Talk:Aṅgula

Ludicrous Accuracy
Early versions of this page refer to 'the angula was about 1.9cm' There is no known method by which a hand-made ruler can deliver accuracy to 1/100th of a millimeter; to suggest 'it is believed that it was approximately equal to 1.763 cm' is just silly. That a calculation CAN be made does not mean it should be!! Nojoking (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it is cited so wp:verifiability not truth applies. You will have to take it up with the editor of the journal. (They must have had very small barley corns. Eight good English barleycorn (unit)s equates to 67.76 mm or 2$2/3$ inches.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Eight barley corns?
The article begins Aṅgula (from अङ्गुल aṅgula - 'a finger; the thumb; a finger's breadth' ) and then goes on to say "is a measure equal to eight barley-corns." But eight barleycorns equates to 67.76mm or 2$2/3$ inches. A randomly-chosen thumb (mine ) is about 20mm wide and my index finger is about 15mm. The 17.63mm cited in the paper is consistent with my WP:original research and with the dictionary definition ("within the limits of experimental error", as observed above). The "eight barley corns" is uncited and incredible: "two barley corns" is credible but also uncited. I started this para as a target for a dubious but now I will just delete it as a spoof. If supporting evidence can be found, feel free to reinstate with the citation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)