruling. In order to build his Pyramid while he ruled he had to carve move and install 744 tons of stone every day for 23 years.

Some experts address doubts about his ability to do this by saying it was built in 100 years which would mean it wasn't built by just 1 pharoah. This would mean it was built by at least 3-4 pharoahs. It would still involve installing 171 tons per day.
In order to explain the pyramids this way it would also mean that either the 4 biggest Pyramids were made in different centuries or that at least 2 or 3 of them were under construction at the same time. It's just a simple matter of math you can easily check it yourself.

I don't have a source for these specific estimates but it is very close to most official estimates which vary slightly. The math can easily be adjusted for other estimates.

I don't know whether it is necissary to put this in the article people can figure it out themselves if they want to. Putting it in the article would be for people that don't bother which is most people. If ther is no objection I'll do a version based on a specific source. However if there are objections I won't. Zacherystaylor (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any recognised experts believe it took a century. We know the Red Pyramid took 10 years 7 months from graffiti (Romer, p. 71). Khufu probably used some of the workers who worked on it, so a time scale from that can be estimated (not by us), and Romer gets 14 years from that.p 74 with a schedule on pp 456-460.

I've heard that some experts have said that but I think it may have been vague statements about "experts say". If I find a more specific source I'll cite it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

citation request

I added some information about the kings chamber including the assumption that they were hauled from Aswan on barges and then towed to the pyramid. I cited Scarre 70 Wonders of the ancient world. Someone requested additional citation. If this isn't sufficant I can check it again the next time I go to the library but I'm pretty sure it was all in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacherystaylor (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE; New Section added on Global placement of the Great Pyramid

In reading carefully through the whole article upon the Great Pyramid, I did note that there is no mention at all as to its placement within Egypt per se in terms of the reasoning behind the selected site i.e. Giza. And yet, practically every text book that mentions the structure by way of introduction, does point out that it is so close to being almost exactly 30 degrees north. And that this fact has led quite a number of researchers to at least ponder whether there is any significance to this point.

As a result of this, I have added a further section to the article as a whole, generally of the size of the other main sections, which at least addresses the basic research thread on this point, by citing two particular theories that point to some sort of special relevance to the latitude placement. I have then counted them with the simple facts that A) There are many pyramids all over Egypt at different latitudes, and B) In selecting a site for the pyramid, the basic necessity of obtaining a solid foundation would have been the primary motivation.

I have tried to keep the sources quite solid in terms of reference materials in terms of books and so forth. However, upon the matter of the geology of the Giza site I have only one book reference noting the unsuitability of a site to the north of Giza by Hancock and Bauval. The wording in their book itself that I paraphrase does appear to be somewhat weak. If anyone knows of a stronger one I think it would be well worth adding.

On another point altogether, my own view of the article of the Great Pyramid is that all of the sections need to be added to just slightly to make them more in-depth, and I especially agree with the poster who said that the ending was ‘messy’. In my view, the last section that extends the discussion of the Great Pyramid to a wider look at the Giza complex is a good way to go to end the article. However, this last section itself I think needs a lot more added to it and it needs to be well rounded off.

Sincerely

Robert Arch (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert-you raise an interesting point about the fact the pyramid is located on the 30th parallel which many have argued was planned. I think however a new section is not required and what you have written could be summed up in a small paragraph better included in the "Building the Pyramid" section as it probably does not warrant a section of its own.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it is original research. The only source is a personal website which can't be used. Robert, would you please read WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:SPS? I think then you will understand the problem with this. If you can source from Bauval or Hancock it can be put back, but I am removing it. I'll also note that the footnote saying " It is a fair estimate that a 1 second of arc sweep over the earth = about 101 feet in distance" would need to be sourced, it is a personal comment. The discussion would also need to meet WP:UNDUE - whichis more or less what Thanos is saying. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug & Thanos

Thank you for your comments.

On the point you raise first of all Thanos, I did indeed try to keep the article as short as possible, and I did think that it was quite compact. However, compared to the general overall size of the Great Pyramid article it is probably in retrospect too large.

Doug, when I first signed up for Wikipedia I did read some of the guidelines and I did think that the section overall I added was decent enough in terms of research, and that the quality of the sources that I gave was good. However, on the issue of Original research, it seems I was mistaken in my judgement. I looked first at the work of Smyth which began in the late 19th century on the ‘latitude issue’. I identified a ‘research thread’ so to speak, and in my mind I thought that – due to the age of this research thread – this meant that the topic as a whole ‘passed the Original Research’ test. However, I have looked again on the Synthesis segment of Wikipedia and the part about drawing conclusions that you suggest. On this point, I think that yes indeed it does fall foul of these guidelines; the part about drawing conclusions, even from cited ‘facts’. And thus I can see the reasons for its removal.

On the general topic of the article on the Great Pyramid per se, I will say that though the article does appear to be decent enough, it does suffer somewhat from massive repeated editing. It is a most unstable article, as is clearly evident from a careful look at the past history of the article. It does not seem to be solid hardly at all from one day to the next. One of the most recent major edits; the complete removal of the entire notes and references section, I found unbelievable. Some of the editing is clearly malicious, but I think too that a lot of it is people trying to put forward good research material, and falling foul of the strict guidelines of Wikipedia. I will not though argue with the guidelines, or indeed any of you. They are what they are, and from a more detailed look, I do understand them, and the purpose behind them. However, I think that they are primarily to blame for the disputes over what should be included in the article on the Great Pyramid. The result is simply that the article is nothing more than a statement of ‘just the facts’ concerning the structure via ‘established’ research. Now, there is nothing wrong with this as such, because this is the character of the encyclopaedia that the Wiki-people are trying to create. It is what it is.

In parting, I will thus end by saying that overall, I have misjudged Wikipedia and that it is not what I thought it was. I do not see myself contributing further to any more articles. I do thank you Thanos and Doug for your comments, and I hope that things do get better with this particular article. But my guess is that they will not. The future that I see is that you two, and a few others, will be in this Great Pyramid article ‘fire-fighting’ indefinitely and editing and re-editing ad infinitum. For me, life is just too short to be involved in that kind of activity. Doug, I understand that you are an administrator. If it is possible to get some sort of protection for this article, perhaps that could be the answer. Who knows?

Sincerely

Robert Arch (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to see you go. I can understand your frustration. Articles can have various sorts of problems. Well known article titles lead to simple vandalism, from swearing to removal of large junks or even complete page blanking. I think I missed the removal of the entire notes and references section, but I spend so much time simply fixing vandalism even on articles where I'm not involved that I might have been the one that replaced it and forgotten. Then you get content disputes, as has happened here, when an editor disagres with some of the content, wanting to either remove or add content. They are complicated and our policies and guidelines are, as you understand, there to help regulate such disputes. We also have some formal ways of discussing content disputes. They can get messy at times, and this disagreement has been, sadly, mild. You should see the ones that involve some form of nationalistic disputes. In this case I'm obviously of the opinion that Thanos wants to insert an argument that falls below our significance threshold by quite a bit and would end up basically as a way of publicising it on the web.

As for protection, the only protection I could give if it starts getting a storm of vandalism by IP editors - those without usernames. I could protect it temporarily against that. As I'm involved in editing the article it would be wrong for me to protect it against established users.

Please reconsider. You write well and I'm sure you could be an asset. There are plenty of articles where there aren't the sort of problems there are here, and I can point you to some. What are you interested in? Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

I think that it is the philosophy of the Encyclopaedia per se that perhaps I am wary of. Good research does not necessarily conform to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Good research may well in fact be in direct opposition to the guidelines. Indeed, in your previous comment before last, you noted that I placed a note in the notes section of the Great Pyramid article: “It is a fair estimate that a 1 second of arc sweep over the earth = about 101 feet in distance.” With regard to this, I simply do not have an explicit source for this point. And it would be difficult to obtain one in an actual published work. However, I could of course easily produce a source for the circumference of the earth, and also one that there are 1296000 seconds of arc in a full circular sweep. But then, I would have to say, “And if one were to multiply 1/1296000 by the circumference (in feet) the answer is 101.4 feet or so. But, this last point is synthesis, is it not, and against Wikipedia guidelines? Even though it is true, and eminently reasonable, it is not allowed.

In another part of the section I submitted, I made a general comment that there are many pyramids in Egypt that are not located close to the 30 degree latitude north. Trying to find an explicit source for this point would prove almost impossible. I could though, with great effort, have collected the Latitude-Longitude co-ordinates of a sample of pyramids, with indeed explicit (published) statements as to their geodetic locations, by way of supporting this point. But of course, in doing so this would be drawing a conclusion would it not? Not allowed.

I think what I am trying to say Doug, is that contributing to Wikipedia under these guidelines would be very frustrating to someone like me; to not be able to draw conclusions which are very reasonable, and which, carefully put forward, would constitute good research. As I said above, it is the philosophy of the encyclopaedia itself that makes me pause when thinking of further contributions. And thus, upon this point, I think that if I did in the future seek to make any more contributions, it would probably be with the minor addition of certain new points, or minor editing. I do not see myself ever again spending hours of time producing and then adding a significant section of new text to an article, knowing that it could be so easily removed with the click of one button by another, even if their intentions were pure. I would be far happier (and I’m thinking of my mental health here in the long run) contributing such passages to an article directory that I know cannot be edited by anyone but me.

It is as I said previously Doug, Wikipedia is not what I thought it was. And I am not going to fight it or anything. Because, I can indeed see how very solid articles of interest can be created by conforming to the Wikipedia guidelines. It is just that, such articles, are not of the type that I myself in my academic career am used to producing.

Sincerely

Robert Arch (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert-Do not let DougWeller discourage you from contributing here. I do not understand how or why he is an administrator for the simple reason he himself does not follow Wiki rules and though as an administrator he is supposed to be objective, he constantly hides behind Wiki rules to promote his own POV. Several times he has included his own OR and passed mainstream opinion off as fact and has even given credit to obscure sources to legitimize his own OR though they did not actually say what he wrote. He will fight till the cows come home to remove any subject or source he doesn't like simply because he does not like the conclusion, including those of Peitre and Gaspero, but does not hold his own edits to the same scrutiny. He is a self proclaimed (amateur) skeptic and has a website devoted to debunking alternative archeology [1]. He mercilessly edits any information he does not agree with regardless of the facts yet does little to nothing to police things that support his own POV. Your article is a perfect example which was left in for over a week until I removed the counter arguments section, which only then prompted him to remove the whole thing. The reason I removed the counter argument section was because, among other things, it was wholly the opinion of the editor, you I guess, without sources. Its one thing to write something with verifiable sources, which need to be checked, but you can't just give your opinions. What Doug will do is give his opinions and then credit it to someone who didn't actually say or use material from a different subject, passing it off as fact, and impose it on this article as if the GP is what they were talking about when it is clear they were not.

Your "pro" section, however, did include sources but because he removed it instantly there was no way to check your them. No one can argue the GP sits on the 30th parallel because it is still there and many have promoted the idea it was chosen for a reason. As an administrator, what he should have done, which is what I noted in my edit, is let the matter be discussed first before it was removed. This is what democracies do, but DougWeller for some reason believes his opinion is the only one that matters. You should be given a chance before it is removed to alter your sources and edit it. The fact you were not given this opportunity is a perfect example of the frustration you feel which is not so much Wiki rules, but the prejudices of a certain individual(s).

Doug makes this statement:"In this case I'm obviously of the opinion that Thanos wants to insert an argument that falls below our significance threshold by quite a bit and would end up basically as a way of publicising it on the web." For one, he has no idea what he is talking about, but the fact is I do not know you and did not write this article and it was I that actually edited a large portion of your article that had no sources because at first glance it obviously did not conform to Wiki rules, which is what an editor is supposed to do, but never got the opportunity to check your sources because he removed it. He "lets" it be in the article as long as there is a counter argument, which is wholly unsupported because he apparently he agrees with it, and yet he removes the whole thing sayings its all OR because the discrediting part gets removed. Doug does not want people to know or think anything but what he wants in which he has once again shown he is not interested in fairness or truth but only in promoting his POV and censoring anything that does not blindly support it. I think Doug has proven time and again he is not objective or responsible enough to be an administrator here. I welcome you here Robert and hope you will stick around.thanos5150