User talk:EulerConstant

Comment on the Wikipedia "Pyramidology" page
The Wikipedia Pyramidology page is such a hopeless mess that I won't begin the warfare it would take to set it straight. But I am putting this statement here to those "experts" who have allowed that page to exist in its current twisted form. Essentially Wikipedia has created history rather than chronicled it in that article. "Pyramidology" as a term has a real history which could be accurately documented. Adam Rutherford coined the term and wrote a 4-volume set of research books with that name, Pyramidology I, II, III, and IV. That is the beginning of the term and its history must start from Rutherford. "Pyramidiot" is also a term that is used in derogation of people who engage in pyramid speculations not approved by the archaeological mainstream. The term has a beginning and a quantifiable usage history which Wikipedia seems unable to realize and accurately chronicle.

Essentially what Wikipedia has done is to make a definition for "pyramidology" that does not derive from the term's beginning and context, and thus has created its own etymology. That's fine as long as Wikipedia admits it attempts to make history, instead of just documenting it.