Talk:Egyptian pyramids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egyptian pyramids has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

November 8, 2004

Featured article candidate

Not promoted

December 8, 2005

Good article nominee

Listed

Current Status: Good article

This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Architecture Portal

This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Ancient Egypt Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

Egypt Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Vandelism

please note in the first line ( HI PAT! ) and ( Smallest Constructions ) please edit or roll back.

I just reverted some more vandelism. --87.78.127.87 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
theres a line there about osama bin laden bombing one of the pyramids... please edit or roll back

[edit] North-to south structure

Listing the pyramid sites in an upstream direction is a nice touch, but a map would be a lot of help. Surely there must be a Photoshop jockey out there who can hack one of the CIA maps and mark all the sites on it? Also, there are a couple of minor pyramids further upstream that should be included, too: see here. –Hajor 05:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Size of Great Pyramid

One billionth of the radius of the Sun is 69.55 centimetres. That's not a very big pyramid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.254.82 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramid shape

Copied over from discussion at WP:FAC.

The opening phrase on 'descending rays' is misleading - the reason pyramids are the shape they are, is that if you want to build big, it is about the only structure you can build without any knowledge of architecture. -- Solipsist 21:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The solar symbolism of the pyramid shape and "descending rays" is widely accepted. The suggestion that the Egyptians had "no knowledge of architecture", is patent nonsense. Pyramids are extremely sophisticated engineering achievements and they were built by people who knew what they were doing. And what they were doing was dictated primarily by cultural and religious concerns - not engineering limitations. --Gene_poole 13:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that there was much symbolism such as the 'descending rays' associated with the building of Egyptian pyramids. However, the principle reason they are the shape they are emphatically is associated with engineering reasons. The Egyptians were the first really great builders and engineers, but they mostly had to learn by trial and error. There are absolute limits to how wide an span you can bridge with a stone beam and this restricts your options for building tall. Without more sophisticated engineering, you are not going to be able to build anything to a height of 150m except by using the shape of a pyramid. (You could also use a triangular based pyramid or a cone, but both are more complex and still limit the angle of the faces to around 45°.)

The exact limiting angle is called the angle of repose and depends on the shape of the material being piled. Anything steeper will just slide and fall down. (Incidentally, this is also why you don't see many mountains with faces steeper than 45°, norsand dunes with faces steeper than 35°)

It is pretty clear that the Egyptians would have liked to build steeper, but trial and error on early pyramids such as Meidun and Dashur taught them that they couldn't. You can also see steeper brick walls at Luxor Temple, but you couldn't get much taller than these.

Even with more sophisticated architecture, man wasn't able to build anything much taller than the pyramids at Giza, until the twentieth century. The romans did quite well with the Pont du Gard at 50m. Medieval cathedral builders did very well with Salisbury Cathedral at 123m in the 13th century, and eventually managed to top 150m with Cologne Cathedral at 157m in 1880 and Ulm Cathedral at 161m in 1890. Even then medieval stone masons were often working on trial and error - quite a few cathedrals collapsed during their construction. It wasn't until the development of the steel framed skyscraper in Chicago that buildings taller than 200m could be constructed. -- Solipsist 10:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the basic engineering principles and history of architecture as they apply to the height limitations of masonry construction, and I agree that pyramid-shaped buildings are, relative to other types of structures, easier to build if height is the main driver - however there are other examples of large ancient buildings as as tall as or taller than the majority of Egyptian pyramids, and they were built on entirely different bases. For example, the ziggurats of Mesopotamia were of similar scale, but built of stepped, sections butteressed by ramps with near-vertical walls, and the pyramids of Meroe had inclinations of 70 degrees. Egyptian pyramids on the other hand had a similar shape and inclination, no matter if they were 150 m or 5 m in height, so as I see it, the matter becomes one of to what degree did engineering considerations dictate the Egyptian pyramid shape. I suspect the answer is that it was probably a combination of practical necessity and religious symbolism (at least initially, for the really big ones), which evolved into a purely religious/cultural/iconographic norm as time passed. --Gene_poole 01:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I seem to be the only person who has given a rational explanation for the pyramidal shape of these great Egyptian monuments (that it derives from the way a sand pile forms naturally if built on a square base). See my article 'The origin and purpose of the Pyramids' in 'New Humanist', December 1990. Acknowledgement would be appreciated. 80.192.82.193 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shitballs

I read somewhere that they are a stylized version of the shitballs made by beetles. Egyptians would see the beetle forming a shitball and later a new beetle emerge from it. Hence the sacred beetle (scarab#The Scarabs of Ancient Egypt) knew about rebirth and made its own "pyramids". Of course, the shapes of pyramids and balls are different. what do you know about this theory?

I've never heard of such a theory. I'd say it is drawing a very long bow indeed to suggest that pyramids are "stylised" spheres. As far as I'm aware the scarab beetle's propensity for rolling dung balls pooo la ki as symbolic of the movement of the solar disc across the sky, so any connection with pyramids would be tangential at best.--Gene_poole 23:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hehe. Shitballs. Bertus 07:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text from Egyptian pyramid

Which I'm about to delete and turn into a redirect. For the record:

Egyptian pyramids are best known as the tombs of pharaohs, the former living god rulers of Egypt. The best known is the Great Pyramid of Giza, one of three large pyramids on the Giza necropolis adjacent to the Sphinx and the city of Cairo. picture!!!

Other pyramids at Giza include the two large pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure; these three pyramids together are the pyramids most commonly associated with Ancient Egypt. The three pyramids are sited close to each other and are often depicted together in art. Other Egyptian pyramids exist at Saqqara, including the Pyramid of Djoser, whose stepped construction indicates how the pyramid evolved from the mastaba style tomb; and the even earlier Pyramid of Unas, where the Pyramid Texts first appear. –Hajor 19:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stars

On discovery channel they claim that the positions of the pyramids are supposed to mimic positions of stars on the sky, so that the pyramids are supposed to symbolize the heavens or something like that. - User:193.216.89.72 01:23, 29 Dec 2004

Yes, the usual claim is that the three main pyramids of the Giza Plateau, which are nearly, but not quite in a straight line, have an alignment and spacing which matches the three stars in Orion's belt. There are then a few other outlying pyramids which more or less match the positions of other stars in the constellation. This theory goes in and out of favour, but the history of matching patterns to asterisms is not good.

There are also a couple of very straight narrow shafts leading up from the King's chamber of the Pyramid of Cheops, which are thought to align with stars in the constellation of Orion at various times of the year (once corrected for precession). Again, the significance of these shafts is debated, but it isn't clear what else they might be for.

It is certainly known that the Ancient Egyptians were interested in the alignment of the stars. There is also an inscription in the Pyramid of Onnos which reads

A stairway to heaven is prepared for him, and on it he ascends to heaven. He rises in a great cloud of incense. Onnus flies like a bird.

and is thought to explain some of the spiritual significance behind the construction of the pyramids. (I don't know of any connection to Led Zeppelin). -- Solipsist 08:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary removal

I've removed the following paragraphs until they can be re-written in a somewhat less breathless manner:

It was reported by some caravan travellers that while they were travelling in the midst of the scorching desert, they could see the Great Pyramids at Giza days before they reached the only remaining wonder of the world! This gives you an idea of how big the pyramids really are!

Basically, the Pyramids at Giza are a sort of family tree. The Great Pyramid, was built by Cheops. It is the largest pyramid at Giza.The second pyramid was built by Cheop's son- Khafre. Khafre's pyramid is a bit smaller than Cheops' in order of respect for his father. Khafre also built the mighty Sphinx, to guard the Pyramid. The next one along, was built by Khafre's son- Mycerinus. This pyramid is smaller than his father's and grandfather's. It's all confusing stuff! The pyramids near these terrific trio are of the minister's and the Pharaohs' wives.

'Why is the Great Pyramid an ancient wonder of the world?' is what a lot of people ask. The Great Pyramid was the tallest monument ever when it was built. Sceintists have come to the calculations, that the builders of the Great Pyramid laid down a stone cemented and everything,of an average of about every three seconds! This was amazing! Even now, let alone in those ancient historic days! This is why people think that the Ancient Eyptians were a superior race from a diffrent planet. (Aliens!)

--Gene_poole 02:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Fact and Reference Check Work is Excellent

Excellent work on the fact and reference check for this article! I realized that I had an uneasy feeling because I doubted some of the articles here, even though they are great and Wikipedia is great! With references I feel much less uneasy, and whats great is pretty soon Wikipedia will become perhaps the most credible source of information if all the facts are referenced :). --ShaunMacPherson 07:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How many pyramids?

"Approximately 90 pyramid structures of various sizes and in various states of preservation exist in Egypt today."

What's the source for this? A question on google answers[1] asked just this, and the researcher said that there were 110 pyramids, although some of these are "in a state of great disrepair and almost unrecognisable."

It also says that there are 67 completed structures. While the source for this looks credible enough[2], I definitely won't trust the first source[3], where they got the 110 figure. I'm actually surprised that they would use this as a source; if I'm not mistaken, it's a geocities-like free website registration site. Anybody know what the actual number is? (please provide source) -Frazzydee|✍ 22:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See this search. Probably we should report that the number varies from x to x. --Alterego 01:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Construction techniques

Merge of articles on construction? This article has quite a short, concise and rational section on construction. The Great Pyramid of Giza article has a huge, rambling section on construction (250 words on the pyramid itself, 10x as much on the construction and labour — not all of it 'rational' — in my opinion at least!). I would like to split the article off and merge this (and I think another section I have seen elsewhere). Any suggestions / advice ? Cheers Markh 10:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I intend to work on the article of the Pyramid of Giza. I agree a lot material on it is not very rational, i think, mainly because the believers of alternative theories try to eliminate the "acepted theories" and viceversa. I fear if you merge the two articles, a lot of nonsense may be introduced here. While i think alternative theories (or hypothesis) should be mentioned, we should keep them separated. By the way, english is not my native language, so pelase by patient with me :) Nanahuatzin 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to start with the section for this article ;-), then merge the other articles with that! I would save lots of repeated info and allow the other articles to be about the actual objects in question. Markh 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think it´s a good place to start. I intend to write more about the contruction techniques and problems (i am enginner and this fascinates me). As soon as i have some time, i will put something about the how they cut the stones, based on the archeological findings. Meanwhile in the article of Giza i want to write more about the structure of the pyramid, and the history of the pyramid after the construction. I will acomodate to the structure of the merged article.

New article now exists Egyptian pyramids construction techniques I have simply copied the section from here and the one in the Khufu article, and they need and introduction and merging. Once this is done, we can have a go at merging with the Great Pyramid of Giza section, and highlight which bits are 'generally accepted' and which are not. I dont actually want to remove any content, just avoid duplication. Any thoughts? Markh

[edit] Were have all the photographs gone?

Where have all the photographs gone from this article? I was the one who originally sought and gained permission from the owner to include them, so why have they been deleted? --Gene_poole 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete the image links from this page. Thanks to whoever it was who deleted the images I'm now going to have to upload them all over again, however I won't have time to do this for a few more days. --Gene_poole 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history of the page for the images. it looks like you didn't add the proper copyright notices to the images and they were deleted. Cyberia23 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures all gone again! I will see whether I can dig some out, I dont have access to replacement images for all of them though Markh 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have access and permission from the image owners to replace all the images that have been deleted. I intend doing so when I have a few hours spare - hopefully before February 2006. --Gene_poole 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a some replacement images for some of the missing ones. Hope these are OK Markh 14:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the direction of the shadows, how can the image of Giza be from the south-west? Mehtopa 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not. Someone replaced the perfectly good picture that was there before with the awful piece of rubbish that's there now, and didn't bother changing the caption. When I find the time I intend putting all the earlier pictures back again. --Gene_poole 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Why do people keep vandalizing this page? Cyberia23 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there only three?

i need an answer
- There aren't Markh 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Three what?... if you refer to pyramids, please read the article, there are between 80 and 110 pyramids in Egypt... Nanahuatzin 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are there no dates anywhere? Once or twice you've mentioned the dynasty of consstruction, but no dates. Letumbillon 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Built by Jewish slaves?

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? WHY isn't this mentioned when it is well-documented and so widely discussed? --205.188.117.14 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence at all to support it ? Markh 11:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the myth that Jewish slaves built the pyramids is so pervasive and widely-held, I think there should be some sort of mention discrediting this myth at the beginning of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.49.62 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

The people who built the piramids were neither Jews nor slaves, graves of the workers were found near them and forensic examination proves that they are egyptian. --Armanalp (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More pictures

not enough descriptiveness. more pictures and more about the egyptian alphabet.Áỹõ

[edit] See Also

Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One further point. This list, when it includes the disputed assortment of pyramids, becomes a fine example of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Hiberniantears 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "see also" section is meant to be a list of articles broadly related to the article subject. It is not intended merely as a list of "directly related subjects" - or in this case, a list of "authentic pyramids". Deliberately expunging links to articles on clearly related subjects as you are attempting to do constitutes an inappropriate application of a personal POV to the editing process; it is not our place to be making value judgements of this nature. I am consequently restoring the article to the default position prior to your edits. If you feel this is inappropriate, you may wish to establish a straw poll on the subject to help establish community consensus on the subject before attempting to implement further changes. --Gene_poole 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that removing the Bosnian and Ukraine links from this page are in fact an example of NPOV. Respecting the concept of "broadly related", I think that science bears out that neither the Bosnian or Ukrainian pyramids are related to the Egyptian pyramids at all for one simple fact: Neither one is a pyramid. As previously noted, the Bosnian "pyramid" is only being called a pyramid by a hoaxer - the site itself is a hill, with significant archaeological remains, but there is no evidence that the hill itself is built by anything other than the forces of nature. In the case of the Ukrainian page, there is a clear need to move the page to an NPOV name, since the archeologist in charge has said the site is not a pyramid.

To that end, the clear NPOV move would be for the Bosnian and Ukraine pages to include links to each other, since they are -in fact- broadly related to each other. However, since neither is a pyramid, neither is actually broadly related to anything that actually is. I realize this is being construed as a value judgement, but it is quite the opposite; a neutral point of view based solely on the evidence. As stated before, if further research yields a pyramid at the Bosnian location, then it would become broadly related to other pyramids, and therefore would warrant a see also connection. For the time being, the lack of evidence for the Bosnian pyramid actually makes refering to Visočica hill a highly POV statement, and it is therefore equally POV to link Visočica hill as a pyramid on other pyramid pages since it lends the impression of NPOV to the entirely evidence free Visočica hill pyramid theory. Hiberniantears 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are using specious reasoning to arrive at conclusions that match your POV. Whether Visocica Hill is an "authentic" pyramid or not is totally beside the point. The ONLY reason the vast majority of people have ever even heard of it is because a group of nutters has been claiming that it is one. This reality is reflected by the results of Google searches, which show 59,500 results for "bosnian pyramid" and only 761 results for "visocica hill". This represents perhaps the singlemost important contemporary example of the tremendous impact that "authentic" pyramids have had on the human consciousness throughout recorded history. It's entirely reasonable to expect that those researching the subject of "pyramids" in this article might want to explore the broader influence of the pyramid on the contemporary new age, so linking to "non-authentic" pyramid articles is something that we would be remiss to not do. --Gene_poole 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm being pretty diplomatic with you, yet you keep arguing with me in a somewhat abrasive manner. "specious reasoning" is hardly a neccesary way to say you disagree, esspecially when both of us are actually making pretty reasonable arguments. In the interest of compromise, why not something to the effect of:

[edit] See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Pyramids of Egypt

Ancient mysteries

Known Pyramids of Other Cultures

Reported Pyramids

Ukrainian pyramids - Archaeological dig site falsely reported as a pyramid in 2006
Bosnian pyramids - Also known as Visočica hill

My thoughts are that while I think your edit is POV, and you think my revert is POV, this allows both of us to have on hand the information we both think is important. My neutral point of view is that false pyramids should not be lumped in with the genuine article, while your neutral point of view is that all available information should be presented. By differentiating the See Also section in the manner above, I think we can find a compromise, rather than stake out absolutist positions.Hiberniantears 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion constitutes an excellent compromise. Apologies if some of my earlier comments came across as a bit snippy. I tend to write fairly succinctly as a matter of course. --Gene_poole 08:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for working with me on this! Hiberniantears 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I might think about changing the wording of the heading to something like Alleged pyramids or Undetermined pyramids and changing known Pyramids of other cultures to Pyramids of other cultures. This would more adequately express the certainty of the known pyramids against the indeterminate. --Joopercoopers 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonamly

Theres a bit of disagreement between the claim on this page that "The Great Pyramid of Khufu...is the largest pyramid in Egypt and was the tallest man-made structure in the World until 1888." and Eiffel tower (which I assumed the citation was refering to at 986-1063ft). The eiffel tower article claims the washington monument (555ft) was the worlds previously tallest structure. Khufu is 455ft. Perhaps the citation needs checking for as a Reliable source? --Joopercoopers 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Hi, I came to the page wanting the dates the pyramids were constructed and found little to help. I'm a new contributor but don't mind having a go at adding them if others agree that it is an omission. The data are out there - some in the 'pedia itself - they're just a bit scattered and I may need a bit of a hand as a newcomer. First off, would a list or an addition to each section suit better? Looking forward etc. --Kylemew 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody add some dates to this article? I hit the reference as a quick way to check the dates of the pyramids, but find this conspicuous in its absence. 75.35.248.155 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response everyone. I'll go ahead anyway and do it as a separate section/table based on dynasty. Sorry if this sounds a bit grumpy, its because I am. --Kylemew 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)--Kylemew 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Evidence to Suggest the Pyramids were CAST from concrete

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070522/sc_livescience/thesurprisingtruthbehindtheconstructionofthegreatpyramids

Incredible. Check it out. Intranetusa 17:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, this appears not to be National Enquirer stuff. Check out http://www.materials.drexel.edu/Pyramids/ on the site of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Among other things, this links the relevant paper, published in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, which I'm pretty certain is a peer-reviewed research journal. I'm not qualified to have any independent judgment on this, but I suspect that someone who is should look through the literature and see what kind of reaction Barsoum's claims are getting. - 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

As part of the WP:UCGA cleanup of GA tags, I found that there's some question about this page's GA quality. There's a lack of references (which may be on subpages but should need to be repeated on the front page), the external links can be cleaned up (using the [http://www.example.com Page Title] formatting), and some of the language is edging out of WP:NPOV and would be best supported by references. It's not far off, so for right now I'm just suggesting that these areas be improved. --Masem 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens?

I saw it on TV that aliens might have helped make the pyramids it should be mentioned somewhere. xD 70.110.102.225 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed there's a lot of talk about that, if there have been any scholarly pieces discussing the subject then I believe the aliens theory should be included somewhere in the article. I'll see if I can find anything myself. Swimforestswim 08:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angles

I came to this page to found out what angles the sides of the pyramids had to the ground. I have no idea where to find that information from a good source, so it would be nice if anyone could add that :) 62.143.117.130 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)--

[edit] Reference list

If someone could reconcile the currently conflicted references and notes sections it would be appreciated. --Gene_poole 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Egyptian copyright law

See this BBC story. It seems bizarre that Egypt could claim copyright over a model made in, say, France, and it's clearly unenforceable in practice. But IANAL, so who knows? 86.132.141.14 (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism....

I noticed some vandalism near the bottom of the page, but my lackluster wiki skills failed me. so, anyone else interested enough to fix it up? 142.167.227.206 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Psi

What are you referring to? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.