Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza

Geopolymeric Limestone / Not a Tomb

There is sufficient evidence that has been presented regarding natron theory and the use of Geopolymeric limestone in the construction of the Great Pyramid, the pyramid of Khafre, and the pyramid of Menkaure. This idea is briefly mentioned and dismissed in the construction section of this page in a way that oddly seems to to contradict the source paper provided, while simultaneously ignoring the many other published articles of research that have since been done on the topic. Additionally, this idea of the pyramid being a tomb is outdated and should be updated. There is absolutely no evidence or historical precedence for this hypothesis. Please update. Thank you for your time. 2603:8000:C100:A7C5:3D28:D5CD:2C0F:9737 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any sources you can point to for this? Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the IP is talking about Joseph Davidovits. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Currently the evidence for tomb is overwhelming in comparison to the evidence for any other use.

The limestone hypothesis has also been shown to be wrong, and it does not make any sense since pyramid stones are not uniform in size or shape. ~2026-17215-35 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

Change "the Australian archaeologist Karl Kromer" to "the Austrian archaeologist Karl Kromer"

See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kromer Stellvertretendes Commodum (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Size of the base is worded incorrectly

The article claims "The base was measured to be about 230.3 metres (755.6 ft) square." This would imply that the length of each side was just over 15 meters. In reality, EACH SIDE is 230 metres, for a total of 52,900 metres square. I suggest restating this line to "Each side of the base was measured to be about 230.3 metres."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Great-Pyramid-of-Giza Kreiserm (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Footleg (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2026

I would like to add a new subsection about recent Synthetic Aperture Radar research on the Great Pyramid.

Change requested: Add the following new section after the "Exploration" or "Interior" section:

Synthetic Aperture Radar studies (2022–2025)

In 2022, researchers Filippo Biondi and Corrado Malanga (University of Pisa) published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Remote Sensing describing the use of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Doppler tomography to analyze the internal structure of the Great Pyramid. The technique analyzes micro-vibrations within the pyramid caused by seismic waves, using satellite radar data to create 3D reconstructions of internal voids and chambers.

In March 2025, the research team announced at a press conference in Bologna, Italy that they had identified what they described as extensive underground structures beneath the Pyramid of Khafre and the broader Giza plateau. The findings have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The 2025 claims have been met with significant skepticism from the archaeological community. Egyptologist Zahi Hawass, former Egyptian Minister of Antiquities, rejected the findings as lacking scientific basis. Radar expert Lawrence Conyers from the University of Denver questioned whether the SAR technology used could penetrate to the depths claimed by the researchers. The claims were also fact-checked by Snopes, which noted the lack of peer review and reliance on unverified press conference presentations. Macrocoffee (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. A) this sounds suspiciously machine-generated, and B) either way, if it's such a WP:FRINGE idea that's been met with such skepticism, we need not mention it at all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback on my previous submission which was clearly wrong. I have rewritten and revised the proposed addition significantly. Removed the 2025 claims as these were not peer-reviewed and not valid for Wikipedia. My new submission focuses directly on the 2022 claims as published and peer reviewed in Remote Sensing (DOI: 10.3390/rs14205231) I believe this addresses both concerns raised, would be happy to receive new feedback on my recent edit. Thanks Macrocoffee (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It's still fringe and based on a single study. Hypnôs (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Which specific Wikipedia policy classifies peer-reviewed publications in indexed journals as fringe science? And which secondary sources satisfy the requirements for this edit? Macrocoffee (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" WP:EXCEPTIONAL

Just like the Big Void and North Face Corridor were identified by multiple teams working independently with different methods. Hypnôs (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Found a peer reviewed review paper from Oxford University researchers published in Science of Remote Sensing (Elsevier, 2025, DOI: 10.1016/j.srs.2024.100187) that cites Biondi and Malanga 2022 multiple times and discusses their methodology in detail and includes a formal table categorizing chambers inside pyramids as a legitimate SAR Doppler tomography research method. I believe this should be enough to settle both the fringe and undue weight concerns. Macrocoffee (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

No, that doesn't resolve the issue. This is the extent to which the Great Pyramid is mentioned in the review:

"Similar techniques (noted in Table 7) are also used by Biondi and Malanga (2022) to reveal the internal structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Much like the study of Mount Vesuvius, SAR data from the COSMO-SkyMed Second Generation satellite constellation in the single-look complex (SLC) configuration is used with background seismic waves from the natural environment (e.g., wind, River Nile etc) and the nearby city of Cairo to produce high-resolution 3D tomographic models of the Khnum-Khufu pyramid's interior. and However, Biondi (2022) and Biondi and Malanga (2022) have begun to address this, showcasing SARs tomographic ability to image density variations inside volcanoes and ancient pyramids from space.

It's neither in depth nor an independent study. Hypnôs (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Given we've reached standstill with what I believe are shifting objections I'll be taking this to WP:3O for a third opinion. Macrocoffee (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:3O is specifically for when only two editors are discussing on talk. User:Macrocoffee's request has been removed because more than two people are discussing here. Bishonen | tålk 13:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC).

And I see you've had one from @Abecedare. I also agree it's fringe nonsense. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what is being discussed here is the revised edit which was reverted on the article page, not the original submission at the top of this Semi-protected request. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on what is considered fringe, an indexed peer reviewed paper which has also been cited in an Elsevier journal by four Oxford researchers does not meet this definition in any capacity. If it were truly junk science or fringe these researchers would not cite this study at all. So far none of the editors here have provided specific policy based justification for the fringe designation. Macrocoffee (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

The findings of Biondi and Malanga (2022) depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views, hence they are fringe.

Do you have any other sources that support the case for inclusion?

So far we only have one primary source from a questionable publisher (WP:NOTRS), and one secondary source that only briefly mentions their findings.

If it were truly junk science or fringe these researchers would not cite this study at all.

How do you know what the researchers would or wouldn't do? Even peer-reviewed papers can contain errors and are sometimes even retracted. That's why WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires "multiple high-quality sources". Hypnôs (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the Oxford paper I mentioned before, I have found two more independent secondary sources. Ivashov, Bugaev and Razevig (2023) published in Heritage (DOI: 10.3390/heritage6080308) which specifically discusses the 2022 study's application to the Great Pyramid, including the findings on the King's Chamber, Queen's Chamber and Grand Gallery. Rollo, Ilioudis and Clemente (2025) published in IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing (DOI: 10.1109/MGRS.2025.3573099) cite Biondi's work as a significant application of SAR micro-Doppler methodology. That is three independent research groups citing this work. Macrocoffee (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The Heritage article says “despite numerous attempts to use them, no significant success or discovery has been achieved”. I may have missed something. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The other one doesn’t seem to discuss the pyramid. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The Heritage paper's no significant success statement refers to historical pre-2022 attempts. This same paper dedicates Section 5 to the 2022 study which reproduces its 3D reconstruction as figure 10, and includes table 3 listing 20 specific internal structures that are identified by the study. This does not reflect how unsuccessful research is handled. The IEEE paper was provided to demonstrate the methodology is mainstream science and widely recognized. Macrocoffee (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The Heritage source only sums up the findings. The IEEE source doesn't even mention the pyramid.

None of the three sources you provided in support even tries to replicate or critically assess the findings. Hypnôs (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I already stated the reasoning to provide the IEEE source, you can read it above. However, The Big Void subsection is supported primarily by news articles, the university's press release and the original Nature paper. There is no replication or critical assessment among those sources either, only discussion. I cannot find a Wikipedia policy that requires replication or critical assessment as a condition for inclusion. If this is the standard for this page then it is not being applied consistently across the entire article. Macrocoffee (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

We went over this already. See the comments above. Hypnôs (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

We did not. Given the discussion so far I am open to rewriting the proposed addition to accurately reflect what the secondary sources support. Would the editors be willing to engage with a revised version of my text with a new focus? I am open to suggestions. Macrocoffee (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You had 4 editors assess that the findings are WP:FRINGE and shouldn't be included. Rewriting the addition doesn't change that.

Given how extraordinary the claims of the paper are, the three supplementary sources you provided did nothing to establish that the findings are anything close to being the prevailing or mainstream view.

One didn't mention the pyramid at all, one only very briefly mention the paper, and one only summarized it. Hypnôs (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• In addition to the claims being WP:FRINGE, note that the article is published in an MDPI journal, a known purveyor of junk studies. Unless much better secondary sources are forthcoming, IMO there is no point wasting further time on this purported finding. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Dates

Wikipedia has some discrepancies on the dates for the pyramids. See the discussion on the other talk page at Talk:History of the world's tallest structures#Pyramid_dates. - Burner89751654 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Casing

(please add this explanation for the local variations in the heights of the stone blocks just after "only to rise sharply again.") Local variations in block height correlate with the internal structures that are the most difficult to construct (reference). Thus, these heights would be determined based on the amount of work to be done and the labor force available and each cycle would then correspond to one year.

reference : https://www.academia.edu/166161515/Ce_que_r%C3%A9v%C3%A8lent_les_hauteurs_dassises_de_la_Pyramide_de_Kh%C3%A9ops Adzo.1 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

See original research and self-published sources.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published. Hypnôs (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)