Talk:Pyramidology

theory v hypothesis
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to name the pseudoscientific hypothesis as opposed to theories? it puts out a bad message in the theory v hypothesis argument

Added: pseudoscientific hypothesis = Sir I. Newton, father of our laws of most of our universe. He was a pyramidologists. I suggest the article mentioned that a person who figured out gravity was a wacko and the real scientists create WMD and laugh all the way to the bank ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pyramidiots
This section is really not necessary, it's deragatory and arrogant. Who built them and why is a controversial subject and calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "idiots" isn't very neutral, nor does it contribute to the page, so it doesn't belong here. It's enough to say that it's pseudoscience.

It's a well known term and has a place here, derogatory or not. Please remember to sign your posts next time. You can't remove stuff just because you don't like it or you think it is arrogant.--Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's not neutral at all. That's why it would only be appropriate as a sourced quote or summary, not something from a wikipedia editor. We're supposed to neutrally represent all points of view, but not add our own. I think it does that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine then, it is a sourced quote, that's all. From an Egyptologist. So it's legitimate here.--Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this Pyramidology stuff but the whole section under criticism on Pyramidiots is just plain silly Hardbones (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. All sourced, brief, to the point, clearly attributing the POV. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Egyptology?
It seems peculiar to include pyramidology as part of Egyptology. Is it just to make sure it doesn't pretend to be? Or does the project include pseudo-eqyptologies? Dicklyon 14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Article rename
I don't think that the recent rename of this article from Pyramidology to Pyramidology (pseudo-science) serves any useful purpose. I realise the motivation was a good-faith intention to distinguish btw esoteric/pseudoscientific claims abt pyramids, and genuine archaeological ones. But this is not really necessary, and IMO is also (unintentionally) a little misleading. The study of pyramids is not of itself a recognised discipline or subfield in modern (legitimate) archaeology. To archaeologists, pyramids do not possess any special properties, powers, or peculiar functions to investigate. They are just another type of structure that can be studied without needing to apply some particularly specialised or unique investigative process / technique. Nor is there any serious research or claim that seeks to treat pyramid-like structures from various archaeological cultures and time periods across the globe as being closely related in some deep and intrinsic manner, AFAIK. While there probably are individual archaeologists who might be termed experts on one or another pyramid group, that doesn't mean research about pyramids as a class constitutes a defined field of study. The term pyramidology is used only in the context of the esoteric/mystical/numerological claims this article describes, it's not used to denote academic/mainstream archaeological research. I don't think any modern archaeologist would call themselves a 'pyramidologist', or even really a 'pyramid archaeologist'. Hence, there seems no need to disambiguate pyramidology with any other sense, since mainstream archaeology does not use the term or devote separate & defined efforts to the study of pyramids per se. Also, since the original pyramidology title is a redirect to here, the article rename does not practically affect wiki navigation & links, other than introducing an unnecessary redirect. I propose moving this article back to its original and simpler title pyramidology. The new stub pyramid archaeology that was created should probably be put up for deletion as well&mdash;I can't see any prospect to expand it in any meaningful way (that is not redundant with the various articles on pyramids we already have), and as per the above it's not really a recognised field of study on its own. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. I noticed this change when it took place and have been meaning to comment on it. As someone who is pretty involved with various lists and websites to do with related subjects, I know that 'pyramidology' is a term that archaeologists use to describe work done by people who are less politely termed at times as pyramidiots.
 * And there's even a redirect page for the less polite term. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - there is not much room for confusion.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the recent name change and the creation of the second article are well intentioned but unneeded. Returning this article to its original name and deleting the new one seems like the best course of action.  ClovisPt (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks all for your input. I've now moved the article back to its original title pyramidology, and also restored the lead text. Will also look to put pyramid archaeology up for AfD. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses?
This may not be very important, but are there any references that state numerological pyramidology is 'popular' with JWs? I believe Charles Taze Russell may have been interested in this field, but I'm quite sure modern Witnesses are not. Luck + (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that is very important. Charles Taze Russell looked into a lot of things that are not presently taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, pyramidology being one of those things. Saying that Jehovah's Witnesses have anything to do with pyramidology is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.37.77.157 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pyramidology. 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/20070928032004/http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/docs/1913_Great_Pyramid_Passages_Vol_II.pdf to http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/docs/1913_Great_Pyramid_Passages_Vol_II.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) 07:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

American Institute of Pyramidology
There's an American Institute of Pyramidology,, who knew? Doug Weller talk 13:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a paid membership organization started in the 1980s. The American Institute of Pyramidology claimed it was started to fill the void created by the collapse of Adam Rutherford's Institute of Pyramidology. The organization was reconfigured in 2020 as a registered non profit think tank in Tennessee, The American Institute of Pyramid Research.  The organization undertakes research tours in Egypt, has a YouTube channel, and claims to have made major discoveries in Egypt which are listed on its website.  These are of an esoteric nature and not recognized by the Egyptological mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.108.247.82 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not edit other people's contributions. And read WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)