Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. Two votes were discounted because the user accounts were too new--one for delete, the other for keep. User:Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) changed his keep to delete in the end, making it unanimous. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

More of same. This table and article is original research, and essentially completely without value. The same IP user created loads and loads of similar material. Egil 14:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an unfinished attempt to create a table comparing the value of different named units in different cultures. Probably needs to be restated in familiar units, wikified, and otherwise cleaned up, but I'm not sure I follow how this is unverifiable original research. Is there a table already here where this could be merged/redirected to? If so, redirect and merge; if not, keep. Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that it's been explained what's going on, change vote to delete. Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative uses transliteration and traslation from origional Sunerian primary sources. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

dispute is in mediation

Burning of books?

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed

by a competant administrator who will probably decide

what to do with the articles based on their overall content.

You have made a number of false statements about them

which a competant administrator will probably pick up.

You have claimed they are original research when the articles

cite sources that are in their fifth printing and

in some cases date back to classical sources.

You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables

You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere

which is far from the case because they are comparative tables

which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit

values on the same page that you removed by putting them

on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them

in a table form for comparison

What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before

you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you

are afraid of discussing their content.

Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of the page

You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing

by culture rather than measure

On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so

Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version

which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

I seriously doubt it will be deleted as I can see that others

are now aware of your activities

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the

votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement

of the administrator what action if any should be taken

particularly when the page is just being created and is still

being actively worked on every day it would be the normal

policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly

polished and perfercted.

Rktect 08/05/04

None of this is "original research"

Cites for where it comes from are on the Ancient Weights and Measures Discussion page

I'm fascinated by someone refering to cites from books

whose publication has now run through four or five printings "original research"

It is original research because it seems to be an attempt by the author

to show the great interconnectedness of all units of measurement of all ancient cultures.

No. Its just a collection of readily available sources, many classical or ancient,

which point out how people use measures to define property, and church and state

use measures to levy taxs and tithes, and none of them tolerate changes in their

source of income very well.

This truly is original research.

Maybe a couple of centuries ago it was, now its more or less main stream.

There are also claims that the metric system really is based on a Sumerian cubit,

which is by definition 500 mm.

Try going to Metrum and checking the claim out.

Oh yes, they knew the exact diameter of the Earth.

That claim [that ancient geographers, surveyors cartographers and navigators

such as Marinus of Tyre, Pithias, Claudius Ptolomy and Eratosthenes

knew not only that the earth was round but how to divide it into degrees and

how to measure a degree] goes back to before the time of Alexander

let alone Alexandria.

How can we check that?

A Mesopotamia Sos is listed in Wikopedia as 180 m

An Egyptian itrw is listed as 21,000 royal cubits = 1 schoinos (Herodotus)= 1/10 degree

A Greek Stadion is 185 m, there are 8 to a Milos and 600 to a degree

A Roman Stadium is 185 m, there are 8 to a milliare and 600 to a degree

In both cases 75 'miles' = 1 degree of 111 km

That produces a great circle as they put it of 24,830 modern English miles.

The modern value is about 24903.

Anyway, the content of the table is not verifiable,

The sources are on the discussion page for Ancient weights and measures

Egil is in such a rush to delete these pages he hasn't

given me a chance to finish putting them up.

and the subject about ancient units is fully convered elsewhere.

Actually, since the massive edit Egil made to the page, everything is

now neatly compartmentalised so that if you want to compare units

you can't just scroll up or down, you have to go to a different page

The same author created Standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr, Standards of measure in the Copper Age, Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age, Standards of measure in Iron Age Europe, Standards of measure in Medieval Europe, Standards of measure in the Pre Conquest Americas, Standards of measure in the Medieval East, Standards of measure in the Modern West. Plus he invented units like the Greek Milos etc. -- Egil 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because user Egil doesn't have any familiarity with ancient units

it doesn't mean they don't exist

The metric system is indeed based on the Sumerian cubit, because like many other weapons in the Devil's arsenal, it originated with Semiramis and Nimrod. Consult Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons if you would know more. If, however, there is already an article where these several units are listed and compared, I would redirect this there; or failing that, disambiguate. Smerdis of Tlön 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The metric system is based on ancient measures because after people like Egil

who didn't know what they were doing had managed to confuse a system

that had functioned perfectly well for millenia, scholars went back

to look at ancient measures to try and find a standard from which

to restablish a rational system (based on the great circle measure of the earth)

Delete Original research, besides, in bronze ages, measurement wasn't as accurate as today, so it's pointless to state that a finger was (to say, 15.3 milimiteres rather than 15.2), so this cannot be encyclopedic. <drini ☎> 16:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Ken 17:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Nandesuka 16:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see some of the people asking for deletion

tell us a little about their expertise with the measures of the near eastern bronze age

Delete misleading, redundant, speculative, and beyond salvage. Gene Nygaard 15:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.