Talk:The Revelation of the Pyramids

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

Fake

This "documentary" is totally fake. Many many real specialists debunked this movie. Please consider this movie as a fiction (complotist), not a documentary. LRDP : La révélation de la foutaise Irna- LRDP Zetommyz (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the names of these experts and their exact statements.

If these experts just say "that's bullshit", that's not a valid argument.

Experts can only statisticians, probability mathematicians, engineers, civil engineers etc.

But no Egyptologists, historians, physicists etc. That is not their area of expertise.

37.201.193.187 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

I agree with the critique above by Zetommyz. This article clearly does not corresponds to the standards of neutrality of Wikipedia.

The statements below are not sourced in any way, and I strongly doubt they could be. In that case, they have to be edited and/or deleted.

"It raises many questions that Egyptologists have so far been unable to solve or provide evidence for within the framework of known Egyptian civilisation and capabilities."

"The documentary received heavy criticism among traditional Egyptologist academics but praise from academics of other scientific disciplines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.217.122 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Link To ES/Jacques grimault

There needs to be a link to Jacques grimault but the only wikipedia article about him is in spanish. Family Guy Guy (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Joke! this is no proper wikipedia content!

First of all, qualifying such a documentary as "conspiracy or complotist whatever concept" doesn't make any sense at all! It is out of the subject, it'as like saying: don't buy this toothbrush ! It is a complotist one..

This investigation documentary which is non political , but archeological/historical , and so by definition non-complotist and non-conspirationnist, doesn't accuse anyone of anything.

It questions and confronts different perspectives over world history, through the scientific and comparative analysis of ancient buildings and artefacts, with the help and contribution of several major scientists,

..whose expertise could, by-the-way, never be challenged by any point-of-view expressed by (quote) these so-called "charlie danger, youtuber (who is this?), and pamela "something", whatever journalist ..whose considerations over this masterpiece represent nothing more than their own "single" opinion.

I repeat, this is by definition, a research field, and as no one holds the truth about archeology neither ancient history, this movie is just a huge piece of science, that contains debate, and which will feed further debates and further investigations like in any scientific approach. It can't be reproched with not-containing everything on the subject, ..as it is not aimed to!

There is absolutely no relevance in providing these "sunday cheap paper's critics" instead of a proper neutral description of the Movie, such as:

- casting, production data (author, year, means of production etc..) - subjet adressed - résume / structure of the investigation - means of investigation - main questions raised for further debate

 (about the subject not the movie itself)

- point-of-views and critics as external links references.

I though Wikipedia was there to provide "descriptive data" not "critics" based on nothing and nobody consistent!

I wish this page of simple "Propaganda" against this movie, should be re-written completely according to the website policy, or simply deleted, as it sounds judgmental and offensive to the many involved in this production.

Hugo Michel, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.0.198 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

This would be better edited to include the thing academically agreed with instead of just slapping conspiracy theory on it. This can lead to a lot of credible information lot in the mind of anyone who know nothing about such things. But yes, the beginning theory and conclusion are bullshit. 41.116.14.34 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]