Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

HELP[edit]

I have a couple questions:

  1. How do I protect this article?
  2. What this the code for declaring a section NPOV?

If there are any sysops here, plz halp. Thx Neveruse513 21:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Hey Neveruse513, thanks for your questions. First off, we don't really protect articles unless there is a real need to protect them, and I don't notice any reason to lock this article to editing. Second, we don't have a NPOV on this wiki, and we perfer to focus on a SPOV, a snarky point of view, or a scientific point of view. I hope this answers your questions, if not, feel free to ask more. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ hi there!
Got the first one done. And here, there is not such thing as NPOV. You should know that by now. There is such a thing as slightly less snark, but no NPOV. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris Rodney McKay 21:35, 4 February 2009 (EST)
CUR he has been here only 6 days, and in that time has made more main space edits than you. - User \scriptstyle(6\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-2})^{1/2} 21:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Doing a 90/10 rule, hmmm? He made it sound like he was a sysop. And I originally made more mainspace edits, but that stopped a bit later. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris Rodney McKay 21:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)
First of all he is a sysop and second edit warring is not mainspace edits. - User \scriptstyle(6\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-2})^{1/2} 21:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)
<puts hands up> Sorry! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris Rodney McKay 21:47, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Jesus, CUR--repeat after me: "Can't win, don't try." Doncha get tired of getting pwned alla time on dis wikiblog? TheoryOfPractice 21:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Hahahahaha Ace McWickedRevolt 22:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Ravaged by too much use of 'the white powder' - and was preweathered prior to construction. — Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

age and snark[edit]

The section on the age being 10,000 reads very straight, as if we are giving it a lot of weight. do we want to be suggesting that it's 10,000 years old?--Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My history lecture this morning was on ancient Egypt and according to the notes I took, state-level society there never even took off until 3000 BC. There's no way the Sphinx can be that old. SoCal 212 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered to edit with snark, so instead the old school crank claims about the incredibly ancient Sphinx were simply crossed out[edit]

It seems that Rationalwiki has again had a visit from someone from the "history is much older than those pesky orthodox historians and archaeologists will admit"-crowd. Referencing Robert M. Schoch's personal website as a "recent study" is just bunk. I might be slightly more impressed if it had been published in a geological journal (Schoch's field), or even better in an Egyptology journal. Using Schoch becomes even more inane when a simple look at his Wikipedia entry reveals that he not only apply his Michael Cremo'esque ideas about a "prehistorical" global civilisation to the Sphinx but also to the Giza pyramids as well as the Mesoamerican pyramids, and dabbles in Yonaguni woo as well. In a stopped clock moment, he did at least declare the Bosnian "pyramids" to be BS. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theory: The Sphinx was originally an Anubis statue[edit]

One crank wrote a book about the Sphinx claiming that it was originally constructed as a large jackal to represent Anubis, and that the head was carved down into the likeness of a later Pharoah. The guy has zero credibility (his other published book is about ancient aliens), but as a fringe theory, perhaps we should cover it in more detail? If nobody objects, I will get on that tomorrow. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But the geometry around the sockets/cheeks... WalkerWalkerWalker 07:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking forward to the new section (says the history geek). Am I right in suspecting that this is something like a variant of the "the Sphinx was originally a lion statue with the head subsequently re-carved to look like a Pharaoh"-claim? It certainly sounds like another claim based on the "the head is too small to be original"-idea. The main difference between "re-carved lion" and "re-carved Anubis" is probably that the latter will have a hard time doing what the "lionists" usually do with their argument: Claiming that the original lion statue was carved X centuries (or millennia?) before the Sphinx is generally dated (cue Schoch and his ilk). I'm also curious as to the story the "Anubists" have come up with to explain both why and when the Egyptians would've carved a giant Anubis statue on the Giza plateau and why it was later re-carved (think of what happened to Akhenaten and his son when they tried to fuck with Egyptian religion). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

The pyramid-constructors have 'this great big lump of stone cluttering up the place' and decide to turn it into what becomes the Sphinx.

Said lump of stone is #very weathered already# and the Grand Masonic Union of Monument Carvers get so far with polishing it up before deciding Morris Dancing is preferable 'and we are under contract with 'strange person in small-outside big-inside blue pyramid to leave mystery to confuse creatures called (Doctor Who enemy of choice). 86.146.99.62 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)