Talk:Chem

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was merge and disambiguate.

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

Ancient Egypt

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Chemistry

I removed the following:

The words chemistry and alchemy may actually be derived from the word Khem. In one source ^[1] Khem has the meaning of black in ancient Egypt refering to black soil. In this way alchemy is accociated with black art, literary when you consider nigredo, or its dark and secretive nature.

== References ==

^[1] Chemical History Tour, Picturing Chemistry from Alchemy to Modern Molecular Science Adele Droblas Greenberg Wiley-Interscience 2000 ISBN 0471354082

This belongs on either the Chemistry or Alchemy articles (it already exists in the Alchemy article). It has absolutely nothing to do with the deity Khem [sic]. Furthermore, the supposed relation between the words chemistry and kmt (Egyptian for black) do not involve the misreading ḫm (the subject of this article). —Nefertum17 09:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regret the edit, from the external link in the page the Khem - God of fertility teams up just nicely with the black soil theory in reference 1. corroborating evidence. will take business somewhere else rikXL 16:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ril, I didn't even notice you had just thrown up a "in use" tag, but I did tone down the POV since there are two ways of looking at the similarity of the names. If I had seen your tag, I might have waited, though... Codex Sinaiticus 19:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its ok. I've merged it to Min (god), where it belongs. ~~~~ 23:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry again, I reverted your redirect because I hadn't seen this notice one second earlier. Guess that's what happens (beside editing conflicts timewise) when we are working at the same time. OK, I see where a case could be made for merging the two pages, so if you want to try the merge again, go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Codex Sinaiticus 23:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Ham is the name for Egypt the empire (including at times Nubia, Canaan, Sinai, and Libya). Mizraim is the name for Egypt the bit round the nile that was the Empire's centre - just Upper & Lower Egypt.)

What are you basing this info on -Ril-? thanks --Jjzeidner 18:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, the reason that Hamitic languages were called Ham-itic (See that article for further discussion). ~~~~ 19:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khem

The word 'Khem' actually shows up in Egyptian records and religious references as referring to the black soil of the Nile. The idea that it had anything to do with 'black-skinned people' is speculative and not really supported by the evidence. The Egyptians had other words for the black races of Africa. Matthew A.J.י.B. 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total confusion

This article has got to be one of the worst I have seen. First of all, I have no idea what the main topic is. Secondly, Khem and Chem are not

the Egyptian word for black, and was usually used to describe the fertile soil surrounding the Nile

For that usage, see Kemet. And to be clear Khem (with /kh/ = Egyptian ḫm) is not at all related to kem (= Egyptian km) "Black", whence "Kemet".

Then we have another topic about "Chem" (ḫm) being an old (and wrong!!) reading for Min. That is all perfectly true, but the we have this nonsense:

Nethertheless, since Khem described the fertile soils, it was sometimes used as an epithet for Min, as the god of fertility. Consequently, the Khem that represented Egypt, Ham to the writers of the Bible, could be seen as symbolic also of sexuality.

So basically there is an initial error ("Chem"/"Khem"/ḫm = "kem"/km [black]) being compounded with another error (Khem/ḫm = Min), combined into one big error ("Chem"/"Khem"/ḫm = Min = "kem"/km [black]), followed by the even more preposterous equation with Hebrew "Ham" based purely on modern pronunciation of Hebrew!!! Basically this is just a gigantic perfect storm of a folk etymology. And most of it is also repeated in the Ham, son of Noah article as well.

On top of that, there is the side topic of some highly obscure usage of "chem" used on one person's podcast of highly dubious encyclopedic interest.

So could someone help me out and tell me what the topic of this article is and just how it can be "repaired"? Flembles 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in June 2005 oneo fthe authors here whom I was having a dispute with, merged it with Min (god), and I reverted. Then I soon realized I had made a mistake and told him here he could go ahead and perform the merge again, but he never did. Maybe it's time to take a look at this more carefully to see if there is anything now that can be merged, and just redirect it to Min (god) again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]