Talk:Khet

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled[edit]

I have now added references and wikified the page for the 5th time.

Hopefully the next incident of vandalism will be by someone other than Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini or Zoe and be discussed here on the discussion page rather than simply reverted to the unwikified unreferenced version again.

By the way, the current verson (23:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)) almost looks acceptable, after putting only the relevant parts, claening up, organizing references (although probably not all of them needed), etc. So I'm done with this one. -- < drini | ∂drini > 23:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why then did Gene rather clumsily revert it, delete all the positive changes and place a bad cleanup tag with no discussion?

Dear rktect, that is because, despite what you claim, the various Wikipedians that criticize you are not one and the same.

hmmm, dissension in the ranks?Rktect

From my point of view, this article is useless and for the most part contains irrelevant material. It serves no purpose, and should be a redirect to Ancient Egyptian weights and measures.

As far as I can see this is just another vehicle you created to promote your fantasies about Eratosthenes et al. The only item of value is khet = 100 royal cubits, which is, surprise, correct. Let me just mention: Gee, how about thatRktect

How about backing up some of your "as far as I can see" speculation with an actual cite or reference Your POV is evident. You don't think standards of mesure are interesting therefore they are irrelevant and noone else should be allowed to take an interest in them.Rktect 18:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The 3ht of 3 st3t or khet = 300 royal cubits A unit you invented to suit your claims about Eratosthenes.

I gave you at least three independent cites of this unit on the Eratosthenes pageplus a discussion of crop rotation and the clustering of fields and the distribution and tenure of of fields sized by aroura and mh t3 or land cubit in the Rameside period.Rktect

300 royal cubits= 157.5 m, 700 stadia of 157.5 m =110.25 km. An Egyptian stadion you invented to suit your claims about Eratosthenes.

1 Egyptian minute of march = 350 royal cubits = 183.75 m Another definition you just made up. I guess the Egyptians were always running.

Why not just once try and look at a cite when I give it to you

"By stadion the Greeks meant either the distance covered in a minute of march or the distance covered in a double minute of march; generally they called stadion the double minute of march corresponding to the division of the day into 12 double hours, but the stadion of 300 feet or one minute of march was also used." [Metrum]

At the beginning of the nineteenth century it was determined that the Egyptian royal cubit is 525 mm. and hence it was concluded that Eratosthenes calculated by stadia of 300 Egyptian royal cubits. Newton too had tried quite successfully to ascertain the length of the Egyptian royal cubit from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, in order to interpret Eratosthenes’ datum." Rktect

up to milimter precission.. as it egyptinas had a modern system that standarizd measurements. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 hr of march = 1 atur or itrw = 11.025 km The atur has nothing to do with marching, it is for sailing, i.e. river journeys.
The Egyptian value for the itrw or river journey was 21,000 royal cubits. You had to cheat here too, to support your claims about Eratosthenes. By all reliable sources, the atur is 20,000 royal cubits.

-- Egil 10:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is Herodotus Book II of his historywho says the schoenus is an Egyptian measure of 60 furlongs, ie; 600 furlongs or stadia to a degree, 1/10 degree, 21,000 royal; cubits.

You have been informed before that the Egyptian measures are septenary so not "20,000?" as per Gardiner but 21,000 as per the several cites provided you on the Eratosthenes page. Either provide sources to the contrary or quit making this ridiculous claim. Your lack of familiarity with the most basic material is staggering.Rktect 18:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Gene's comment that the autocad reproduction of the sketch of an architect from the old kingdom found at Saquarra does not date to the old kingdom, I cited Somers Clarke and R Englebach where their hand drawn and photo reproductions of the sketch should put this puppy to bed.Rktect 18:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

See User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Articles_under_attack -- Egil 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC) No reason given removing tagRktect 20:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Anyone mind this article being made into a redirect to Ancient Egyptian weights and measures? -- Egil 17:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should then become a disambiguation page, as the Districts of Bangkok are also named Khet. andy 17:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Egil 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]