Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza

Rationale for the inclusion of possible relationship to the Golden Ratio...

An edit I made earlier was reverted here by Iry-Hor based on the flawed reasoning that it was WP:OR numerology. Drawing conclusions may indeed be forbidden by Wikipedia policy, but the inclusion of self-evident observation is not. For example, supposing that one were to state in an article that the diagonal of a square with side length of one is equal to the square root of two - EVEN IF THIS WERE LACKING A SINGLE SOURCE - would nevertheless NOT be in violation of Wikipedia standards, just as it would be okay to write "so-and-so died just two days before his 100th birthday" even though no source specifically makes such statements. In this particular instance, a simple mathematical observation was made that may be of some interest to others (note that a height of 279.84 cubits rather than the speculated original value of 280 cubits would have yielded a precise ratio equal to the square root of phi). No conclusions whatsoever were drawn, just the statement of an interesting geometrical fact. -70.112.97.77 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And that remains numerology. I rest my case. Iry-Hor (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not. Numerology is a form of mysticism. Anyway, I've found a reference (it turns out that this fact has been extensively published), so the material's been re-included. -70.112.97.77 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the wording to reflect a less WP:OR tone. -70.112.97.77 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed as the pyramidology pseudoscience is covered elsewhere and we don't need a mid-1800s book speculation here. Vsmith (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe in pseudoscience, myself, but the obsession with Egypt in Victorian England is probably a big part of the reason why the pyramids became notable ourside of Egypt. There is a section for The Great Pyramid in modern cultural depictions which shows how this pyramid has been depicted in modern fiction. Surely the cultural depictions of the mid-1800s would be of some interest to people studying The Great Pyramid of Giza. There must be many abandoned or disproved theories about the pyramids. I think that a short section (especially one that focuses on why theories have fallen out of favour) would be compatible with the neutral point of view policy. And, even that books from the mid-1800s are out of copyright, I think it would be better to cover the topics (as abandoned theories) rather than exclude the information that 'we do not like' because readers are going to find things that are not in this article and think that the editors here forgot to include that information, rather than make the logical leap and decide that exclusion here means that an old book is incorrect. In other words, if something is wrong, but it is notable that people thought that way, I believe it should go into the article. Big Mac (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

...not to mention the exasperation of rediscovering a fact that has been well know since at least Victorian times yet somehow omitted from Wikipedia. Ignorance is bliss, eh? -70.112.97.77 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The question of inclusion turns on notability, it seems to me. Has the disputed content received significant attention in modern, reliable sources? Rivertorch (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Antiquated theories deserve mention too, though (if notable, of course). Considering that this was apparently a very hot topic back in the 19th century it probably deserves mention somewhere. Accordingly, I've moved the mathematical speculation to pyramidology. I hope that works for everyone? -70.112.97.77 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Antiquated theories are notable and deserve mention if they receive significant coverage in modern, reliable sources. Rivertorch (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Casing stones

The Casing stones section of the article starts: 'At completion, the Great Pyramid was surfaced by white "casing stones"...', but Jean-Pierre Houdin's construction hypothesis actually suggests that the casing stones were put there first, and that a second row of good stones was butted up behind them, before the rest of the level was filled in. Given that we have two mutually exclusive theories here, I think that the sentence needs a bit of rewording. I'm no expert, so do not know the percentage of people that support casing stones going on last, verses the number of people supporting Houdin's hypothesis of them going on first, but I think that the neutral point of view thing means that either both theories should be mentioned. If that would make too complex a sentence, perhaps the paragraph could start by saying that the casing stones are the outer layer and then have a second sentence that says they were either placed there on completion or during level construction. It might even be worth breaking the two theories into paragraphs or even subsections.

I'm not at all sure what way to go with this, but I think something needs to be done. Big Mac (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar question

It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu and was constructed over a 20 year period.

Should the last part of the sentence be written as 20-year period? Robert4565 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and "fourth dynasty" should be capitalized. All fixed now. Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

New evidence from Wadi al-Jarf Undue Weight

This has no direct relevance to this article. Other than it involves Khufu, Merrer, and vaguely mentions work teams of whom we have no idea what they were working on, there is no direct relationship to this discovery and the Great Pyramid. In fact, only the opposite as despite 3 months of Merrer's diaries he does not mention the Great Pyramid once. This discovery seems unrelated and superfluous to an article regarding the Great Pyramid as it has no direct relevance not to mention is given undue weight as to its placement within the article if it should be included at all. I suggest removing it. Thanos5150 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't discuss the Great Pyramid at all, so I've removed it as suggested. It isn't a weight issue but a sourcing one however. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, just trying to be polite. I wonder how long that edit was there until I saw it....Thanos5150 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of the GP to prove conspiracy theory

See [1], [2](in German), [3]. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement of the Obvious ???

From the current article: "Most accepted construction hypotheses are based on the idea that it was built by moving huge stones from a quarry and dragging and lifting them into place." It is hard to envisage any other mode of construction. If the intention is to highlight that hypotheses outwith the conventional have been rejected, perhaps the nature of the rejected hypotheses should be indicated.