Talk:Howard Vyse

Potential Vyse Forgery?

I believed the article needed some expanding on the importance of the hyroglyphic discovery and Vyse's role in it, considering that the discovery is the prime evidence used by Egyptologists to declare that the Great Pyramid was constructed by Egyptians. Aside from this one single inscription the entire Pyramid is devoid of any kind of writing. Therefore, if the inscription is indeed a forgery then it casts doubt on the belief of an Egyptian Great Pyramid. I included a link from a reputable university website to help expand the investigation but would appreciate if anyone else has much to add. Huronking.

The person who made these claims originally is Zecharia Sitchin, a proponent of the ancient astronaut theory. Even if Vyse did faked these masons marks, does it prove that the pyramid was not built by Khufu? There is writing in the relieving chambers, so the fact that one single inscription the entire Pyramid is devoid of any kind of writing is not correct. There is room of these theories on wikipedia, but they need to balanced with the whole truth of who is making the claims. Markh 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Vyse's hieroglyph discovery is the writing in the relieving chamber that you are referring to, which is the point of contention. Every source I have looked at shows that this hieroglyph is the only potentially authentic piece of writing discovered that shows the Egyptians built the Pyramid. If the inscription turns out to be false then it casts doubt on Khufu being the builder, or any Egyptian for that matter. This is not the same as saying that the forgery of this inscription proves the Pyramid was somehow NOT built by Khufu, it would take more than just that to definitively show Egyptians did not build it. However, it would take away most Egyptologists definitive certainty that the Pyramid was built by Khufu. I've asked many Egyptologists (including the reading of interviews with Zahi Hawass) how we know for sure that Khufu was the builder and everyone of them points to this inscription as the proof of its origin. If that inscription turns out to be false then new analysis must be made. HuronKing.

Well I am not arguing that Khufu did build the pyramid, just that the faking of a cartouche doesn't prove that he didn't. Its a very circular argument and I dont think that either of us can persuade the other. Read Miroslav Werner's book The Pyramids – Their Archaeology and History p.455 "From a paleographic, grammatical and historical point of view, there is not the slightest doubt as their authenticity". However, he would say that wouldn't he ;-). Markh 09:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Random Bio

Richard William Howard Vyse inherited Boughton Hall from his grandmother Lady Lucy Howard in 1795. He was a noted Egyptologist and traveller. His grandmother was a sister of the 2nd Earl of Strafford and daughter of the 1st Earl who had bought Boughton in 1717 as his base in the Midlands. [1] [2] dates 1784-1853. Short Biography: British army officer, excavator, author and benefactor. He undertook excavations at the pyramids at Gizeh with Giovanni Battista Caviglia. [3] Richard William Howard HOWARD-VYSE JP, MP was born 25 Jul 1784. He died 8 Jun 1853. Richard married Frances HESKETH on 13 Nov 1810. [4] Father – General Richard Vyse married Ann Howard, daughter of Field Marshall Sir George Howard and Lady Lucy Wentworth, in 1780.
MP for Tiverton and Honiton (1812)

Vyse's Date of Death

It seems there is a fairly large discrepancy between the date of Vyse's death. In this article it is listed as 1853. There is one sourced link which gives a date of 1872 and that is labeled as an incorrect date of death. However, another Wiki article does list 1872 as Vyse's death. [[5]] What is the source of the 1853 date of death and which one is correct? HuronKing. August 8th 2006

I changed the date of death, as it only seems that the original bio (which has other this wrong with it – in my opinion) has the 1872 date. See [6], [7] or [8]. Markh 08:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see above discussion on why the original bio. is doubtful. Markh 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted that 1853 date confirmed before I took the liberty of fixing either this article or the other article on the year 1872. I'll go do that now. HuronKing August 9th 2006

Changing father of Lucy Wentworth to Thomas

Looking at the article for William Wentworth, the second Earl, it states that he died without issue. As there is no citation other than the DNB article which cites Thomas, I believe that fact and source should take precedence. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC) (see next item)

Death of Vyse

DNB was the source, and a Google search of Vyse 1853 shows multiple instances, and this is the closest as authoritative Vyse Gentleman's Magazine. Actually, this cite's Lucy the daughter of Thomas (see above)-- billinghurst (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at NPOV

I tried to rewrite the paragraph on the theory that he wrote the pyramid inscriptions himself. i am familiar with this idea, but i think it needs to be worded less emphatically to meet NPOV. Its a small minority, i dont believe many mainstream egyptologists subscribe to it, but i do believe it deserves entry as a minor but notable interpretation. if i butchered it while attempting npov, all errors are mine. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thing. It's completely WP:UNDUE in this article, even Graham Hancock says it's wrong, the inscriptions are in places that could only have been reached during construction. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to re-include the controversy section, but it should be mentioned. Just because one person who's built his entire career, reputation and fortune through the sale of books based on the idea that Vyse didn't create a forgery says that it is authentic, it doesn't mean that it is. Taggart.BBS (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the other way around. I don't know who you think has built his career around the idea that there was no forgery - perhaps you could name the Egyptologists who think it was actually a forgery? Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that what remained in support of his work was unsourced and contained overly promotional language. Until someone can rewrite this from a scholarly, neutral point of view, with alternative theories given due weight, i think the content should be removed. better to not have anything, than unsourced statements open to debate. by the way, who said Graham Hancock was a reliable source on this, and where is the citation stating that the inscriptions could not be reached except during construction? I say, rebuild this section source by source.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Full text to all three volumes of "Operations Carried on ..."

I have added links to online full text scans of all three volumes of "Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, as found on archive.org. Since the old link to volume 3 of this work, which pointed to google books, did not work in my country, I have removed the old link. In case anyone disagrees, I have retained it here:

• Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, published London, 4to., two volumes, 1840.
• Appendix to Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 published London, 4to., 1842, volume three, 1842. Devoted to Perring's researches. Full text at Google Books.

GuyHill (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Great Pyramid Hoax

This subject (and indeed Vyse himself) has now been comprehensively dealt with in a new book "The Great Pyramid Hoax" by Scott Creighton (2017). Could this be incorporated into the main text, or at least listed as a reference at the bottom of the page? https://www.amazon.com/Great-Pyramid-Hoax-Conspiracy-Conceal/dp/159143789X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485880786&sr=8-1&keywords=creighton+hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.97.111 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"However, the forgery claim is given no credence by historians and Egyptologists such as Selim Hassan,[14] Zahi Hawass,[12] Jaromir Malek,[15][16] Professor Rosalie David[17] or Bill Manley, or major museums such as the British Museum[18] and the Egyptian Museum,[19] all of whom accept that Khufu was the builder of the pyramid and by implication that Vyse's cartouche is authentic" - This sounds very much like circular reasoning to me. Without the cartouche, what physical evidence (not hearsay from Herodotus) is there to connect the actual pyramid (not tombs that surround it) directly with Khufu? This paragraph insults our intelligence. Just because a handful of Egyptologists agree amongst themselves that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu doesn't make it so without hard physical evidence? Where is this evidence? The faked cartouche? And around we go. 5.81.204.239 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Khruner, you write: "(forgery or not, a book written by an engineer is not a reliable source in this field. Furthermore, it has been already debunked by Jason Colavito)" And you think Colavito IS a reliabvle source in this field? He's a journalist and anthropologist, NOT an Egyptologist. Creighton's book has been endorsed by an actual Egyptologist (Lorraine Evans) - it's right there in his book. Over and above which, you don't need to be an Egytologist to spot a forgery, just someone who thinks critically and logically - i.e. like an engineer. Also, read the BTL comments on Colavito's blog. His review of Creighton's work was made to look rather silly as he clearly had not properly read the forgery evidence Creighton presents in his book. If anyone was debunked, it was Colavito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can find, Lorraine Evans is still a PhD student so no, she is not an Egyptologist. She is mainly known for writing fantasy books about Ancient Egypt and for being an historical revisionist. The fact that she has to run his own website (.com) does not increase her academic credibility. Finally, if she is so confident of the forgery theory, it should not be difficult to publish it on a peer reviewed journal, yet I failed to found anything. Also, anything at all published by her on such a journal. Khruner (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lorraine Evans, an "actual Egyptologist"? She doesn't even have a PhD. This review[9] tells us the amazing things she has found and written about in her book. ", Evans was able to make a number of 'startling discoveries'. These include the revelation that some ancient Egyptian mariners had crossed the English Channel and swum ashore here, or possibly in Ireland, around 1350 BC, that these same refugees included 'a lost princess', a persecuted member of the Egyptian royal family, and that 'many peoples of Britain are going about their daily business unaware of their Egyptian heritage'." Creighton is fringe and we'd never use him as a source for this stuff. And yes, you need to be an Egyptologist. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP about the "by implication" paragraph, though. I believe it would be better by removing both the paragraph and Creighton' book. Sitchin is different: a pseudoscientist, that's it, yet a quite notable one. Khruner (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So a chartered accountant writing books about the Great Pyramid is fine because his views happen to agree with the moderators / high priests of Egyptological orthodoxy here on Wiki?

"After obtaining a degree in Economics at University College, London, Lawton qualified as a chartered accountant before working in a variety of IT-related sales and consultancy organisations…. His first book, Giza: The Truth (Virgin, 1999), … was hailed as "an excellent example of a more sober approach".[1] It has gone on to sell more than 20,000 copies worldwide, and has developed a reputation as a prime source text for those interested in gaining an in-depth understanding of the monuments at Giza." from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Lawton

But simply because Creighton is an engineer and his book runs contrary to the present guardians of knowledge here on Wiki, it is not permitted. Now that really speaks volumes of how you operate the knowledge filter here on Wiki. Creighton's latest book is categorically NOT fringe. It presents a wealth of HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the view that the marks in those chambers are fraudulent. But I guess THAT is the reason why you, the ultra-orthodox keepers of knowledge, are so afraid to cite his work in this section of Wiki - can't have people easily finding the facts, can we? That would never do. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And those comments just show that this 'discussion' is a waste of time. No point in bothering to discuss something with an IP whose response to people who disagree with him/her is to insult them. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, my comments show perfectly well the hypocrisy of the moderation - the knowledge filter - that is being applied here. And for that absolutely YES, you WILL be insulted by me because it is YOU who insults ALL OF US with your hypocritical, high-handed, authoritarian actions. Creighton may well have some unorthodox ideas concerning ancient Egyptian history but this book simply isn't one of them. It is a serious attempt to get to the truth of the painted marks in those chambers of the Great Pyramid and, actually, you should be applauding him for this effort. The depth of hid research is quite astonishing as you would see if you had actually read the thing. It deserves and NEEDS to be cited here in this section of Wiki as it is probably the ONLY book of its kind to solely deal fully with this particular topic. To deny this would, quite frankly, be censorship and criminal, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.249.229 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller. Given that Wiki does not condone censorship of its content and you cannot, in any way, reasonably justify the removal of my edit, I have reinstated my edit as I consider that you are being thoroughly unreasobale in having it removed. Simply disagreeing with the evidence Creighton presents in his book is no justifiction whatsoever for removing my edit. You compained that Creighton is merely an engineer and not an Egyptologist. I have shown you an example (I can show you many more here on Wiki) of a non-credentialed person having books published in the field of Egyptology and them beng accepted here on Wiki. Creighton's book is certainly controversial - no doubt about that. But his work on this subject is detailed and in-depth and SHOULD be cited here on Wiki - whether you agree with his findings or not. Wiki is about presenting FACTS to people and that is exactly what Creighton's book does and does so from many different quarters. It would be a crime to have it expunged from Wiki simply because you do not like its content (for you have given no fair or justifiable reason for so doing). Should you remove my edit again then you will leave me with little alternative to resort to Wiki Dispute Resolution. Which I most certainly will seek. And I will take it further if need be. Indeed, I will take it as far is is necessary to ensure this work does not fall victim to the clear orthodox bias you exhibit. This IS an orthodox book - you just do not like its findings. I should tell you that I will absolutely NOT be letting go of this. I promise you that. I have the bit between my teeth here with this. Should you remove my edit again then, down the road, you may find that you will, unintentionally, have given this book much more international exposure than you would ever probably have wanted. That's up to you. Stop being ridiculous. Leave my edit in place and let us be done with this silliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.249.229 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." We have a number of policies and guidelines governing content and in particular sources, and removing inappropriate sources isn't censorship. Go ahead, ask for dispute resolution. But remember, you don't have WP:Consensus for this so I doubt you will get far. Agh, "criminal"? You really better drop that. Go to dispute resolution with that charge will definitely not help you. I presume you don't mean that literally as if you do you will probably be blocked, see WP:NLT. Doug Weller talk 05:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You have no reasonable grounds for removing this source, Doug Weller. It is a source, a book, that presents actual FACTS, not opinion. So what that the source is not an Egyptologist - there are many non-credentialed sources who have written books on Egyptology but that are, nevertheless, happily cited here on Wiki. It rather seems to me that you are happy to have such uncredentialed sources cited when they agree with your view but not when they present actual evidence that questions your view. How can that possibly be reasonable grounds for the removal of my edit? Oh and my use of "criminal" was entirely figurative - how could it be anything else? So, off to Dispute Resolution we go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.249.229 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller - as discussed above, here is the Dispute Resolution page FYI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk • contribs)

We don't include anything and everything that appears in print in our articles, 5.81.204.152. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, we use editorial judgement to assess the quality of a source, and weigh the prominence of opposing views within the literature as a whole. With that in mind, the source you are trying to introduce into the article:

1. Is written by an engineer with no expertise in archaeology or Egyptology
2. Is published by a well known peddler of pseudoscience, not a reputable academic press
3. Makes the extraordinary claim that the age of the Great Pyramid is a "hoax"
4. Is at odds with the entirety of mainstream Egyptological literature, which it calls a "conspiracy"

The first two points make it an extremely unreliable source; the second two establish its argument as fringe. We already have multiple reliable, non-fringe sources in the article that discuss the forgery allegation in a balanced way, so the issue is hardly being "censored". Since there is a clear consensus not to add this source, continuing to do so is edit warring and may lead to you being blocked from editing. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Joe - your first two points. The book 'Giza the Truth' is cited here on Wiki as "...a prime source text for those interested in gaining an in-depth understanding of the monuments at Giza." from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Lawton

'Giza the Truth' was written by a chartered accountant and published by Virgin books. Explain to me how a chartered accountant is more qualified than an engineer to have his book cited here on Wiki and explain further how Virgin Books can be described as an academic publisher? How does this square with what you just wrote above about Creighton's book? You do not have to be an Egyptologist to uncover Vyse's forgery (afterall, Vyse wasn't an Egyptologist). None of the scholars cited in this article have probably ever considered the evidence Creighton's book presents so how exactly do you know that they would not change their minds about Vyse's 'discovery' upon consideration of Creighton's research and looking into his claims themselves. But denying my edit may well deny them that possibility.

Your third point. Creighton DOESN'T claim in this book that the age of the pyramid "is a hoax". He merely, and quite rightly, calls into question the basis upon which Egyptology dates the Great Pyramid which is principally with the Khufu cartouche cartouches allegedly found in the pyramid by Vyse in 1837. Creighton rightly says that if his evidence is correct and Vyse DID perpetrate a hoax with these painted cartouches then this key piece of evidence supporting the current dating of the Great Pyramid is fatally undermined. The recognised date of the structure cannot safely remain if the cartouches Vyse 'found' are found to be forged (as the evidence Creighton presents strongly suggests). THAT is all Creighton is saying in his book about the age of the pyramid.

As for you "conspiracy" comment. If Vyse did indeed perpetrate this forgery (as the evidence Creighton presents in this book strongly suggests) then Vyse's actions were a conspiracy - a conspiracy to deny us all a true understanding of our history. By these actions, Vyse and his accomplices, conspired to effectively change history. If Creighton is right, how can this NOT be a "conspiracy"?

Vyse, in his private handwritten notes, writes an instruction to his two accomplices to paint the Khufu cartouche inside the Great Pyramid. No, you won't find that instruction, for rather obvious reasons, in Vyse's published account. Vyse also writes in his unpublished, handwritten notes that he found no hieroglyphics in one of the chambers and yet he claims the precise opposite for this chamber in his published work. There is no mention in this article of the last minute edits and corrections Vyse made to the Khufu cartouche which his hand-written notes clearly show he initially had wrong. And neither was Vyse the upstanding pillar of the Establishment that this article effectively portrays. He was, in fact, found to have committed electoral fraud in 1807 although the evidence of this fraud only surfaced after Vyse's death. Creighton had a chemical analysis report which showed the cartouche of Khufu was painted onto a plaster surface which means it was painted in-situ and, rightly, Creightn asks why would an in-situ cartouche have been painted vertically? No mention either in this article of the eye-witness who saw the forgery being committed - by the VERY SAME MEN that Vyse, in his handwritten notes 'commissions' to do the forgery. There is no mention of ANY of this evidence (and a whole lot more) in this article here on Wiki because no one ever knew any of it until Creighton's research. A simple note of Creighton's research into this topic would help Wiki readers to easily access ALL the relevant facts about this controversy and to draw their own conclusion. By removing my edit you are quite simply denying people that choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your persistent misunderstanding here seems to be that we make these decisions without paying attention to the context. We don't have hard-and-fast rules about what can and cannot be included here on Wikipedia. What we have are some general principles and consensus-based guidelines on how to apply these principles in practice, based on common sense and editorial judgement. If we were looking for a reference for the statement, "the sky is blue", we wouldn't be particularly bothered where it came from. But if we wanted a reference for, "the sky is yellow and the meteorologists have been lying to us!", there would be a lot more scrutiny of the source.

The ins-and-outs of Creighton's argument are, I'm afraid to say, wholly irrelevant. Unless his claims are positively received by mainstream academia, we can't include them based on such a dubious source.

P.S. Please thread your comments using indents (:), and try to keep them as concise as possible. Otherwise the discussion becomes very hard to follow. – Joe (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Joe - what you are effectively saying is: EVIDENCE IS IRRELEVANT. Well, I thoroughly and wholeheartedly disagree with that pov. Why is Wiki happy to cite an Egyptology book written by a chartered accountant but object to one written by an engineer? And as I said earlier - Creighton's book is not a book on Egyptology per se - it's mostly about this character Colonel Vyse and his operations at Giza. You don't need to be an academic to investigate Colonel Vyse's actions at Giza. So - how do you propose that this situation can be resolved, that Wiki readers can still access Creighton's research on Colonel Howard Vyse? Do we simply rewrite this article but include the evidence Creighton presents in his book with the original source used by Creighton (i.e. not Creighton himself)? For example, the information in the article about Vyse's political career could include the accusation of electoral fraud (with the original source) and the later evidence that proved he DID commit electoral fraud (with appropriate original source) etc. Would that resolve the issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia built on reliable sources. We have no obligation to point our readers to Creighton's book or include his claims in this article. If there are reliable, mainstream, secondary sources for Creighton's specific claims then they can be included, yes. It does appear Beverley was a rotten borough (not at all uncommon in the pre-reform House of Commons), so that could be noted. However we need to avoid original research by synthesis (e.g. implying his election to a rotten borough has anything to do with his Egyptological work) and we certainly can't just repeat all of Creighton's claims without citing him. – Joe (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On another note, are you Scott Creighton? – Joe (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Joe - okay. Looks like we may finally be getting somewhere. But I will point out again - Creighton's research is mostly an investigation into the life of Colonel Vyse and, in particular, his operations/actions at Giza. It is NOT a book about Egyptology and, as such, does not require him to be qualified in Egyptology. His book is an investigation into an allegation first made by Sitchin and even Creighton lambasts Sitchin's sloppy research into Vyse's actions. It is a book about a potential forgery having taken place in 1837. What skills can Egyptologists bring to such an investigation? Are they able to perform a chemical analysis of the paint used? Are they able to analyse the brush strokes of the painted marks? Are they handwriting experts able to decipher Vyse's cryptic hand-writing? No--an Egyptologist is not needed for ANY of this and would probably be of little use. This article is about the life of Colonel Vyse. The controversy section is part of Vyse's life BUT investigating that controversy is not an Egyptological pursuit; it does not need the skills of an Egyptologist to determine if Vyse perpetrated a fraud within the Great Pyramid. All the skills needed to perform this analysis are required from other suitably qualified disciplines/individuals and it is the evidence from those people that Creighton presents in his book. So, your objection on the basis that Creighton is not an Egyptologist is actually quite irrelevant. Anyway - as I said at the opening of this reply, we may have found a way forward with this. I will go through Creighton's book and note the sources he uses for his evidence and, where relevant, will amend the article and include the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The book is called the The Great Pyramid Hoax and has a photo of Giza on the front cover, so I don't think this argument that it has nothing to do with Egyptology will get you very far. In any case, you'll note that I didn't say the book was unreliable because Creighton is not an Egyptologist; I gave four bulleted reasons why I came to that assessment. Two other experienced editors on this talk page agree with me that it's not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, but if you really really want to press the point you could ask for more opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

I agree that seeing whether any of Creighton's claims are repeated in more reliable sources is the way to go. Again do be mindful of no original research. Things like primary archival research are not something we can include. – Joe (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Joe - And I responded to your 4 bulleted point, showing why, imo, Creighton's work should be cited - because it is not a book about Egyptology but rather an investigation into the life of Colonel Vyse, which you DON'T need to be an Egyptologist to do. I believe Creighton's book has a cover of the Great Pyramid because, quite simply, that is where the Vyse forgery allegedly took place. I suppose if it had occurred at Stonehenge or at some other ancient site then there would have been a picture of that ancient site on the cover of his book - makes sense. The book is about a potential fraud - a HOAX - in the Great Pyramid and NOT about Egyptology. As such, the experts Creighton cites in the book are from disciplines removed from Egyptology. You don't ask a brain surgeon to investigate a counterfeiting operation, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been giving this some further thought overnight and have concluded that the basis upon which my edit is being removed by other Wiki editors is totally ill-founded and wrong. The objection to my edit by the other editors here are on the basis that:

1) Creighton's book was not published by an academic publisher (implying that his book is not, therefore, a reliable source).

Creighton's publisher (Inner Traditions / Bear and Co) publishes books by many PhDs. Indeed, the Wiki entry here cites Sitchin's 'Stairway to Heaven' published by Harper Collins and also by Bear & Co. Is Harper Collins less of a reputable publisher simply because it published Sitchin's work? And if Sitchin can be cited in this Wiki article by having Bear and Co as his publisher, then there can be no objection to Creighton's publisher as it is the same publisher as Sitchin. Are we to decide what material is permitted here on Wiki based on the publishing house a particular source comes from? Of course we don't and it would be wrong to do so.

2) Creighton is not an Egyptologist and his research was not subject to peer review.

Creighton's book is NOT an academic book about Egyptology. It is not about Egyptology AT ALL. It is a book that is essentially investigates a possible crime within the Great Pyramid in 1837. As such, Creighton need not be an Egyptologist to conduct such an investigation nor does his book require to be peer-reviewed by any academic panel as it is not an academic work. To insist my edit be removed on this basis is totally flawed and wrong.

3) Creighton himself is regarded as a 'fringe' author.

Even if Creighton has written books that some here regard as fringe should not cloud the issue of this book which is NOT fringe. There are no pyramid power plants or pyramid pumps or anything else that might remotely be considered as 'woo woo' in this book. If we start throwing out sources simply because we object to some of their other works then that is a very dangerous and slippy slope indeed. And given that Creighton's book is the ONLY book to thoroughly investigate this forgery controversy then it is notable for that fact alone and, as such, should be included under the controversy section of Vyse's bio. As the article presently stands the only source for evidence of the forgery given in the piece is Sitchin's which Creighton himself has largely dismissed. In the article, FIVE Egyptologists and TWO museums are cited in support of the authenticity of these marks so, to get nearer some semblance of balance, the article should have other sources that provides other evidence that questions the authenticity of the marks. Creighton's book does exactly that and, as such, should be included under the controversy section of the page.

And finally - the article presents various Egyptologists stating their views that the painted marks in the chambers are 4,500 years old. Given the controversy surrounding these marks, where is THEIR evidence to back up such statements? Just because something may appear authentic does not make it authentic. Where is the modern scientific evidence that backs up what these Egyptologists are saying? If there is none then that should be stated in the article. The word of a known fraudster falls far short of the level of evidence required to pronounce upon the authenticity of the marks.

Given my thoughts above I once again request that my original edit be included under the appropriate 'Controversy' section of the article. (I cannot add it myself now as the article has now been 'padlocked' for edits). Should my edit not be added then we will simply have to escalate this dispute to the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is all becoming rather silly now. It seems this Wiki article was padlocked due to persistent edits (presumably by me). Yes I re-inserted one edit several times and stopped this to avoid being in breach of Wiki rules and to seek an agreed way forward to resolve this dispute (all of which can be seen in the discussion above). We came to a consensus that it would be permissible to include original sources in the Vyse article for the claims made by Creighton in his book so long as Creighton (considered by some here as an unreliable source) was not himself cited in the article as a source. This is what I thought was agreed? How then can I add in these non-Creighton original sources to the article if it is now locked? Someone care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You probably should create an account in order to edit the article. I felt to be in the right in removing the controversial paragraph as I just did. Nevertheless, that Khufu was the builder and owner of the Great Pyramid is clearly the mainstream view in Egyptology. Khruner (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm considering an account, Khruner. Just not sure I'd be using it that often to make it worth my while or WP's while. Your edit makes better sense to me but it remains to be seen if the other editors will be happy with it. I think also it is important to separate two quite distinct issues here: 1) The Vyse Forgery Controversy and 2) Khufu as Builder of the Great Pyramid. While there exists a tangential connection between these, they are two quite separate matters. The issue I am interested in is the matter of a potential forgery having taken place in the pyramid and that alone. How that finding may then impact on other matters relating to the pyramid is, actually, none of my concern and a quite separate matter. Creighton's book on this subject limits itself to an investigation into an alleged crime within the pyramid, not an investigation into who built the pyramid, when or why. Even if it becomes accepted that Vyse probably did commit a hoax inside the Great Pyramid, such a finding will not disprove Khufu as the builder of the structure. (I think someone said something similar to this at the top of this talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking through Google books it's obvious that most mainstream writers have ignored this, as they usually do with Sitchin, etc. Of course it's not hard to find mainstream writers mentioning the graffiti without suggestins a forgery. Graham Hancock at first believed it but later said there was no forgery, as has Robert Schoch in a couple of his fringe books. Miroslav Verner is a mainstream Egyptologist who has dismissed the claim:"From a paleographic, grammatical, and historical point of view, there is not the slightest doubt as to their authenticity. Vyse and Perring therefore did not forge any inscription with the Khufu cartouche."[10] Doug Weller talk 10:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

When new facts become available, people change their minds. As Hancock has clearly done (see 2017 Hancock quote below) having appraised himself of the new evidence Creighton presents in his book.

"A powerfully-argued demolition of the 'facts' on which Egyptologists base their claim that the Great Pyramid was built by the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khufu. Scott Creighton's excellent new book The Great Pyramid Hoax is a first-class forensic investigation that Egyptologists should really be paying a great deal of attention to, because it pulls the rug of their chronology right out from under their feet." - Graham Hancock, https://www.amazon.com/Great-Pyramid-Hoax-Conspiracy-Conceal/dp/159143789X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505214027&sr=8-2&keywords=great+pyramid

Your Verner quote is from a book first published in 1991. Just because something may APPEAR authentic, doesn't actually make it authentic. If Vyse were to find authentic marks somewhere outside the pyramid and have those marks copied exactly as they were into the pyramid, how does Verner tell the difference? Has Miroslav Verner appraised himself of the new evidence presented in Creighton’s 2017 book? What’s Verner's opinion of Creighton’s new evidence? As I said, Doug, people (minorstream or mainstream) have a right to change their minds as and when new evidence demands it. Just because Verner had such a view in 1991 doesn’t mean he will have the same view after appraising himself of the new evidence that points to a Vyse fraud that Creighton presents. And Creighton need not be an Egyptologist to present evidence of fraud—that is not an academic or even an Egyptological pursuit. 5.81.204.152 (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess we'll just have to wait until archaeologists and Egyptologists comment on Creighton's book. If it's that convincing someone might. There's no such thing as "minorstream" on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why an Egyptologist commenting on Creighton's evidence will make any difference or should be the determining factor on whether Creighton's work is cited here. Are Egyptologists qualified to determine a fraud? In any case, since you ask, an Egyptologist has already commented on Creighton's book, Doug. Lorraine Evans. She qualified in Egyptology at UCL, has written sevaral books on the subject and is presently working towards her PhD. - http://www.lorraineevans.com/index.asp?pageid=599019

She writes of Creighton's book: “An intriguing narrative, The Great Pyramid Hoax expertly weaves its way through the sands of time, as it revisits one of Egyptology’s most contentious issues--the dating of the Great Pyramid. In the best traditions of alternative research Creighton takes the reader on a personal journey of exploration, skillfully weaving powerful themes upon clear emotional expression, as he attempts to uncover the veracity behind one of Egypt’s most endearing mysteries. A must-read for those searching for the truth.” (Lorraine Evans, Egyptologist, death historian, and author of Kingdom of the Ark)" (see Amazon link above).

'Minorstream'. It's on Wiki now. :) 5.81.204.152 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

She's not an Egyptologist, two of us have explained that to you. She's as student with fringe ideas about Egyptians being ancestors of the British/Irish. Repeating your claim that she's an Egyptologist won't help you. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Doug--we shall simply have to agree to disagree on Evans. But I had crossed-over an edit to my post as you posted. Let me repeat it here: I fail to see why an Egyptologist commenting on Creighton's evidence will make any difference or should be the determining factor on whether Creighton's work is cited here. Are Egyptologists qualified to detect whether a fraud has taken place? As I keep saying to you and for which you seem determined to ignore--Creighton's work is an investigation into a potential crime and not a book about Egyptology. As such, Egyptologists are not the best people to determine whether Creighton's research has merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.204.152 (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So, how do we get this article unlocked?5.81.204.152 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not locked. And I imagine it will stay unlocked so long as you don't try to force Creighton's book into it. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it's locked for me, Doug Weller. I'm guessing it's perhaps something to do with the fact that I am an IP and not a registered WP user. What's the thing you seem to have with Creigton's book on this topic? You seem to have a serious aversion to it which I find quite peculiar. As I have said elsewhere here--this isn't ABOUT Creighton--omly about the evidence he presents in his book. Is the evidence he presents a problem for you as an editor here on Wiki? If so, why?

BTW - just curious. Aren't you a director or board member of the orthodox Egyptology web site, 'In the Hall of Ma'at'? Just asking.95.151.249.229 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a director there but inactive for some time due to my increased responsibilities here. As for Creighton, I don't think his book meets WP:RS nor WP:UNDUE. Sitchin on the other hand meets WP:UNDUE. Maybe someday Creighton will, if he gets noticed by mainstream sources. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah - just refreshed there. Article is now open for edits. Excellent.95.151.249.229 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As always, the "Talk" page is a great source of entertainment. However, with all this arguing as to who are qualified egyptologists and who are not, I cannot help but question how many of those arguing on this (and other subjects on Wikipedia) are qualified editors of non-fiction works? --RISadler (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok - I agree with the IP 5.81. I see no reason why Scott Creighton's book 'The Great Pyramid Hoax' (which I recently finished reading) should not be cited in this article which is about Howard Vyse. Why should Creighton's book require a specialist Egyptologist to cite it before it can be cited here on Wiki when it's not a book about Egyptology but rather a book about the life of Vyse and his part in a potential fraud? That's like saying only mathematicians or other scientists can write a biography on Einstein or Newton before their work can be cited here on Wiki. Completely ridiculous. Like the IP above said already, this book is a biography of this guy Vyse and is probably the only book of its kind to fully explore the life and times of this guy. It totally deserves to be and should be cited in this article about Vyse. Over and above which - this Wiki article clearly has lifted a lot of new stuff, more recent material about Vyse's life straight from Creighton's book. It's just not right that Creighton's research/book is not being given due recognition or at least cited in the reference section. Or is their something else I am missing here?72.43.174.43 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What you are missing, and I've missed it also, is that IP 5.81 and 95.151 are both editing from Glasgow and are almost certainly Creighton. If he continues to edit the article it may have to be protected again. Is the new stuff by one of the IPs? Anyway, there's a policy reason, see WP:UNDUE. Maybe if he were a recognised expert, but he isn't. It needs discussion in reliably published sources first. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hell, not only is the new stuff all from Creighton, he's using a 3rd IP, User:Khruner, are you following this?Doug Weller talk 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Damn, he's also the IP that started this thread pushing his own book. Pinging another editor who's been in this thread, User:Joe Roe. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And reading back through, Joe asked one of the IPs if he was Creighton but got no response. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it looks like a duck to me. But the additions by the IP since the page was un-protected seem okay. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Recognized expert? Who needs to be a recognized expert at writing a biography on someone? I'm just sayin this book should be cited in the reference section because it is essentially a biography about Vyse's life and this Wiki article is a mini bio of his life. What's the freakin problem guys? Anyways thats my thoughts. Whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.174.43 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - our sources need to be by recognised experts in most cases, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. That's the way we work. And the Sitchin allegations aren't really biographical. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Hmm, little to add to what was already pointed out in the previous subsection... I'd like to read some scholarly review of Creighton's book. And Lorraine Evans clearly isn't one of them. Khruner (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)