Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 13:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in the Copper Age
Same reason as for Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Modern West etc yesterday. Additionally, the entire idea of comparing these units in a table by mm equivalent is at fault. Some of these units were very precise, some were quite variable and uncertain over times. Finally, these units are already covered by Ancient weights and measures and sub-articles, to the degree these articles have survived the contributions of this same anon. Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being his janitor. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd suggest leaving a redirect, but it's unlikely anyone would type that exact phrase in, so just delete. Proto t c 09:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, excellent links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * updated and under mediation, also as to the linking these pages were all
 * linked together under ancient weights and measures
 * which is where they belong

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
 * Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures
 * makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.


 * If you would like to see them compared in their own or contemporary units
 * as well as mm, why not put that comment on the discussion page?
 * Most copper age measures are given as multiples of a standard
 * of which the best surviving example measures 1/2 meter.


 * As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several
 * decimals of mm, copper age standards are not precise to decimal mm
 * or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.


 * For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary
 * primary reference to sharing a standard (as with the letter of Nanse}
 * which was cited on the discussion page for ancient weights and measures)
 * There are long term investigations of the units involved and the results
 * are now considered basic historical fact.


 * In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective
 * to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",
 * "Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer
 * histories that have been explored in the literature.


 * Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological
 * period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities
 * and differances much clearer


 * The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid
 * as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and
 * in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with
 * translations given in English


 * Comment While unconvinced, I stand in awe of a response written in poetry. --Icelight 18:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[Ancient_Weights_and_Measures]
 * Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Rktect's reponse is incorrect: there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article at all. Nandesuka 19:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The page in question is the discussion page of
 * When user Egil decided he wanted to rewrite the whole page in a different format
 * to catagorize by cultures rather than by standards I suggested that it was important
 * to keep the comparative aspect of the standards which you could previously see just
 * by scrolling up or down, not changing pages.


 * Delete, no useful data other than a list, said list is adequately covered in other articles. Xaa 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * rktect 8/6/05
 * If you think this table is just a list and adequately covered elsewhere
 * I'd like to know where you are looking

How user Egil's massive edit changed the whole nature of the page

 * First He proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing by culture rather than measure
 * On his own, over protest, he unilateraly did so
 * Then he decided to delete all reference to the original version
 * which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

Ancient Measures by Culture

 * Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures
 * Ancient Persian weights and measures
 * Ancient Egyptian weights and measures
 * Ancient Indus Valley weights and measures
 * Ancient Greek weights and measures
 * Ancient Roman weights and measures
 * Ancient Vedic weights and measures
 * Ancient Chinese weights and measures
 * Ancient Arabic weights and measures
 * Ancient Hebrew weights and measures


 * Rktect7/31/05
 * Another way to approach the listing of measures would be to break it up by time and unit
 * These will eventually compare cultures in a less ethnocentric way (note pre-conquest Americas)
 * They are a work in progress requiring the names and values of many units be filled in
 * ideally they would also eventually get their value in increments of their own units.


 * 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

233. siraraki-ce3 dijir lagacki-a gu2 mu-un-na-si-si 234. na4 gen6-na kug la2-e-de3 gi-gur gen6-na gub-bu-de3 235. jicba-an inim gen6-na kur-kur-ra [cu] ba-an-ja2-ja2-ne" Vegaswikian 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A quote from Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures  "232. e2 abzu-ta me nam-ta-ba


 * Comment to Vegaswikian: You are right, the articles Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures etc in their present form should be axed to. Same author, same problem. The issue with these articles is that once upon a time, there was reasonable content here. As you perhaps may deduct from the above, this is now impossible to maintain. -- Egil 09:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * rktect 8/6/05 why, in an article discussing sumerian standards of measure, would you
 * want to delete a cite in the language being discussed which proves the point being made?


 * I can see that if you don't know a lot about Sumerian standards of measure you might not
 * be interested but why burn the book that someone else might want to read?


 * This is a votes-for-deletion page. I have answered you here: User_talk:Rktect -- Egil 12:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * rktect 8/7/05
 * Egil, why won't you respond where others can read your response.
 * I asked you to '''tell me what your expertise is
 * in standards of measure of the copper age'''
 * This was your response, with my response to that interleaved
 * The most revealing part of your objection is as follows


 * User Egil comment

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)

Burning of books?

 * User Egil comment

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


 * User Egil comment

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.


 * : rktect 8/7/05 I seriously doubt it will be deleted
 * as I can see that others are now aware of your activities


 * User Egil comment

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)


 * : rktect 8/7/05
 * 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.


 * Delete as for the other articles in this series. Ken 13:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, agree with Ken and others. Gene Nygaard 15:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.