Talk:KV64

Start
I created KV64 with a title Kv64...too bad. So I put a redirection page. My job here today is complete. Sandeepmdas 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not exist. I am going to recommend this for deletion, and suggest that a summary of it be incorporated in the Valley of the Kings article. It has not been proven that the anomaly is a tomb, and it has not been officially designated as KV64. Even if it turns out to be a tomb, we do not know that this will be designated KV64 as another tomb could be found before it and that tomb will be designated KV64 instead. This is unproven original research by Nicholas Reeves and therefore is in violation of the Wikipedia policy.--68.79.10.32 10:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While such discussions are always welcome, I don't think the Wiki community will take your call in a serious note, as you are making such suggestions without even bothered to login.

>> This article should not exist.

But unfortunately, an anomaly does exist.

>> a summary of it be incorporated in the Valley of the Kings article

Summery like what? "when you use a TPR you will get an anomaly in VoK" ?

>> It has not been proven that the anomaly is a tomb

That's what the article says...

>> another tomb could be found before it and that tomb will be designated KV64 instead

We are talking about tombs and not taxi cabs here; If the status of KV64 still in dispute then such a tomb can be called KV65

>> This is unproven original research by Nicholas Reeves

I suugest you to read the article again, and then the two external links. What the ARTP says: a. there are 2 anomalies b. one turned out a chamber (KV63) as Dr. Schaden's team discovered it independantly c. the other can be another such chamber or perhaps even a tomb d. The SCA can break in within a couple of months, but such hasty action will destroy data and specimens forever. Such speedy actions - just to prove that it is a tomb/not a tomb- and speculations are not a part of 21 century Egyptology. e. So before finding out what it is, one should find a non-destructive way to explore it.

>> is in violation of the Wikipedia policy

Really? Do you know the Wiki article Bermuda Triangle spans 12 A4-size pages? KV64 is not crappy Sci-fi, please understand.

Jealousy oozes from every letter that you have pasted here. I have no acquaintance with Dr. Reeves, but I think you have...

Sandeepmdas 17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an attitude you have! While I don't recall whether I wrote the above argument in favor of deleting this article, I strongly suspect I did as the ip address is here in Chicago and I was in Chicago at the time. I may have been just an IP address to you, but judging by your attitude, you are the one whose emotions are clouding your judgment about appropriateness of an article.

I choose not to create a Wikipedia account and that is my right. However, I do happen to have a Ph.D. in Egyptology, and worked as editor of the web site www.thebanmappingproject.com. I think that makes me a lot more qualified than yourself to judge whether this article should exist. Nicholas Reeves believed he found an anomaly that might be a tomb, and with that I agree. He may very well be right. However, that does not make that anomaly KV64. The tomb that will be designated KV64 is whatever the next tomb to be definitively discovered in the Valley of the Kings. That is a fact about how tombs are numbered, simple as that. Now, that means Reeves' anomaly could be KV64, or KV65 or KV66 etc. or not a tomb at all. It just depends on what tomb is found next. You have a very active imagination to think that has anything to do with jealousy.

And it seems that KV64 may actually be announced soon...and that it will not be Reeves' anomaly! That is what makes it even more imperative that this article go because it may cause a lot of confusion very shortly. Take the material in this article about Reeves' anomaly and put it somewhere else on Wikipedia if you want. But do not call it KV64 because we simply don't know that his anomaly IS going to be KV64.

Now, I'm going to take the liberty of editing this article to what it should really read because we don't need the whole world confused about what KV64 is in a couple months because of your mistake. My name is Nicole Hansen, and if you don't believe I really am Nicole Hansen please feel free to email me via my Website glyphdoctors.com to confirm that I really am who I say I am. 68.72.93.69 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Official line
Below is a communication from Zahi Hawass ...
 * "In a letter to USA TODAY, he writes, 'If what Mr. Reeves says is true, then why didn't he present this report to the Supreme Council of Antiquities.' He adds: 'Radar can also show anomalies that are not necessarily tomb shafts. It seems to me that Mr. Reeves wants publicity more than conducting his work through a scientific approach. For this reason, I am writing you to state that the information is not true.'

Should this article exist ? Markh 07:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are tons of articles (and rightly) on Wikipedia that deal with false information and with information that is officially denied. That is not even mentioning articles on fictional topics.  The truthfulness of a topic is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion.  Its notability is.  The anomaly currently known as KV64 is certainly notable, and therefore should have its own article, which presents an accurate, NPOV picture of the situation, including the reaction of authorities such as Zahi Hawass.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarify "out of bounds"
This line seems unclear to me:


 * "Nicholas Reeves[3] and his team believe that since the anomaly is situated in a part of the Valley that was out of bounds to earlier excavators probably right from antiquity,"

Should this read "a part of the Valley that was inaccessible to earlier excavators"? If not, in what way was it out of bounds? --Pharillon 07:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reeves
The name "Reeves" appears in the article without any previous explanation. It is only when we reach the second section of the article that we discover a) that his name is Nicholas Reeves and b) that he is the leader of the team who discovered the anomaly and later published the findings. According to style, we should have his full name early in the article, followed by his last name in all other instances. We should also find out why his name is mentioned in the same sentence as the first mention. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly mentioned in my very first draft, that the anomaly was discovered by a team led by Nicholas Reeves. However, some one wanted to put the name of Dr Zahi Hawas (as his "fans" do nowadays with everything and anything ancient Egyptian) and his beurocratic utterings in the article prominently, and this vital information was lost in subsequent editing process. --Sandeepmdas 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Time Citation Flaw?
The article says that "[Reeves] had alerted Hawass and the Supreme Council as to KV 63's location in August 2005" except the KV63 article says that it was discovered AND announced earlier. Uncompetence (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If a new tomb is actually designated, then it will be KV64, and this will mean that this article needs to be moved to avoid any confusion. The VOKF Foundation refers to the anomaly as ‘KV64’, rather than KV64, so perhaps we should find a unique way to identify this anomaly? Valley of the Kings Radar Anomaly seems a little long winded. Any ideas? Markh (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Markh-I've already edited this article to reflect the current contenders for KV64. However, this involved a lot of deletion about the anomaly. I still think that material has some value, but should be moved elsewhere-perhaps to the Nicholas Reeves article or the Valley of the Kings article. Nicole Hansen --68.72.93.69 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the article. If you want, slap a undefined tag on the article. But as it stands now, it is discussing possible locations for a find that would be designated by this title.  Since it is not restricted to one location this sounds reasonable.  If an article is merited for one possible site based on the notability of that site, then it can be created.  If in fact that site were to be called KV64, then we would need to do some renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a good topic and a good article covering all of that topic; On the other hand, if you split it, I'm doubtful that the article on the radar anomaly will be encyclopedic. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Thanks to everyone that looked at this. Between the time of my request and the reviews, Nicole Hansen --68.72.93.69 (talk) seems to have pushed the article into the right position. Markh (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nicholas Reeves is a genuine bona fide Egyptologist--not a crank or an amateur--and he has published several invaluable books including a recent biography on Akhenaten. If his ARTP team states there is an anomaly in the VOK, it likely exists. One reason the SCE was angry with Reeves was his decision to publicise this discovery before they had given him their seal of approval. It is partly a question of protocol. That is their right; however, the SCE has not presently excavated the anomaly. Secondly, some Egyptians accused Reeves' of some unspecified wrongdoing but while he has been exonerated, he has not been allowed to continue his previous archaeological work in the VoK. Everyone here forgets that KV63 actually stored a stash of mummified remains/detritus from another tomb. This implies that an unknown tomb lies nearby. Since the ARTP anomaly lies close to KV63, it may indeed be the royal tomb whose detritus was deposited in KV63. Only an SCE authorised investigation will conclusively prove the issue either way. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on KV64. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10042363

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KV64. 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/20081010060352/http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Comment&id=81 to http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Comment&id=81
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621113057/http://www.kv-64.com/ to http://kv-64.com/

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) 18:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)