Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/Archive 4

Centre of the worlds land mass?
How truthfull is this statement, the conspiracists are always making claims about it.--60.242.71.160 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, not at all truthful. AFAIK this is mentioned in Piazzi, Charles: "Our inheritance in the Great Pyramid". More info why it's not true here. 89.204.152.53 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone Forgot to do some math here IMO...
and constructed over a 14 to 20-year period concluding around 2560 BC

2.500.000 blocks of stone ... in 20 years is .. 342 stones per day .. working 12 hours a day that's 28 stones per hour .... 1 stone per 2 minutes approx .. Cut, transported , measured , put down ..

I'm sorry, but I have to class this as absurd.. and with it, ask for this piece of "information" to be removed , or to be indicated as being speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.83.231 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our articles are based on sources chosen by the criteria at WP:RS, and one of the footnotes says "John Romer, basing his calculations on the known time scale for the Red pyramid, calculates 14 years —". Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if it isnt a alien conspiracist, who cant do maths. Your calculations are assuming one person built the pyramid (We know who is absurd and who cant do maths) so with 10,000 people thats one stone every 20,000 minutes of labour. Thats very lesiurely no wonder it may have been built in as little as 10 years, working 6 months a year, 6 days a week, 10 hours a day.--60.242.71.160 (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse my proficiency in a engish language. Say in short. He calculate not for one person, but for one block in time. And, please, write you calculations. Check: "10 years, working 6 months a year, 6 days a week, 10 hours a day" = 10 hours x 6 days x 4 weeks x 6 month x 10 years = 14.400 work hours. Now 2.300.000 blocks / 14.400 hours = 159,7 blocks in hour or for more realistic presentation = 9.582 blocks in you work week (159,7 bl x 10 h x 6 d)! "no wonder"?!) Work process occur in antiquity (no helicopters, cranes etc): cut, transport, pick up, carefully set simultaneously 9.582 large-tonnage stone blocks in work week)) By 10.000 workers, appropriate number) Every stone for one person at the same time) Please, say where is mistake in my calculations? Or 20 years = 1044 uninterrupted not reduced work weeks = 2203 blocks in week, this is more, also plausible. Maybe simultaneously 220 blocks in every week uninterrupted 200 years plausible for that work process? Or 220 blocks with interrupts 400 years, who knows, who cares) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.45.177.52 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for discussion of how long it took to build. Please see No original research. We can only use what reliable sources have written about this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussion, this is discussion for discussion? I'm only try check "no wonder" calculation in discussion. Uh ... (proficiency in engish), but finally thanks for you cooperation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.45.177.52 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, John Romer has an Arts degree , and is glorified eighties television presenter.. A good one as it may be. He isn't a historian, nor a mathematician , nor a current day construction foreman , nor mason. I would like to put the reliability of this source in question. EDIT: http://www.amazon.com/Building-Great-Pyramid-Year-Engineers/dp/0875865216 Astonished as I am, this Engineer aparently thinks it can be done in 1 year. OK. Point is moot. 83.101.83.231 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can get a lot done with religiously motivated slave labor. The book was published by Cambridge, so unless you can find multiple university professors that say "noone in their right mind would pay Romer a bit of attention," he's gonna be included.  Original research is not accepted here, so it would save you a lot of frustration if you just found a different source, one that fits the site's reliable sourcing guidelines.  Even then, what's most likely going to happen is (as the article states now) a range, with 14 being the lowest number.  Wikipedia isn't concerned with "facts," it just summarizes what are generally considered reliable sources.  A cursory glance over google books (skipping the ones about flying saucers) does find a couple of sources (1 2) that say 'about 20 years,' but these are meant for middle schools (still reliable, but not enough to knock Romer out of the article).  The Routledge dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses gives a similar figure as the article, 14-20 years.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But Rainer Stadelmann, one of most respected Egyptologists ever who has actually been the one excavating the Red Pyramid for over 20yrs, not Romer, says based on the same workman's graffiti that the Red Pyramid took 17rs to construct, not 10. To extrapolate the construction time to the GP as Romer did using Stadelmann's figures, then it took at least 20 years to construct GP which is in line with traditional estimates. Thanos5150 (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 14-20yr construction period
The article says that "It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu and constructed over a 14 to 20-year period". This is not accurate as general consensus among egyptologists accept Herodotus's 20yr period while the 14yr time frame is offered by only one egptologist: John Rohmer. Until Rohmer's opinion has enough weight to change scholarly consensus so that the textbooks are rewritten then the accepted time of construction should remain at 20yrs. If Rohmer's opinion is to be included it is to be as a stated opinion. Also, the 20yr period does not require a reference as it is common knowledge and general consensus.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 20 years is not definite and I've changed the lead to make that clear. I've replaced Romer's suggestion of 14 years attributing it to him. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course the 20 year period should be referenced and explained somewhere it's been questioned and discussed here often enough to need that, see the archives. And have you forgotten how keen you were to have a section discussing a very minor fringe claim about 27 years? I hope you won't remove Romer's shorter time suggestion, that's only a sentence whereas you wanted (working from memory here, don't lambaste me if I'm wrong) a section for the 27 years claim. @Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why did you make that edit in the first place? The 14-20 yrs and the Romer source comes from you. The problem Doug is that you purposefully misused one source; one opinion, to make the statement it took 14-20 years to construct in the leads of two different sections as if this were the accepted consensus of egyptologists at large which you know it is not. You did this because personally you favor a lesser construction time as well and want to weasel that in there somehow. Conventional wisdom holds to 20yrs which is what we observe for general statements of fact and the opinion of one person does not qualify to expand that statement. If it is to be included it needs to be duly noted as that person's opinion in the relevant section. You know this isn't appropriate better than anyone Doug, yet still you do it. You did a similar thing using Romer as a source for the time of the Red Pyramid's construction completely ignoring 20yrs of study by Stadelman, the lead archeologist, who unlike Romer is an actual egyptologist not to mention one of the greats in the field.


 * Regardless of the source, did I use the Booker quote of 27yrs in the lead to say "it is believed it took 20-27yrs to construct the Great Pyramid"? Of course not. I wouldn't have done that even if Petrie had said it because the overwhelming popular consensus says otherwise. And yes, you are wrong so you can lambaste yourself on your own time. The Booker 27yrs was one paragraph out of several topics in the Alternative Section, and no, I was not "keen" to have a whole section devoted to it and was totally appropriate it be there in that context. And again, at risk of beating a dead horse, Booker's is not a "fringe claim"-he was the Technical Director of the Indiana Limestone Institute, the problem is that it came from a fringe book.


 * Alternative times for construction should be discussed elsewhere and though I would not remove the Romer quote entirely it should be moved to an appropriate section where other opinions are offered as well. Romer is a self proclaimed historian, artist, and a TV host and not even an actual egyptologist, and if his opinions were more unorthodox he wouldn't even be allowed as a source, so please refrain from giving his opinions undue weight.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't care if it took 14 or 20 years, I simply read Romer and thought it was interesting. As for Romer, you left out that in 1977-1979, he originated and organised an excavation of the tomb of Ramesses XI for the Brooklyn Museum, that he is referred to in The Routledge dictionary of Egyptian gods and goddesses by George Hart and other reliable sources as an Egyptologist. As far as 'self-proclaimed', that's just nonsense, you've described how he made his living - he really is those things, that's just a slur. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. At this point I'd be worry more about your own integrity than John Romer's.
 * Does Romer have a degree in history? Archeology? Egyptology? No. Romer is obviously a qualified individual, but many other sources are disqualified by the same standards, regardless of their experience, even though unlike Romer most often have higher degrees in other fields. There is a hypocrisy of convenience here that is all too common on Wiki. I can ignore those things to discredit Romer or include it to give him credibility. Funny how that works, huh? And it's not a slur to say Romer is not an accredited Egyptologist because he is not . I am done with this matter.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, because you are becoming boring. No one has mentioned him being or even not being accredited, what would be a slur would be to say he's not an Egyptologist. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, very boring I agree. See topic above: Someone Forgot to do some math here IMO.... "With all due respect, John Romer has an Arts degree , and is glorified eighties television presenter. A good one as it may be. He isn't a historian , nor a mathematician , nor a current day construction foreman , nor mason . I would like to put the reliability of this source in question". No one except for that guy I guess.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm supposed to take seriously an IP whose only edits were at this talk page? This isn't a forum, we depend upon what the sources say. Fortunately. And you said you were done. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During Petrie's research on the pyramid, I have been reading of the measurements he made of the inclination angle of the sides, as well as the angles of the shafts and chambers. The average deviation of angle of just the casing stones is +/- .01 of an inch. I could go on, but his measurements go on to the inner chambers and shafts with deviation of +/- .02 of an inch. The granite inside the King's Chamber has also been measured with optical gauges and is as accurate as an industrial gauge plate, on all blocks except the support blocks for the roof, which are smooth only on 3 sides. Coming from a manufacturing background in fiber optic components, I find it hard to believe ancient pyramid builders had our gauging equipment, as well as personnel that could 'carve by hand' granite rocks by eye with 'copper' tools that are softer than the rocks they are cutting, to that kind of precision, in abundance and efficiently to match the time scale. Modern estimates made by limestone masons from Indiana place a time scale of 27 years +/- 1 year just to query the limestone at all 33 queries under triple capacity (not including transportation of the material). The precision of the structure should be duly noted and the time scale portion should be replaced with modern estimates at the very least (especially considering that we would be using modern hydraulic lifting cranes and silicon carbine cutting wire powered my massive machines, along with thousands of workers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.24.176 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are Thanos editing logged out, we discussed the Merle Booker claim (it's in the archives) and not only did no one present any evidence other than Richard Noone's book that this study ever happened, there's no evidence it's been discussed in sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say about a subject as you should know. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Doug. This was not me, but thanks once again for the snarky unwarranted comments. I do not have a manufacturing background in fiber optics and regardless am always happy to sign my posts. Hopefully this user will sign his posts. Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think my comment was snarky, it certainly wasn't meant to be, and you have, as I have in the past, edited not logged in and not realising it not signed it. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So why add "as you should know" if not snark? And why would I just go into some long winded OR riff 3 months later about engineering not really even related to the discussion? Someone mentions the Booker stuff and you assume it is me when common sense, and my history, should tell you otherwise. Isn't their some Wiki rule about Good Faith?Thanos5150 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does mean that you should accept that my comments weren't meant to be snarky. I was puzzled but made the false assumption that no one else would bring up Noone. And I repeat, you have edited before logged out. That's not a problem, just affected my perception. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Read 'Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh' 13 & 77. All the measurements are recorded there. Quote - casing stones: 'The eastern joint of the northern casing stones is on the top .020, .002, .045 wide; and on the face .012, .022, and .040 wide. The next joint is on the face .001 and .014 wide. Hence the mean thickness of the joints is .020; and, therefore, the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line and from a true square, is but .010 on length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy equal to most modern opticians' straight edges of such length." - William F. Petrie, 1882 'Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh', 13 Even if you discount Booker, what of the precision? Anyone who is in specialized fields involving manufacturing of anything from homes to electronics will say that to maintain a precision level of that magnitude on that large of a scale would take generations without proper modern measuring gauges and machining tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.203.102 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Also, just food for thought, the human eye cannot distinguish a tolerance level of that magnitude. Most modern structures have a .25 inch +/- threshold or accuracy, with a angular give of +/- 1 degree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.203.102 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to a forum, this discussion is inappropriate here, this is not a venue for discussing the construction of the pyramid. See the bit at the top saying this isn't a forum. I'll be deleting this later. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The section named "Regarding discussion above and COI contributions in general" should be removed as well. It contains nothing regarding article improvement, only unwarranted personal attacks which has no place in article talk pages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding discussion above and COI contributions in general
For Doug, If the talk page is for improving an article, I am not quite sure why you wrote (at least twice) that this is not a forum to Thanos when they were discuss how to improve the article. Thanos gave you feedback regarding edits in an effort to improve the article and it seems you did not agree and pushed back by mentioning the forum thing and also saying you shouldn't take and IP seriously when their only edits are on the talk page. I do not see how that is relevant other than being a jab that could be taken as a personal attack.

You are in violation of consensus, personal attack, vandalism, conflict of interest, and gaming the system. Not just this article, but ALL your contributions fall under this category. Please do not take this as a personal attack. Telling the truth is not a personal attack. Given your history on the Internet and usenet which is within the exact same areas of interest as here, you should have all your edits reverted and your account removed on conflict of interest alone. It's like Jim Fetzer being allowed the write JFK's article. Thanos point is well-meaning and relevant to the article, you accept a source when it is convenient to your opinion and POV but you would also find a way to reject the same source if it conflicted with your opinion and POV. Gaming the system. I understand if you object to something that is even borderline fridge and goes against consensus, this is an encyclopedia after all. But your history indicates you will go out of the way to reject edits based on sources which you would otherwise consider credible if they suited your edits. This isn't a forum, I know. But if there is an obstacle to improving this article or any archeology/ancient history article it is your contributions. Maybe Wikipedia is not the right place to have articles about new theories that go against consensus. But when the theory is obvious and not fringe and from a reliable source (expanding Earth theory comes to mind) I see you hawkishly attacking it as if you are getting paid to do just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.11 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks, man. Couldn't agree with you more. Hopefully you will come back and sign your post so we know who you are.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, Dougweller was correct. "Anyone who is in specialized fields involving manufacturing of anything from homes to electronics will say that to maintain a precision level of that magnitude on that large of a scale would take generations without proper modern measuring gauges and machining tools." etc was personal conjecture and discussion not related to article improvement. The IP comment above is also a personal attack on an editor, since it is entirely a rant about how the IP percieves the editing behaviour of another editor rather than a discussion about article improvement.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid and it's ratio to pi and phi
Pi is vaguely described as "(perfect) circle's circumference to its diameter".

sqrt(16/(lim_(n->infinity) F_(n+1)/F_n)) = sqrt(16/((sqrt(5)+1)/2)) = 4/sqrt(phi) = approx 3.1446055110296931442782343433718357180924882313508929506596 .. It is based on the fundamental Fibonacci sequence (the F there is Fibonacci number).

Why do we nowdays still use the Pi's arithmetic value 3.141... instead of the "natural fibonacci/phi based" Pi value 3.144... even the ancient egyptians used and which does fulfill the description of pi; (perfect) circles circumference to its diameter?



"From here things begin to get really interesting . As can be seen, BC above is equal to one half the length of the pyramid's side. Therefore, the perimeter of the base equals BC x 8, and in relative terms this equals 0.618034 x 8 = 4.9443. The relative height of the pyramid is 0.78615, and, if one uses this length as the radius of a circle, then the circumference (perimeter) of that circle will also be 4.9443. Also, perhaps more important factor, is that the length of side OD (0.78615), when multiplied by 4 yields an amount (3.1446) that is almost exactly equal to Pi (3.1416). This finding means that the 38010' right triangle offers a unique and most interesting point of intersection between the Pi ratio and the golden ratio phenomenon. How this unexpected agreement comes to be is that : As we saw in the 38010' right triangle, 0.618034 ÷ 0.78615 = 0.78615. This means, that 0.618034 = 0.78615 x 0.78615. Therefore, 8 x 0.618034 is the same as 8 x 0.78615 x 0.78615; As we also saw, 4 x 0.78615 is a very close approximation for Pi. Therefore,2*Pi can be said to equal 8 x .78615. For the circumference of the circle using 0.78615 as its radius, we then have C =2*Pi*R = (8 x 0.78615) x 0.78615 .As a result, the Great Pyramid turns out to have the same perimeter length when measured in a horizontal plane, as a square, and in a vertical plane, as a circle. " 1

There are several rumours that even nasa didn't use the ordinary Pi value in some of their lunar missions. Why?

You can solve the maths yourself: 4- 4sin²x = cos x, 0 <=x<= 2 sqrt(16/((sqrt(5)+1)/2)) at wolframalpha.com ..

.. Please add this to the original article with the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.78.247.168 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see WP:No Original Research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

closed
According to the History Channel due to the high level of humidity caused by too many visitors, Zahi Hawas has ordered that the Great Pyramid is to be closed "indefinitely". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.46.162 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Must be a repeat, he isn't in a position to do that anymore. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Khufu's Role in the Great Pyramid's construction
Why is it believed that the pyramid was built as a tomb by and for Khufu? Nowhere in the article does it mention finding his body, nor the specific evidence that leads us to the conclusion that be built it. Can someone quote the references' evidence and not just their claims? Joedarris (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Over the past years an increasing number of scientifically educated technicians conclude just from ascertained facts and findings that the Great Pyramid is the remains of some kind of huge technical machine or apparatus.

There are much more verifiable facts still evident and obvious within the building proving this, compared to egyptologist’s presumptions of being an extremely overdimensioned tomb for some freaked out pharaoh. Ideas for which purpose this apparatus served and for which reason it has been built by whom and when are merely speculative as we can nowadays see the masonry foundations only, with all possible equipment and installations missing. As long as unproven, this ideas should of course be factored out, but also should the tomb-theory as it is still unproven either.

Facts and measures recognizable very clear and conclusive to educated technicians are often meaningless for egyptologists, therefore misinterpreted and explained as delusion, some kind of cultish symbolism or ignored at all. So which science is now the “pseudo” one? Is the egyptologist’s attempt at explanations not speculative? For a reputable institution like Wikipedia it would be desirable to state the facts referring to today’s knowledge, free from speculations or unproved presumptions. And these facts are much more indicative to the technical application than to the solely tomb. Ronron11 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We at Wikipedia really do not care about "knowledge", just summarizing reliable sources (as defined here) in a neutral manner (as defined here). We do not give undue weight to fringe information.  Do you have any reliable sources suggesting that the pyramid is anything other than the Pharaoh trying to overcompensating for something with his tomb?  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? It's called "go to Egypt and see for yourself".

Consider completely different stone masonry techniques unlike anything in ancient Egypt. A civilization do now work with megaliths unless it is as easy for them as working with normal sized blocks. Also, ancient Egyptian civilization of the claimed period did not possess the tools even remotely capable of construction of the megalithic structures, Great pyramids included. All the markings left in stone clearly demonstrate that they were made by machinery of some sort. Had I met the burden of proof? Anyhow, Egyptologists did not as "alternativists" can say "We don't know who when or why the pyramids were built, no data is available" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.67.226 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been to Egypt, and I have seen for myself. I have watched modern Egyptian workers perform restoration work using steel tools on limestone blocks, and I have seen how difficult it is. I have been to the Aswan quarries, and I have seen how utterly impossible it is for workers to crawl underneath those granite monoliths and to "pound" them free of the bedrock with lumps of rock with a sideways strike in a space too small for a five-year-old to work in. I have also seen two different TV documentaries starring Mark Lehner, wherein he attempted to duplicate the "ancient methods", and in both cases he was spectacularly unable to do so. In both cases he was forced to resort to using modern steel tools and equipment, and even then he failed to even approach the work of the ancients. Nonetheless, instead of admitting that his theory is b*llsh*t, he resorts to concluding that "this just makes us appreciate even more what the ancients were able to achieve with very limited tools". Sadly, wikipedia does not accept common sense and personal observation as "reliable evidence" - you will need to find a reliable quote from Lehner or equivalent that states that "experimental evidence makes it clear that the ancients could not possibly have achieved all this with ropes and copper chisels". Good luck with finding that. Wdford (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So, 'secret powers of the ancients'? Anti-gravity? Dismiss the actual experimental work that has replicated a lot of this even if Lehner failed? Dismiss the physical evidence? Admit that we've simply lost skills that were developed over many centuries, losing them because we simply don't need them? Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not claim what was used in construction, we claim what wasn't used. Look at the chronology of pyramid construction in ancient Egypt: how it is possible that in a space of 100 years or so the techniques skyrocketed in Giza and only in Giza? Later dynasties built more or less on one primitive level throughout. Only 6 megalithic pyramids stand in high contrast to everything else in dynastic Egypt 80.237.66.121 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So? There were political and economic reasons (among possibly others) as to why smaller pyramids were the norm after the Giza ones. But this isn't the place for arguing a case, bring on your reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

pasthorizons
I just noticed that the Interior section of the article has a paragraph quoting a website called "pasthorizons", which claims a robot sent up the Northern Queens Shaft by the Djedi Project filmed behind the door in the shaft and found stuff. I never saw this anywhere in the news. The Djedi Project seems to be real, but there is no mention of this discovery. Is this for real? How credible is the pasthorizons publication? Wdford (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added it, it was widely publicized at the time.


 * Check out their website:
 * http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/
 * Bloger (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See, and . Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added the references. Wdford (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ascending passage
Description of the ascending passage in this article "almost exact angle" is deliberate malice negligent propaganda with intent of writer's creating favoritism to specific theories. The ascending passage has the equivalent difference in angle to that of 92 years precession away from the pole thus less altitude. This proves that the 20-year claim to build it is false. 20 years is reduction of the 25-year Osiris (moon of 309 lunar months), and attempting to get the stones cut in 5 years thus build it in 20. But as they say a lie requires more lies,thelie of 25 years results in lying covering over the reflective angle published for decades in pyramid books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Naguib Mahfouz novel
"In 1829, Nagib Mahfuz wrote the novel Khufu´s Wisdom, which leans on the stories of Papyrus Westcar..."

Mahfouz lived from 1911-2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naguib_Mahfouz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.9.138 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Subterrannean Chamber
Is it possible the subterrannean chamber was dug to watch for cracking in the bedrock as the pyramid rose overhead? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

AD 1300 earthquake
Was it the 1303 Crete earthquake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.91.233 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 November 2012
I want to add my website page as a external link page which is related to this topic and provide basic important information about this topic i short to viewers.

Noorul Hasan Qureshi (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Does your website offer resources not available from the existing article content? I suggest you read the content at WP:ELNO, and then if you think the site is suitable, and qualifies under all of those guidelines, pop a link to it back here in this request for someone to look at. In general, wikipedia is not a collection of links, so the site will only get added if it adds to the understanding of the article in a way that we couldn't do by just including some extra information here, in the article. If you need more attention to this request after considering all that, please change the template above to answered=no to reactivate the request when you have replied. Or just reply - someone will see it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Descending Chamber as it relates to Solfeggio Scale

quote from Wikipedia Pyramid Page: The floor of the Grand Gallery consists of a shelf or step on either side, 51 centimetres (20 in) wide, leaving a lower ramp 1.04 metres (3.4 ft) wide between them. In the shelves there are 54 slots, 27 on each side matched by vertical and horizontal slots in the walls of the Gallery. These form a cross shape that rises out of the slot in the shelf.

Solfeggio Scale includes 147Hz -> 174Hz difference is 27 higher in scale includes 417Hz -> 471Hx difference is 54

can anyone tune a Pyramid? There was obviously some sort of tuning structure in the Large Chamber as a guess. Held in place by these holes. but no noted evidence to back this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.81.75 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Age?
I've read a few paragraphs in, and the age (or date of construction) is not mentioned. That is the main thing about it, it's age. I'm not going to scan through numerous paragraphs about cubits to see if the age was mentioned. WHAT AN OVERSIGHT!
 * Even with a short attention span you should be able to get to the third sentence of the lead section where construction dates are given.--Charles (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2013


Joshua Paul Doubek (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I don't see an obvious place to add that image. Or did you mean to replace one of the existing images with this one? If you reopen this request, please be very specific about where you'd like the image to go. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Shafts
In the popular literature, there are discussions about the function of the shafts (e.g., alignment with constellations, e.g., http://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eiYl1lGLs5YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=shafts+constellations+giza&ots=7UIwKOgD2f&sig=BOkTvv1rT-wgGg2EEoD7mU7W2IY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=shafts%20constellations%20giza&f=false, p. 62). A scholarly article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rob.21451/full) lists these as well, in its discussion of the planned robot Djedi investigations. What were the results? 211.225.33.104 (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

where is the geometry section?
what shape is it? this pyramid has eight sides, not just four triangles like other pyramids. Is the base really a square? What about the right angle triangle shadows cast at equinox? 60.241.100.51 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.100.51 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It has a square base and four sides. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The great pyramids faces are in fact slightly concave, this page explains it well: http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.130.180 (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @60.241.100.51 I think you are talking about the Mayan pyramid at Chichen Itza. The shadows create a serpent effect at equinox and I suppose the temple at the top can count as four additional sides. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  20:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Initially at 146.5 metres (481 feet), the Great Pyramid was the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years" and "the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft)" which was it.. 480.6 or 481ft? 50.47.96.12 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Height

 * "Initially at 146.5 metres (481 feet), the Great Pyramid was the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years" and "the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft)" which was it.. 480.6 or 481ft? 50.47.96.12 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's either, depending on whether one rounds to the nearest foot or to the nearest tenth of a foot; based on the metric figure, the precise height is 480.64304 feet. Increments of feet aren't usually expressed in tenths, so maybe the 480.6 figure should be rounded up or else expressed in feet and inches. Anyone know off the top of their head how to make the template do that? Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
Any ideas where in the article we could mention this news? Arguably a good candidate for the main page "in the news" segment. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a likely place to mention it, but I also wonder if it is noteworthy enough to mention. I'm seeing all of three hits when I search Google News, and I rather suspect that before long the number will go down to zero. WP:RECENT has some good advice, I think. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Measuring with a wheel
Measuring distance with a wheel only works accurately if the surface being measured is very level and the wheel is coated with a non-slip material such as rubber. In any other circumstance the wheel would slip or skid regularly, and accuracy would be further impaired by the wheel bouncing over humps and ruts in the rough stone surface. The accuracy of the Great Pyramid could not have been achieved by this method.

If the builders were to use a wheel to lay out the sides, there is absolutely no credible reason why they should coincidently choose as their height measurement unit a unit equal to exactly twice the diameter of their hypothetical wheel.

There is no evidence of any kind to indicate that the Ancient Egyptians ever measured dimensions using wheels, or even used wheels for transport, until long after the Old Kingdom had passed into legend.

On the other hand, it is well known that the kings and architects of Ancient Egypt actually laid out their buildings using measuring cords. This has the advantage of total accuracy over significant distances, even across relatively uneven surfaces, as well as simplicity and ease of use. The same cords used for measuring horizontal distances could also be used for measuring vertical distances, which would greatly simplify the process.

Furthermore, there are many inscriptions and relief carvings across the land describing and illustrating the very process of the king performing the ritual of the “stretching of the cords”, usually assisted by the goddess Seshat.

Wdford (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2013 (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)

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.&#32;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)

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)

Real reason for basement chamber
Is it possible that the basement chamber was dug to watch for cracking in the pyramid's foundation, rather as a tomb chamber as some suggest? The pyramid was built on a rock plateau (not mentioned in the article) but the architects would have had no way of knowing the uniformity of the underlying rock. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What's under the sarcophagus?
Has anyone considered looking under the sarcophagus in the King's Chamber? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. ;) And -you never gonna believe this!- for several times. There is nothing but massive granit. Disappointed robbers once damaged the floor, but found only roghly hewn lime stone and sand fillings. Some Egyptologists, such as Stadelmann, think that it might be possible, that the today position of the sarcophagus is not the original one. It rather seems that the the coffin was once placed at the western wall, since the western hemisphere was believed to be the land of the dead. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Cubits
The article gives height at 280 and base at 440 cubits but these measures are actually in royal cubits. A standard cubit is 0.88 times a Royal Cubit. The base is 500 standard cubits. 67.181.86.210 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.86.210 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not quite. A "royal cubit" consists of 7 "digits" or "fingers", and a "standard cubit" consists of only 6 "fingers". A standard cubit is thus 6/7 of a royal cubit. A base of 440 royal cubits thus equates to 513.333 standard cubits, and the height of 280 royal cubits equates to 326.666 standard cubits. Wdford (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not 7 digits, but 7 palms. Each palm is further divided into 4 digits. Bear in mind that a cubit is based on the length of the forearm. Kumiponi (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. My bad. Thank you for spotting it. Wdford (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC) totally wrong i looked it up on google.

128.123.114.130 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 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)


 * I know this is an old discussion, but I want to point this out. The article on Wadi al-Jarf in Near Eastern Archaeology says the papyri specifically refer to deliveries of stone from Tura to "Horizon of Khufu", which we know was the ancient Egyptian name for the Great Pyramid. See page 10. A. Parrot (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

its is made in 2550 b.c.e. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.16.218 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of the GP to prove conspiracy theory
Was the Great Pyramid built by an advanced race of Aliens ? Should we include this topic in the Article ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.108.206 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

See, (in German),. 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.

We need to consider removing the construction theory ,as it is non-factual and theory only. It suggests no pulleys were used and there is no evidence supporting the claims.

We could suggest Aliens built them if we are not required to provide evidence.

The Article also advises the reader that they stones were simply rolled in to place. Square blocks don't roll ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.108.206 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
Wikipedia should add in a timeline.13:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)92.5.75.130 (talk)

Stonehenge

opening TIME             prices 9:30a.m-4p.m.(winter) 9:00a.m- 7p.m (summer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.252.112 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015
The age of the Pyramids is unknown, and certainly a lot older than 2500 years. My request is to change the range to «unknown». Be honest about the age of the Giza pyramids please. We know they are at least as old as the end of the last ice age.

Driftedapart (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Who says that they're that old?  Wikipedia content has to be based off of reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or peer-reviewed journal articles.  Do you have such sources for your claim? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Relieving Chambers
A quick Google search demonstrates some controversy regarding the purpose of the "Relieving Chambers", which is not mentioned in the article. In fact, the article barely discusses them at all. Should a section be added for them specifically? (They're currently mentioned in the Grand Gallery and King's Chamber sections, although I find their mention in the former confusing and unhelpful.) 162.27.9.20 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Google searches are not listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources for a reason. Do you have specific academic works to cite? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Great Pyramid of Giza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0699feat.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212091739/http://www.foxnews.com:80/scitech/2011/12/12/will-great-pyramids-secret-doors-be-opened/?test=faces to http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/12/will-great-pyramids-secret-doors-be-opened/?test=faces

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Electromagnetic charge theory -- worth addressing?
I am informed (via Facebook) that the design of the Great Pyramid was chosen based on knowledge of electromagnetism. In a nutshell: The Nile floods, water moves through the Pyramid through passages of different types of rock selected to carry the resulting electromagnetic charge, and the electricity is kept inside because the structure is sheathed in a nonconductor.

In a quick search I found references to one proponent of this theory but nothing on any reputable site -- I admit I didn't give it the full-court research press.

I'm 99.99% sure this is crackpottery, but if it's making the rounds on Facebook, is it worth debunking? JamesMLane t c 04:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That, and there is (presidential candidate) Ben Carson's belief that Joseph, with his technicolor dreamcoat, built them for grain storage. The electromagnetically charged water conjecture has even less basis (scientific or motive rational) than the grain storage theory.   Arbalest Mike (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hidden chamber
Why does this article not mention the hidden chamber discovered in 2014? 173.89.236.187 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What "hidden chamber" are you talking about? The only remarkable thing discovered in Khufu's pyramid are the model shafts leading way from the queen's chamber and the king's chamber. And only one shaft ends in something like a teeny-tiny "room" (not much larger than a shoe box). So, again: what "hidden chamber" did you mean? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding article ambiguous
What does "Based on a mark in an interior chamber naming the work gang and a reference to fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu,[1][2] Egyptologists believe that the pyramid was built as a tomb over a 10 to 20-year period concluding around 2560 BC." mean?

What is meant by "mark"? If it means the name of a work gang was written out somewhere, the article should say that explicitly. And what does the name of a work gang have to do with the name of who was interred here? (I'm sure there's a perfectly good answer, but it's missing from the article.) And what is meant by "a reference"? Something written inside the pyramid? A papyrus from somewhere else mentioning Khufu and the pyramid? The references in the wikipedia article are no help. One is to a BBC page and the other to an 1840 publication. Why not just have an unambiguous sentence?

2620:0:1000:4901:7DB7:9A82:33CE:8620 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mortar
So 10% of the pyramid is mortar? Just granpa (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ratios (in space), incl. previous discussion
(I say "... (in space)..." bcz there's also been at least one instance of discussion of a temporal ratio.)  A talk-archive search for "ratio" shows previous discussions of the proportions of the structure:
 * Arch. 1, References?
 * Arch. 2, Accuracy of this article
 * Arch. 4, Rationale for the inclusion of possible relationship to the Golden Ratio...

The mathematicians Alfred S. Posamentier & Bernd Thaller, in Numbers (which has 5 words of subtitle) devote several sections (pp. 317-328) of Chapter 10 to the ratios specified by pi, phi, and the seked, seem to argue that the last suffices to explain this pyramid's proportions better than would the supposition that the builders knew the value of pi or phi more accurately than the historical record makes plausible. --Jerzy•t 20:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly the masons used a seked when actually building on site. However the choice of the "uneven" seked of 5 palms and 2 digits of run per cubit of rise is coincidentally a spot-on match for PI. The issue is whether this is really coincidence? Wdford (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016
I took a better picture of the Grand Gallery during my trip in November which I would like to put into this article.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza_Grand_Gallery.jpg

2602:306:3708:A540:D140:EDFA:5714:DF5 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your photo. While File:Great Pyramid of Giza Grand Gallery.jpg certainly has a higher resolution, I believe that File:Cheops grote galerij.jpg for the purpose of illustration is still better suited. Just my humble opinion, of course. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * After discussion, if it is decided that the image should be used, please feel free to reopen the edit request. fredgandt 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I can see no reason to not include both. The far higher resolution of the new image is ideal for getting a closer look at the stone, whilst the golden hue (looks like the unnatural effect of artificial light on daylight film) and portrait framing of the current image is aesthetically pleasing. If I were forced to make a choice and keep only one in the article, I'd choose the larger for its colour authenticity and detail. fredgandt 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(Petrie's "cement")
(Petrie's "cement") ? who cares what baseless proven false claims are made? its not worthy of a factual article.--Thelawlollol (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

history
the pyramid of giza is a lie the story is not true --165.225.34.79 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What story are you talking about here? Verified Cactus (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As in what? what evidence? stupid claims from ignorant conspiracists who ignore the facts?--Thelawlollol (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

View from the top
In January 2016 it was revealed that Andrej Ciesielski, a German teenager from Munich, had illegally scaled the Great Pyramid for a photo opportunity. "Rules against scaling pyramids are to protect them from getting damaged and climbers face three years in prison." It took him 8 minutes:,. I doubt this social-media factoid deserves to be added to the article, but his images do show the view from the top which is not often seen Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

C)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016
Just a Minor Edit for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Construction_theories Specifically linking the 'phyle' term to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyle

Reason: Users will have to use a search engine to find out about it when Wikipedia already has the information.

Feel free to decline, however, do inform of the reason of declination so that I will avoid further possible circumstances reasonably. Skyferia (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done By the way if you do 3 more edits you will be autoconfirmed. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Secret passage
There is a secret passage above the main entrance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * . Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016
the pyramid has four sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.229.201 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Pyramid of Giza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129060146/http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/hassan_giza_10.pdf to http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/hassan_giza_10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Logbook describing construction
See this. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent dispute
No other article would better accommodate this information. It is simply consists of numerical and mathemathical values, possibly coincidential, and is not a theory or an interpretation of the numerical values. The best compromise would be not to remove the part but probably the dear Rivertorch to write something like counter-claim for balance. Even though some scientists reckon the many coincidences are probably no accident, this wasn't written in the section to avoid edit conflicts. I expect any suggestions for modifying the introduced section but staying in this article as it is what is the matter about.--Angelosbrain (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening a discussion. Now let's wait and see if there's consensus to add it. You can ask for a third opinion, post a request at a relevant WikiProject, or just wait for someone to happen along. At present, I don't believe you have provided a compelling rationale. I'd say it's a bit of trivia that adds nothing to readers' understanding of the topic but may lead the gullible into seeing significance where none lies. The world is full of numerical coincidences, and few sites have been measured more often, with more coincidences found, than the Giza pyramids. You do realize that the speed-of-light constant you're referring to is in meters per second and that compass coordinates are in degrees? And that construction of the Great Pyramid preceded the development of modern units of measurement? And that the two numbers you're citing aren't even precisely equal anyway? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   00:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Happening along. Looking at it I see a mix of original research and badly sourced material. Spivey's work is unpublished and he's more of an expert on geese it seems rather than this field. Forums, Google+, the various websites, all fail WP:RS. The rest is original research. Sorry, but those flaws mean it doesn't belong anywhere. Doug Weller  talk 11:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley
This is where Edith Crowley heard the voice of Horus, which lead to the transcription of the Book of the Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Internal cubic footage
Is there any information on how many cubic feet of open area there is inside the pyramid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewder (talk • contribs) 11:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change
 * The purpose of the cavity is not known and it is not accessible but according to Zahi Hawass it may have been a construction gap used in the construction of the Grand Gallery.[39]

to
 * The purpose of the cavity is not known and it is not accessible. According to Zahi Hawass it may have been a construction gap used in the construction of the Grand Gallery,[39] but the research team disputes this.[new ref]

with the new ref being a link to http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201711070057.html

2400:4030:9AA3:AC00:E105:FBE6:2AC6:44FA (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect location
Someone set the location in Wikidata to Wrigley Field in Chicago, IL, obviously a fake/troll edit. I lack the experience with Wikidata to confidently make the change myself however.

Ryanbreaker (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that, I was able to figure out how to undo it in Wikidata, but it appears to still have to propagate into this page.

Ryanbreaker (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - typo
The first precision measurements of the pyramid were made by |Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82 to The first precision measurements of the pyramid were made by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82


 * Egyptologist -> Egyptologist

Paulmarsy (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sak ura Cart elet Talk 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - Royal Cubits
This article refers to both "Egyptian cubits" and "ancient cubits" - neither of these terms are accurate. See Cubits. Common cubits of 6 palms x 4 fingers = 24 digits and royal cubits of 7 palms x 4 fingers = 28 digits were used by the ancient Egyptians (Sumerians and Hebrews). But royal cubits were used as the measuring device in designing all sacred buildings, e.g. the Great Pyramid and its height of 280 royal cubits. 2601:589:4800:9090:E83E:E93E:5E4B:F439 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"There are 3 known chambers" not any more....
Why isnt this included? (several source for same story, basically new chamber discovered, and inaccessible) Check it out: https://www.google.com/search?q=giza+pyramid+new+void+chamber+hidden

Someone needs to include this in this article. Sinsearach (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, the void you speak of is already mentioned in the article under the grand gallery. (It's always better to read more than the lede.) The 3 chambers are Lower, King's and Queen's, while this new void is more like a corridor, a different type of cavity; the corridors are not mentioned in the lede (there are several of them in the pyramid, incl. the grand gallery). WikiHannibal (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2018
The side length of base of the pyramid is 299.792458 meters coincidently the speed of light. and its the same number of degrees in lattidude Coordinates:29.9792458,31.1320132 67.203.107.72 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional sentences recommended in first paragraph
Zecharia Sitchin, in his book Stairway To Heaven, casts serious doubt about Khufu having constructed the Great Pyramid of Giza. He makes a compelling case that the inscriptions mentioning Khufu were forgeries, complete with serious errors and misspellings, committed by men named Hill and Vyse, the discoverers of some of the formerly secret chambers.

Lfbno7 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess "compelling" is subjective. The book appears to contain fringe views far outside the mainstream of scholarly thought. Such views are generally not discussed in Wikipedia articles. When they are discussed (because they've received enough sustained, in-depth coverage in reliable sources to be noteworthy), they're clearly presented as fringe views. What exactly are you suggesting for this article? <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  06:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That it ought to be mentioned somewhere, perhaps? A sentence or two noting that there is some limited controversy on whether Khufu was the builder, citing Sitchin's book, would be appropriate — with or without an explicit mention that Sitchin is a holder of "fringe views" (I am too much of an outsider in this matter to know whether this is appropriate, having never heard of the book before today). --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

did they find any mummies INSIDE the pyrimids
hello

kindly confirm if they did indeed find any bodies mummified inside the pyramids it-self, I though non was found inside it.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.131.101.102 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The Great Pyramid of Giza cerainly doesn't have any mummies inside it now. But it has been lying open for centuries, so whatever mummies were there would have been cleared out or destroyed centuries ago. What we don't know is when the pyramid was first opened or what was found when it was. We know it has been open since at least AD 832, when Al-Ma'mun, who was the ruler of Egypt and of most of the Islamic world, had workmen open it up. But what exactly happened at that time is unclear. The tunnel that his workers are supposed to have dug, which is the way everyone enters the Great Pyramid today, may have actually been dug by ancient robbers and only enlarged or cleared by Ma'mun's men. And we don't know what Ma'mun found, either. There are unreliable stories that claim he found treasure inside, but a more believable account says that his men opened the sarcophagus in the burial chamber and found nothing but some decayed bones. And even if Ma'mun found a body, it may not have been that of Khufu, the king for whom the pyramid was built. Ancient Egyptians who could not afford tombs of their own sometimes interred the bodies of their relatives in open, abandoned royal tombs; many bodies of this kind have been found in other Egyptian pyramids. A. Parrot (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit
In the History and Description section:

"Based on measurements taken on the north-eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 millimetre wide (1/50 of an inch)."

Millimetre should be pluralised. Wbm184 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done (using the "convert" template, usually useful for this kind of thing). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

the big void???
If there really was a big void just above the Grand Gallery wouldn't the face of the pyramid collapse into the void or at least show some sign of subsidence? Nobody seems to have commented on any signs of such a displacement.AT Kunene 123 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is really meant to discuss improvements to the article, but why would it? It is easy to have large voids in enormous stone structures without them collapsing. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "This page is really meant to discuss improvements to the article" Questioning the factuality of the article is on topic. Remember: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I fear if that sub-section were to be taken out, the whole article might collapse! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, be resonable. On the one hand, we have Big Void published in Nature (journal) - "The papers that have been published in this journal are internationally acclaimed for maintaining high research standards. Fewer than 8% of submitted papers are accepted for publication." On the other we have a question by AT Kunene 123 (talk) whose activity so far is asking "interesting questions" (have a look at his contributions). I suggest deleting this topic per NOTAFORUM. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no harm in having a healthily sceptical mind. But I must admit, I really don't see why this well-supported section of the article should be challenged. Certainly not without some kind of expert source which casts some kind of doubt (and I strongly suspect that none exist). I think it might be more useful to seal this thread off with a as a warning to others. Future editors might even have fun using scintillator hodoscopes to see what's inside! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018
There is NO evidence that these pyramids were built by the Egyptians. Any techniques that have been put forward CANNOT be replicated, which is KEY to the scientific method. Anyone still claiming that they WERE built by the Egyptians should be ashamed of themselves and are responsible for holding back KEY RESEARCH on this subject to further mankind.

I would STRONGLY implore anyone that has editing rights to change the text. We DON'T know who built it and what its purpose was. It was NOT a burial chamber because of the lack of tombs and hieroglyphs and it could not have been built in the bronze age either.

Please change this or accept the consequences of you being a FOOL. 2A02:1811:C43D:6B00:1D21:79D7:C752:BDDD (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. RudolfRed (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

8 sides?
Is there really 8 sides if so how much is the indent on each of the 4 sides? Or is it just an optical illusional on see seen at certain times? --Apemonkey1 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"massive"
I'm leaving this be since "major" is a perfectly good word too, but the rationale is absurd. "Massive" does not necessarily mean literally possessed of a great mass. To think so is a massive error. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly,, I disagree. What do others think? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Massive" isn't very encyclopedic when not referring to something with mass. But "major" implies some kind of subjective significance, and I think "powerful" would probably be a more precise descriptor. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I put that on your talk page not the article's because I have no actual preference here, but I would prefer you do not make this error on other articles. And, yes, it's an error; if you're a descriptivist it is fairly obvious that "massive" is widely used in senses that don't literally imply mass, and if you're a prescriptivist, while Fowler 1999 says "massive has become an over-used word in contexts that have nothing to do with mass", it doesn't forbid the use in that context and it explicitly discusses suitable "extended and figurative uses" of the word. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this again, I would suggest that it depends on the context given in the source; if the earthquake happened over a large landmass, then it would be literally massive. But it shouldn't be used in the colloquial sense of 'yuge'. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Good writing doesn't depend solely on following "rules"; we need a sensitivity for le mot juste. And correcting bad or imperfect word choice certainly isn't an error but a matter of taste, skill and judgement. On here, that may mean collaboration and compromise, which is why I moved the discussion here from my talk. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Saw-marks" on the King's Chamber sarcophagus
Currently, the section on King's Chamber states:

The only object in the King's Chamber is a rectangular granite sarcophagus … the sarcophagus is roughly finished, with saw-marks visible in several places.

Any sources for the highlighted claim? Granite is a very hard stone (6 on Mohs scale, vs 3 for bronze), and it's an extraordinary claim that a Bronze Age society had "saws" strong enough to make casual saw-marks in granite. The article drops that bomb out of nowhere, unsupported.

Some clarification is needed IMO. What is meant by "saw-marks", what are these actually? Can anyone knowledgeable expand, link to sources? As it is now, that statement sticks out like a sore thumb.


 * Petrie discovered them. They aren't unusual. Denys A. Stocks wrote about them and experiments have been carried out testing the possible methods of using copper saws on granite. An excerpt:


 * "In the early 1880s, he(Petrie) examined saw marks on the basalt pavement on the eastern side of the Fourth Dynasty pyramid of Khufu at Giza,8 and also investigated saw marks on the rose granite sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre.9 On Khufu's sarcophagus, Petrie noticed that straight, parallel striations ran horizontally along the sides. He stated that a saw about 9 feet10 (2.7 m) in length was used to cut the granite to shape, allowing for the stroke of the tool. The normal stroke of a saw is approximately 30 cm, similar to the distance a bow-shaft travels when rotating a tubular drill: this is, of course, directly related to the reciprocating (to and fro) motion of the hand, a function of the arm's movement at its elbow and shoulder joints. Petrie located saw-slots in stone objects, and these showed that the saw thicknesses varied from 0.03 to 0.2 inch11 (1-5 mm). Stonecutting saws were also in use on the Third Dynasty calcitc sarcophagus of Sckhcmkhct,1- on the back of one of the triads of Menke^e,1-4 and on stone blocks from the Fifth Dynasty pyramid complex of Nyuscrrc.14 In order roughly to shape statuary, waste pieces were often sawn from the stone blocks.1 r' A particularly important example of sawing in rose granite arc two striated, slanted saw-slots, forming a chevron, on the unfinished Fourth Dynasty sarcophagus of Hordjcdcf in the Cairo Museum (JK54938)."


 * It seems to have been done through a combination of a flat edge and sand. Search through this book. Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I should have searched our articles first!
 * From Egyptian pyramid construction techniques:"There is good information concerning the location of the quarries, some of the tools used to cut stone in the quarries, transportation of the stone to the monument, leveling the foundation, and leveling the subsequent tiers of the developing superstructure. Workmen probably used copper chisels, drills, and saws to cut softer stone, such as most of the limestone. The harder stones, such as granite, granodiorite, syenite, and basalt, cannot be cut with copper tools alone; instead they were worked with time-consuming methods like pounding with dolerite, drilling, and sawing with the aid of an abrasive, such as quartz sand.  "  Doug Weller  talk 09:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug Weller . I'm no Wikipedia expert, but could I ask for some of this information to appear inside the sarcophagus section? Perhaps as a simple Wiki hyperlink. I'm sure others must have been as puzzled as I was, reading that off-hand "saw-marks in granite" comment.
 * Following your Petrie links, I also found this article, which seems to contain additional details about the drilling techniques used on the sarcophagus: https://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/cdunn-3.php

Consistent decimal formatting for the King's Chamber section
Current text:

The "King's Chamber"[1] is 20 Egyptian Royal cubits or 10.47 metres (34.4 ft) from east to west and 10 cubits or 5.234 metres (17.17 ft) north to south. It has a flat roof 11 cubits and 5 digits or 5.852 metres (19 feet 2 inch) above the floor.

Proposed edit to the second sentence:

It has a flat roof 11 cubits and 5 digits or 5.852 metres (19.167 ft) above the floor.

Gcoghill (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better to remove the absurd overprecision. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)