Talk:History of the metric system

Wikiproject information

Files nominated for deletion

Several images useable in this article, File:Horloge-republicaine0.jpg File:Horloge-republicaine1.jpg File:Horloge-republicaine2.jpg File:Horloge-republicaine3.jpg File:Horloge-republicaine4.jpg File:Horloge-republicaine5.jpg File:Horloge-republicaine6.jpg have been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a User --JOHNDOE (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Leading up to The French Revolution

The sequence of events and the relevance of the politics mentioned (e.g. the convocation of the Estates-general) are very hard to follow in this section. It would be good if someone with the reference books to hand were to clean it up to make it more coherent. Otherwise, I am inclined to reduce most of the politics to something along the lines of "Following the Revolution of 1789, the Revolutionary government...". Any reaction? Awien (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to the work of Pat Naughtin

If Pat Naughtin ("Mr Metrication"), his opinions, views or work are to be referenced in this article, readers need to be made aware that he was (unashamedly) a metrication promoter and campaigner. He was following a single-minded and uncompromising pro-metrication and anti-customary units agenda up until his death last year (July 2011). Not to mention that, or to pretend otherwise, risks misleading readers to assume that his opinions were incontrovertible or unbiased. His website ([1]) and accolades on the websites of various metrication pressure groups, and of others ([2], [] [3],[4]) make that abundantly clear. MeasureIT (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Naughtin's interpretation of the work of John Wilkins is also being used (albeit indirectly via information from the website of the UK Metric Association or others using that as a source) to support claims about Wilkins's role (without necessarily stating it to be based on Naughtin's work) in the history of the metric system in at least the following articles: History of the metric system (this article), Metric system, International System of Units, Metre and Lists of British inventions! MeasureIT (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What weasel word, and why all the rest too?

Can User:Martinvl please explain in more detail this edit of his, and particularly tell us which word he removed as a weasel word. Then perhaps he will put back the rest that he also removed, or at least explain why he felt the need to remove all that too. MeasureIT (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole tone of the sentence " the late Pat Naughtin, a tireless metrication promoter from Australia ... " is unencyclopeadic. I am not going to enlarge on the matter. It just is. Martinvl (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So your edit summary was inaccurate - your were not just "removing weasal word (See WP:WEASAL) by MeasureIT". You were actually reverting everything I added - it was a full revert, and now, even after I have asked for an explanation, you are refusing to explain in detail why.

How can we make constructive and consensual progress on the article if you revert everything I add, use false edit summaries, and refuse to discuss why you have reverted or attempt to reach a compromise? MeasureIT (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I put back some of the content that was reverted, but modified it slightly in an attempt to address what I perceive to be the concerns of User:Martinvl. I'm trying to reflect the truth of the situation rather than misrepresenting it. MeasureIT (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit seems to have injected actual WP:WEASEL words instead of avoiding them. And while I agree with your perception that Martinvl (talk · contribs) was less than helpful and collegial in his initial response here, 24 hours is far too short enough time to allow for a response. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again removed the WP:WEASEL words. I did not repond with 24 hours becaue I have a life. In response to my being "less than helpful and collegial", please read this. Martinvl (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you have once again removed my entire contribution and restored your favoured wording, using a misleading summary again, and without answering the outstanding question of what are the specific weasel words you claim to have removed. Perhaps you could at the same time justify the weasel words that you have now put back in there too. MeasureIT (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of "modern writers" who support Naughtin's theory about Wilkins

Do we need to say how many? Should we say "many" without a reference specifically supporting that assertion by explicitly saying it? I've just removed the unsupported weasel word (WP:WEASEL, and replaced it with "four" (it is followed by four references), but I am uncomfortable with the whole idea. And one of those references has had doubt about its reliability raised by User:Ergative rlt in this discussion: "Talk:Lists of British inventions#Invention of the metric system". Any ideas? MeasureIT (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've again flagged the Craig cite as possibly unreliable. The doubt was, as pointed out above, raised in the discussion at: "Talk:Lists of British inventions#Invention of the metric system". MeasureIT (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the "unreliable" flag - that is your view, let the readers decide.
• I have removed the "Weasal" flag - you have clearly not read WP:WEASAL. The word "Many" in this context is 100% correct!!!!
• I have removed your POV regarding Naughtin.

Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not my view, that view is reflected in respected publications as referenced above, and how can the readers know if they aren't alerted to it? I've restored the flag as the evidence is compelling.
• I read WP:WEASEL, have you? You need a cite containing the word "many" in that context to support that - or it is merely weasel.
• My expansion on Naughtin is factual and pertinent to the context, not POV. He was a metrication promoter. He did postulate about the meaning of a chapter in that essay. It did receive national press coverage. It was following that coverage that other writers took notice. If you disagree with any of those facts then state which, specifically, here so we can discuss it.

MeasureIT (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Many" is not a weasal word

The word "Many" is not a "Weasal" word. It is a known fact that at least one 20th century editor (who I have cited) has credited Mouton with initating the metric system - I have seen many (yes MANY) similar citations. We cannot say that all 20th century editors concur with this. How else do you word this, or is MeasureIT just being bloody-minded. Martinvl (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an unsupported attribution. The claim of "many" needs supporting by a reliable source, it isn't there, so is definitely "weasel". And no, "one" does not equal "many".

How would I word it? If I had a reliable source that explicitly supported it, I might say "many", otherwise if I was writing about the opinion given in just one source (as currently in the article) I would attribute it to that source; something like: "McGreevy, in his book on the subject, credits Mouton with initiating the metric system...". But I wouldn't expect to get away with extrapolating or inferring anything more than that. That is how encyclopaedias such as this should be written, rooted in reliable sources and not based on the personal opinion or zealotry of the particular contributing editor. Is that where you have been going wrong - have you misunderstood your role here? MeasureIT (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresented or unreliable sources

Of the sources being used to support an expanded role for WIlkins - the claims based around being "one of the principal originators of the metric system" - all either fail to back the claim or otherwise suffer from problems (including one with a major reliability problem). Going down the list:

• Fandree's "Chapter 6: By Tens and Tenths – Metric Measurement" is a set of course notes or brief study guide, not something that would normally be considered a reliable source, and in no way backs the claim. Its sole mention of Wilkins is "1668 John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London, suggests a base 10 system of measurement." - nothing about his system being a percursor to the modern metric system (which the source identifies as being the work of the French Academy of Sciences), nothing about Wilkins as a "principal originator" or originator of any form, and nothing about Naughtin. This source has also been discussed at the Fringe theories noticeboard, where another editor agrees that it doesn't back the claim.
• Calloway's "God's Scientists" says "He devised an early metric system, an undertaking that has likewise been acknowledged and praised by posterity", but does not say that Wilkins developed or helped to develop the current metric system. It does mention a BBC video that claims the metric system to be British, but says nothing about the truth of that claim (and still refers to Wilkins' system as "a metric system" - my emphasis) and the video is already cited in the article. There is nothing directly about Naughtin.
• Cook's "Miles to meters" is about highway signage, and mentions Wilkins only in passing: "Then, in 1668, John Wilkins developed a decimalized system of standard weights and measures." The remainder of the section talks about Mouton and other French scholars, crediting them with the metric system. The source says nothing about Wilkins as a possible influence, and nothing about Naughtin. Discussed at fringe theories as well.
• Craig's "No Child Left Behind." This is an incredibly shoddy source, a mass of almost random quotation and advocacy. While it claims that "the underlying ideas also came from England ... The key principles ... were proposed by Dr. John Wilkins", this material is quoted from the UK Metric Association, and like the rest of the quotes that make up the bulk of the paper, is presented without any sort of analysis. This and other feature of the paper led me to check up on the publishing journal International Journal of Applied Science and Technology and its parent Centre for Promoting Ideas, and what I found isn't good. CPI and its publications are accused of being fraudulent publishers, "predatory" journals who don't perform true peer review, lie about their editors (including adding the names of actual academics to their editorial board without their knowledge or permission), who have had their journals yanked from scholarly catalogs and databases, and who are placed on "publishers to avoid" lists. See the Times Higher Education, The Australian, or Beall's lists of suspect publishers here or his lists of predatory publishers for 2012 and for 2013. Given the lack of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", this doesn't look like a reliable source.
• Dew, "The Hive and the Pendulum". Note what's on the first page: "DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR". Beyond this, the paper doesn't support the claims in the article: Wilkins is briefly mentioned as a metrology reformer, but is not treated as a developer of the metric system, and the latter is described as "the French Revolutionary metric system". There is no mention of Naughtin.
• "Celebrating metrology: 51 years of SI units" says "One of the first ideas for a universal metric system can be accredited to John Wilkins, ex secretary of the Royal Society, who outlined a new decimal system of measurement in 1668 in his book, ‘An Essay towards a Real Character and Philosophical Language’.", but does not link Wilkins to the development of the later metric system, and in fact traces the histry of the metric system to Lavoisier and others commissioned by Louis XVI ("the story of the now standard international measurement system starts here."). No mention of Naughtin.
• Stone's "Metrication policies and technical communication". Probably comes closest of all the given sources of backing the claims made, but even there has problems. First, it's a newsletter, not a professional or scholarly publication. He also solely cites Naughtin for this section: why not just offer a cite to Naughtin's article instead? It does show that at least one other person besides Naughtin himself thinks the latter's ideas have merit though.

In short, that Wilkins was a metrology reformer who had a number of ideas similar to ones that later appeared in the metic system is backed by the sources, but the claim that he was "one of the principal originators of the metric system" - or even any sort of originator - is not, and some of the given sources actually contradict the claim. There is also nothing to suggest that "many" people are following Naughtin's ideas: the only source expressing agreement is Stone, and even the BBC video mentioned by Calloway just gives a very short clip of Naughtin making his claim, and neither advocates for him or presents anyone else agreeing with him. A couple of sources from the above list could be used to replace the primary and BBC source in the "Wilkins" section of the article and the ABC news source in the "Universal Measure" section (the latter especially looks to fall foul of WP:NEWSORG for this subject); Dew and Calloway are probably best for this. Stone could be possibly be used to argue notability for Naughlin, but shouldn't be used for claims about Wilkins. Otherwise, the use of these sources, and some of the surrounding material involving Wilkins, has problems with WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:BURDEN, and WP:OVERCITE. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ergative failed to look at one reference - Wilkins' original work. If can be found either as a 20 MB PDF file or a much shorter transcription by Naughtin. Anybody who is studing science or engineering at undergraduate level soudl be able to understand this document and shodul also have sufficient background to be able to comment on Naughtin's commentary. If you actualluy read Naughtin's commentary what you will see are:

• Wilkins proposed a system that encompassed many of the concepts (as opposed to the detail) of the French metric system of 1799. This observation can be verified by any physics or engineering undergraduate and since it does not make any novel proposditions, it is not original research.
• Jefferson's proposed system encompassed many aspects of Wilkins's proposal, anbd refiuned other aspects such as using a solid pendulum rather than a bob pendulum. Again this can be verified by our undergraduate friends.
• Naughtin investigated the possibility that Jefferson was aware of WIlkins' writings, but on his own admission, could not prove things one way or the other.

In short, Naughtin did not add anything other than publicity, and his curiosity was triggered by somebody else's blog.

Newton is credited with developing the corpuscular theory of light, but no-one credits him with having anything to do with the the theory of quantum physics. During the nineteenth century corpusciular theories were nver taught - everybody who had anything to do with optics preferred the wave theory of light. In 1905 Einstein explained the Photoelectric effect in terms of light being composed of what we now call photons, the theory that earned him the Nobel Prize. Some university and college courses give credit to Newton (it was actually Pierre Gassendi) for having the foresight to predict that light is corpuscular in nature, it has a finite speed and that it has a kinetic energy - which exactly describes what we know about photons, but nobody stats that Newton actually foresaw quantum theory or the concpet of Wave–particle duality.

In exactly the same way, Wilkins produced a theory which was implemented a century later. Wilkin's model for systems of measurement are very similar to what was actually produced by the French a century later. Just as the corpuscular theory of light has a place in physics text books, Wilkin's theories have a place in the development developemtn of the metric system.

Now if MeasureIT would just get off my back, I can rewrite certain sections to reflect that there is uncertainty in how much influence Wilikins had and at the same time ensure that credit is not given where it is not due. Martinvl (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wilkins and Burattini - origin of modern term meter

The article states that Burattini "backed" Wilkins' idea of a universal measure and translated it into Italian, and implies that this translation was the basis for the modern term meter. The statement is unsourced, and I can't find anything saying that Burattini's metrico catallico was a translation of Wilkins' term (as opposed to an independent coining), or that either term was used by the French in settling upon meter. The only source saying something similar is Naughtin, and even he hedges his bets with "probably", is an SPS who doesn't appear to be an authority on etymology, the history of science, etc., and whose claim otherwise appears to be undue, as there don't appear to be any prominent adherents of the claim. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit by Martinvl

"Such as" implies or suggests there may be others. This isn't supported by the cited references, so I have flagged it as weasel words as per WP:WEASEL. Please either provide a reference explicitly confirming that there are others, or reword the sentence to reflect what is supported.

The "vc" (unreliable source?) flag was removed from the Craig cite, but no explanation was given, Please provide an answer to the questions raised about the reliability of the Craig cite at "Talk:Lists of British inventions#Invention of the metric system", and as raised in the section above: "Talk:History of the metric system#The number of "modern writers" who support Naughtin's theory about Wilkins", or remove the cite, but please don't just remove the flag without justification.

MeasureIT (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Flagging "Such as" as a weasel word is pedantry. One need only google "mouton 1670 metric" to get many more. So how many do you want?

I am currently looking for modern texts on the history of measurement. Surprisngly many authors like ot be paid for their work, so they don't leave it lying around without payment.

Martinvl (talk)

No, it's not "pedantry". It's called verifiability. The readers should be able to reliably verify everything they read in an article. They shouldn't be expected to do there own leg-work in Google in an attempt to see if what they are reading in Wikipedia could possibly be justified. If it is true and it is worthy of inclusion, reliable sources must surely be plentiful. If sources are not easy to find (as you seem to be implying here) then, presumably the claims are dodgy ones. MeasureIT (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't expect readers top do any legwork, I do expect other editors who are making a challenge to do a little legwork. You might notice that the two citations were chosen with care - one was French, dated 1901, the other British dated 1995 - opposite ends of the century, different countries. Martinvl (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You agree then, that by giving vague attribution (one at each end of the century implying that it happened in between too), and dressing the statement with authority, but with no substantial basis, you present the appearance of support for the statement but deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of that viewpoint (who said there are ones in between those end dates too). MeasureIT (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

NO I DO NOT AGREE. As I do not intend trapsing around libraries to satisfy your on-going demands, I do not intend continuing this discussion. Martinvl (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Note, as we seem to be going around in circles here, I have now asked at Wikipedia:Third opinion for another opinion on this. MeasureIT (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Wow. Wow. Wow. First of all, I'm going to suggest a cool down, for the both of you. It is extremely unfortunate to see two editors squabbling over each other due to each other's differing opinion on the Metric system. But you two don't stop there. You two go on and you begin chase after each other's flaws trying to find something to justify your opinion that the other is wrong. You went so far that the one of you ended up getting yourself blocked over this argument, and the other receiving a warning[5][6]. Now this is not the point of a third opinion and you have most likely deduced that by now, I just quite simply needed to tell the two of you that. The truth of the matter is that two of you have shown good sides of the argument in your squabbling, I just wish you could have stopped being so disagreeable with one another so that you could reach a general consensus. What I have to say about the article is this: While the metric system is known for being "exclusively used" by the Europeans, this is not completely true. In fact, the majority of the resources I found were saying these things. While one of you "teased" the other about how it wasn't simple to just Google for more sources to support their argument, I did just that. What I found was pages upon pages of scholarly articles and textbooks stating what one of you was trying to explain to the other. The problem was the fact the two of you were so eager to engage in an edit war. This war in a large way destroyed some of the credibility of this article. One of you, if not the both of you is/are mathematicians. I would like to think that two mathematicians or at least two parties interested in math could discuss such a topic on a scholarly or professional level. I suggest removing the weasel word tag. There is enough evidence to support the claim "many" were saying said thing.02:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note on removed vc template

MeasureIT asked me on my talk page why I removed the {{vc}} tag that was added. In my judgment the edit was made to score rhetorical points rather than to improve the article, so I reverted it. I also went to the library. Danloux-Dumesnils has an excellent history of the metric system in his The Metric System: A Critical Study of its Principles and Practice (1969) that does not mention Wilkins. However, the more recent From Artefacts to Atoms does (Quinn, 2011, OxfordUP). I'll be adding these over the coming days. Based on the Quinn book I find the cite in question to be credible and appropriate. I think Quinn is a better cite and, if there's consensus, Quinn might replace it. So the tag has served its purpose. GaramondLethe 07:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Garamond,

Thank you for your suggested citation. I have implemented it. Martinvl (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems you guys have been arguing about Wilkins for 208 years

(Repeated from WP:FTN) In 1805, just 10 years after the French adopted the metric system, a letter appeared in the Philosophical Magazine of London (Vol. 21, No. 81, Feb 1805, pp. 163–173) [7] arguing that all the essentials were invented by Wilkins and decrying the fact that it was implemented by the French without acknowledging the British priority. After quoting at length from Wilkins' book, it says (p.170):

"The above extracts contain, as far as I know, the earliest sketches of the ingenious methods therein proposed; and our neglect of such suggestions of our own countrymen, has been very properly rewarded by our obliging neighbours, who, as in other instances, have done our nation the honour to adopt and combine them, without distressing our modesty by an acknowledgment. I have no room or time, at present, to expatiate on this becoming and characteristic exercise of politeness."

Is that great or what? They did insults better then too! Zero^talk 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally on page 173 there is an intriguing comment "the decimal division of weights and measures has long been established in China", which seems to be true (more on that later). Zero^talk 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is really cool. Would either you or Martinvl like to add that? I think it would work great as a note. GaramondLethe 16:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That article is gold-dust. The really interesting bit is the note about Liebnitz' disagreements with Wilkins (I don't know why: Liebnitz and Newton hated each other, Newton and Hooke hated each other, Wilkins worked wot Hooke. Since Liebnitz had read Wilkins and he worked with Mouton, could there have been plagurism? Of course we cannot state that in the article, but we can record what was written and as long as we don't draw any conclusions, we are not guilty of WP:OR. Martinvl (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section. I have done my best to present the facts, but not to add any WP:POV or WP:OR. Comments please? Martinvl (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. It looks good except for the last sentence: Dominus noted that the names used for various masses were a factor of ten greater than expected. That reads as though the names were greater than expected. GaramondLethe 23:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment about re-written section

(A bit long, sorry!)

I arrived here after intersecting links from a noticeboard discussion and from a MOS edit. Here, for what they're worth, are my comments on the rewording of the "Universal measure" section.

1. I think the first paragraph (the one about Charlemagne) should be moved to the "Leading up to the French Revolution" section, and merged into the bit about France having a "multitude of units of measure". It would add necessary context to that, but is confusing - and leading nowhere - where it currently is.
2. Looking at the section as a whole, there is no explanation as to what a "universal measure" is and there does not seem to be any "master" source references (or even single reference) which brings together these individual historical discoveries and proposals as parts of the history of the metric system. The whole section comes across as though the editor here has pieced it together himself, from first principles. Is it indeed the mainstream view of that history?
3. If we look at each separate element of the "history", the individual paragraphs, the introductory one, including the details about Simon Stevin seems light on references and light on cohesion. What's the relevance of the mention of his "the tenth" pamphlet? In the absence of a reference, is it fact or opinion that he "first introduced decimal numbers in daily life in Europe"? Has his own opinion that "this innovation was so significant..." been made notable in any reliable sources? Why is "universal measure" in quotes (and what is it?) - is it a direct quote from the source? What supports this sentence: "It was only in the late eighteenth century that proposals were made for the use of a universal measure in the spheres of commerce and technology."? What is the definition of a "modern writer" and was this the reason for the attempted MOS edit? Is the statement "Quinn (2012) makes no mention of Mouton ", and its interpretation here a notable opinion, or the opinion of the editor here?
4. In the subsection about Wilkins, I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the notion that he wanted units "derived from natural phenomena" - the word "phenomena" is usually used to describe things that cannot be explained. What is the "quicksilver experiment"? The term "universal measure" is used again with no explanation of what is means. Did Wilkins know it was Torricelli's idea that he was discarding? Why is "measure" and "measures" in quotes - are they direct quotes? Is Naughtin's self-published analysis considered to be a reliable source? What is the last paragraph, mentioning what Dew noted, actually adding?
5. On to the Mouton subsection. Do we know how long Mouton was working on his book - we have a lot of detail trying to suggest that Wilkins worked for many years on his, and whether he was aware of the writings of Wilkins? How did he know how long a virgule was (185.2 mm) if the length of the circumference of the earth couldn't be measured?
6. In the 17th century developments subsection, why is it notable that both Jean Picard and Christiaan Huygens were interested in, or even supported, Moutons work? And how do we know that Gottfried Leibniz had the same ideas? How was the second, as used to time pendulums in the 17th century, measured or defined? How do we know that "The quest for the "universal measure" went into abeyance for nigh on a hundred years." - is there an RS stating it?
7. In the subsection Leading up to the French Revolution, the bit about Charlemagne would set the context here. Is there a source for "perilous state", or is it editorializing? Who said "the need for standardisation of weights and measures had become apparent"? Who were the "mob" who stormed the Bastille? Who confirms that the nobility "surrendered their privileges, including the right to control local weights and measures" - especially the emphasis on W&Ms? Did Louis XVI charge "a group of experts" after he had surrendered his privileges"? The Tallyrand paragraph is short on sources and short on clarity - it assumes too much knowledge of 18th history and personalities and uses abbreviated terms - "Jefferson presented to Congress" should say "Jefferson presented to the U.S. Congress", what is the "Constituent Assembly", who was Tallyrand. In short: it comes across as a random collection of factoids put next to each other, but with unsupported associations.
8. In the final section about Wilkins and Mouton, we see Naughtin cited again - who was he, and has any of his work been peer reviewed? Whose view is it that his work contradicts the "twentieth century assumption", and where is that collective, century-long, assumption described in such terms? Where has whether the "Wilkins' Essay influenced the design to the French metric system of the 1790's" been debated? Whose view is it that the work of Wilkins has received little attention? Whose opinion is it that "there is little evidence to show whether or not Jefferson or the French Revolutionary leaders derived the concept of defining unit mass in terms of a unit volume of water independently of Wilkins"? The very last paragraph sounds like a bit of a personal ramble, attempting to excuse the editor's failure in the article to prove that the work of Wilkins had an influence on the history of the metric system.

If any of my points are unclear, please ask for fuller explanations!

Stevengriffiths (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevengriffiths,

Thank you for your comments. If there is a lot to say then obviously it must take a good deal of space. I will be working through these points. Martinvl (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Resonse to Q7

I think that I have answered most of the points brought up, either by further explanation or by the addition of citation. A few points of clarity - the nobility, not the king, surrendered their rights to set local weights and measures. Yes, the term "perilous statge" was editorialising on my part - how else do I condense five pages into one line? Martinvl (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Q7, Q1

I have moved the section about Charlemagne as suggested. However the first few paragraphs need some tidyng up as there is a certain amount of duplicate material. Martinvl (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Q2, Q3

I have done a little restucturing to show the interconnections between teh various sections. Martinvl (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Q4, Q5 and Q6

I have tidied up the section on Wilkins,. I think that it is clearerd now - I trust that it is now obvious to the reader that Wilkins was not discarding Torricelli's concept, but rather stating that it was unsuitable as a standard becasue it was too variable.

I put "measures" in quotes because it was taken straight from Wilkins' text. In modern language we would use the phrase "unitsd of measure".

I have clarified how Mouton "knew" the value of the earth's circumference - he didn't, he used a value calculated elsewhere. I have also clarifed where the sources for the values of the virgula.

I have removed Leibnitz' from the discussion and have expanded on the work of Picard and Huygens, putting them into perspective. Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a bit further. Stevengriffiths (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes so far. I agree with most of them (apart from the Magna Carta - see later). Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Q8

I am in the process of rewriting that subsection - my working text is at User:Martinvl/Sandbox4; please ignore other sections, they are just there to ensure that citations do not get disturbed.

Magna Carta

I moved the bit about the Magna Carta back to its original position. The point being made was that whereas France had thousands of units of measure - the pied varied from town to town (depending on how the lord could fleece the peasants), England had the principal (not alweays followed) of one unit of measure. The actual units of measure changed from time to time, for example, the length of the foot was reduced by a factor of 1/11 a hundred years after the Magna Carta (the rod, pole and perch retained their lengths which is why we had the awkward factor of 16.5 feet (5.5 yards) in a pole, rood or perch. This change is another reason for moving it away from the text that discussed ussia - Peter the Great aligned the Russian foot with the English foot of 1744 (I think), not 1215. Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert your "rewrite" as you had based it on an old copy and had accidentally lost many recent copy edits and corrections which had taken place since your copy was taken. Please use the latest version as the basis of any rewrite to try to prevent this from happening. Stevengriffiths (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevengriffiths

I have tweaked my rewrite, but not yet copied it back into the article - you can see it at User:Martinvl/Sandbox4#Roles of Wilkins and Mouton. On reading the letter in the Philosophical Magazine (1805), I felt that this contained a summary of why Mouton was given credit that should have gone elsewhere. I deliberately trimmed the section down so as to make space for that discussion. The letter is probably more reliably sourced than Naughtin and was better researched. Naughtin was a metrication commentator and motivational speaker who died in 2011. His work was self-published, which is why I have steered away from his analysis, but if we see him drawing attention to Wilkins' Essay in the same light as we see the child who asked why the Emperor was not wearing any clothes, then it is perfectly valid to include that observation.

Will you have a look at the rewrite and comment on it.?

Hi Stevengriffiths,

I have undone your last section because of a few technicalities. Wikipeida does not normally add dates of birth and death in the text as you did when you wrote "Gabriel Mouton (1618-1694))". The date which I quoted (1670) was the date when he published his work - this is a standard way of making such quotes. It also lets teh reader know which work was published first - in this case it is far more important to know that Wilkins published in 1668 and Mouton in 1670 than to know their dates of birth and death.

You replaced the text "as the originator of the metric system" with the text "as the originator [of?] some of the underlying principles used in the design of the metric system". McGreevy actually stated (p 140) "The originator of the metric system might be said to be Gabriel Mouton, ...". Numerous other twentieth century publications use similar language. Martinvl (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put back my changes, but also taken account of your comments about the dates and McGreevy. We need to be careful not to generalise too much based on one sample. Stevengriffiths (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martinvl, I took a look at your sandbox copy of an update to the "Roles of Wilkins and Mouton" section. I'm not keen on the generalisations based on just one or two sample sources (such as you derive from Bigourdi's and McGreevy's books) or the speculation you make about whose work influenced who. With all due respect; what we really need is notable and reliably supported outside comparison of Wilkins and Mouton (and whoever else might have contributed anything), and not our personal conjecture based on personal analysis of random documents found using Google. The impression that I get from reading it is that you are scouring Google to find references that promote the work of Wilkins, but are not going to the same lengths to find references that support the work of Mouton, or of anyone else. In other words, rather than trying to balance notable views and opinions about the likely influence of the various players bringing ideas to the table, your piece comes across as an attempt to construct a case in support of Wilkins. Stevengriffiths (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Stevegriffiths's edits

You summarized Bigourdan as Mouton having provided the "underlying principles used in the design" of the metric system. I'm not seeing how that portion of the text describes underlying principles. What I do see is: "On voit que le projet de Mouton est, sans aucune différence de principe, celui qui a ét réalisé par notre Système métrique" or, per google, "We see that the project Mouton is no difference in principle, one that fl [sic] produced by our metric system." Could you explain where you got "underlying principles"?

As to the rest of the edits, I believe Martinvl is closer to the style used in wikipedia.

GaramondLethe 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd already re-phrased it to be closer to the text you quoted. My main point was that we should not be extrapolating two writers, with two different takes, into an over generalization of the view of "twentieth century writers", not without a reliable source that makes that same point. Our role is to report notable views, supported by reliable sources and not to give our own views supported by sources which have been searched for to support our view.

Don't you the get impression that I get from reading the current article content, that rather than trying to balance notable views and opinions about the likely influence of the various players here, it comes across as an attempt to construct a case in support of Wilkins? Stevengriffiths (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article accurately reflects that a case for Wilkins has already been constructed and that this is the current consensus in the literature. This seems to be relatively recent: Danloux-Dumesnils (1969) doesn't mention Wilkins at all, but Terry (2012) treats Wilkins's contribution as settled fact. So in between the two I expect there's some scholarly paper that rediscovered Wilkins and that's now the current thinking. If you have citations to the contrary they'd be most welcome.

As to the level of generalization: I think the previous text was supported by the citations given. If you think this is an overgeneralization then provide a citation to the contrary. But absent a that kind of citation, rewriting this sentence misses the point: we've moved from one consensus to another. I don't see a need to provide a per-citation detail of the previous consensus in this context. GaramondLethe 22:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Shapiro (1969) discusses the role of Wilkins, stating that he was asked England's Royal Society to devise a "universal standard of measure". The concept was obviously the subject of discussion by then, at least. That only one or two notable commentators since then has given him any credit is hardly evidence of a current consensus. We need sources to support the view that the focus has changed from Mouton to Wilkins, and not merely express our own views, supported by by nothing more than one or two exceptions to the norm over the last century, or more. Stevengriffiths (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A single citation can be enough to establish consensus, and I have no idea why you think we need a cite explicitly detailing the change of consensus. If you have citations that indicate there isn't a consensus then bring them out and we'll take a look. GaramondLethe 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes (based on what I have written in at User:Martinvl/Sandbox4). The changes that I have actually imlemented is a tighter wording of the first sentence which, amongst other things, has meant replacing "Bigourdan in 1903 and that of MGreevy in 1995" by "Bigourdan (1903) and MGreevy (1995)" which is the normal academic style. In the earlier vesions I wrote that Wilkins' Essay attracted little interest, I have now refined that to show that there was considerable interest, but in the field of onomasiology rather than in the field of systems of measurement.

I am happy to remove the sentence about the final four years of WIlkins' life - its only impact is to show why Wilikins did not follow up his Essay.

I would also like to replace the final paragraph in which I move the emphasis from Naughtin's blog to the letter in the Philosophical Magazine (1805). A draft text is in User:Martinvl/Sandbox4.

Finally, what scholarly work caused writers to emphasise Wilkins rather than Mouton? That work was, I believe, Naughtin. During his lifetime (he died in 2011), he produced a regular blog "Metrication Matters", sections of which have been reproduced on other websites (including university course notes) which gives them at least some credibility. As regards the reliability of his 2007 publication - how "reliable" was the small boy who shouted "Why isn't there emperor wearing any clothes?". Naughtin was, after all, merely (and I believe unknowingly) repeating what was written in the Philosophers Magazine in 1805 - that British involvement in the development of the metric system had been "airbrushed" out by the editors of the Encyclopédie.Martinvl (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You (Martinvl) illustrate beautifully the point I am making. If there was a reliably sourced opinion that said "Wilkins' Essay attracted little interest" and then a source appeared later that gave the opinion that "there was considerable interest in Wilkins' work", then you could have legitimately compared and contrasted the difference between the two.

As it is though, what you are, in effect, saying is "I had originally thought that Wilkins' Essay attracted little interest, but now I've uncovered a letter in an early journal in which he is mentioned, it appears now that there was considerable interest in him after all" - but you can't legitimately put that in the article because Wikipedia is supposed to be based on fact and notable and reliably sourced views, and not on your current personal point of view. You need to read the WP:OR policy and you will see what I am saying described and explained in detail, with examples, similar to what you are doing here, used to illustrate what is not acceptable. Stevengriffiths (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

One source says that there was little interest, but does not qualify the statement, the other says that there was considerable interest and does qualify the statement, but the interest appears to be in a field other than systems of measurement. I am trying to keep the article below 100 kB and we have just gone over that value (see WP:LENGTH).

(The above was written by Martinvl).

Which source says "Wilkins' Essay attracted little interest"?

Which source says "there was considerable interest in Wilkins' work"? Stevengriffiths (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was Barabara Shapiro (1969) who said that Wilikns' work had been widely distributed and Wright-Henderson (1910) who said that the book received little attention. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So why have you removed the statement that "Wilkins' Essay attracted little interest" or as you put it above: "now refined that to show that there was considerable interest", if that view of "little interest" was supported by the source you mention? Stevengriffiths (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article contains many examples of contraventions of WP:OR

Here are the particular policy clauses (from the WP:SYN section of WP:OR) that supports me on this:

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8]"
• "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
• "If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

The article, and particularly the section "Development of underlying principles", contain several examples of all of these as I describe above. What can we do to clean it? Stevengriffiths (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Stevengriffiths (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Revert back to June? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that I have cleaned up most if not all the WP:OR and WP:SYN that might have been present. In particular, I have replaced Naughtin's analysis (as opposed to his statement of verifiable fact) with the analysis of the correspondent of the Philosophical Magazine (whose letter was reviewed by the editor of the magazine). Martinvl (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

16th century origins?

The opening sentence of the article makes the bold claim that "The origins of the metric system can be traced back to the 16th century,...". Hoping to find evidence to support this, I read on, but never actually found it. It seems that a Flem, Simon Stevin, may have introduced decimal arithmetic into Europe in the 1580s, but there is nothing anywhere else to suggest that this was the catalyst, or even played any role at all, in the development of the system by the French in the 18th century. As the link with the Flem is, at best, tenuous (there is nothing to suggest that those who introduced the metric system were aware of Stevin or that the metric system could not have been developed even if decimal arithmetic had never been invented), I don't think the article should lead with this particular opinion. Cobulator (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Alder, writer of The Measure of All Things (cited in the article) uses Stevin as his starting point. Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Alder only seems to mention Stevin on one page, page 91. What are the first 90 pages about (or even the last 389 pages)? I suspect Stevin has been given undue weight here, in the context of the origins of the metric system. Cobulator (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am going to defend Alder's position - if you want to question the statement, why don't you read Alder for yourself. You can probably buy a copy reasonably cheaply, or if you live in a country or are a member of a university that has a reputable library service, borrow a copy. Once you have done that, you will be able to see why Alder did not mention Stevin in the preceding 90 pages. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read it? If you have, is it your opinion that Alder holds Stevin up as the originator of the metric system, despite only mentioning him in one sentence of his 480 page book about the metric system? Cobulator (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We could equally say that the origins of the metric system can be traced back to 300BC and Euclid as Euclidean geometry was used to triangulate the length of the meridian initially used to define the length of the metre. But that would also be a personal opinion, and giving undue weight. Cobulator (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alder's version does not suggest that the metric system has its origins in the introduction of decimal notation. According to Alder, the root of the metric system was the French revolutionary desire to use natures constants, rather than the dimensions of royal personalities, as the basis for their measurement system. Everything else, coherency, the decimal nature and the prefix concept were all afterthoughts. 212.183.140.1 (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Page number please for this suggestion, or better still, chapter number and note number and source associated with the note (to enable different editions of the book to be reconciled with each other if necessary). For more information about Stevin, why not do a Google search using the search string "Simon Stevin metric system" and see how many hits you get?

Please also read WP:BRD - the essence of which is that while a discussion is taking place, the article is restored to its last stable state. In line with this, I have reverted your changes. Martinvl (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

May I say Martinvl, it looks like you are grinding an axe here. You have struck out valid comments here by Cobulator without addressing them. You reverted my changes three times today: the first time you commented they added nothing, the second time you called them disruptive and the third time you are pleading WP:BRD.

Rather than edit warring, policy shopping, failing to assume good faith and generally looking for excuses to reinstate your favoured interpretation of Alder's book, please support your version, specifically that the introduction of the principle of a decimal numbering system is actually the origin of the metric system: with quotes from the book that support that, and please answer the other points made above about the sequence of introduction of the key features of the metric system.

Alder's section, The Measure of Revolution (or similar), supports my points, specifically the order: 1. natural units, 2. interrelated units, 3. decimal numbering system and 4. common prefixes. That same section also contains the one sentence mentioning the introduction of the decimal system, but also explains how, after Tallyrand's proposal of the principle of interrelated units was voted into law and added as the second feature of the French metric system, that the discussion about whether a duodecimal or decimal numbering system should be used started. The decimal system was finally chosen as the third feature of the system. So I maintain that it is incorrect to describe the decimal numbering system as the origin or the metric system. 212.183.128.246 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC) (apologies for the annoying ip address changes, although my system is permanently connected, this seems to be a feature of operating in weak signal areas) 212.183.128.246 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be noticed that the second word of the article "origins" is written in the plural, not singular, so the statement "So I maintain that it is incorrect to describe the decimal numbering system as the origin or the metric system" in that it refers "the origin" (Singular) makes a statement about something that does not exist. Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So now you wish to try arguing semantics, rather than substance. In this context both words mean the same thing, as the OED puts it: "[origin] (also origins) the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived...". The point or place (note the singular nature of their definition).

Are you arguing that Alder asserts that the 16th century proposal for a decimal numbering system was the point or place that the French metric system began, arose or was derived? If you are, please provide the appropriate quotes from his book. And if it makes it easier for you to comment upon: I also maintain that it is incorrect to describe the decimal numbering system as the origins or the metric system. I look forward to your comments, and please answer the substantive points, rather than more unreasonable reasons to avoid answering them. 212.183.140.44 (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The previous editor wrote "Are you arguing that Alder asserts that the 16th century proposal for a decimal numbering system was the point or place that the French metric system began, arose or was derived?. I am not - to do so would be WP:SYN. I am repeating what I read in Alder. I could of course have used any one of these (or other) sources.

• Naughtin (2009)
• USMA (2002-2012)
• Wandmacher & Johnson (1995) p 293
• Bahr, Degarcia & Bahr (2010) p 427
• Klempiner (1974)
• Ostdiek & Bord (2008) p 10
• Smeaton Platinum Metals Review (2000)
• Schaschke (1998) p1

Martinvl (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You are taking us around in circles now - that is where this discussion started. Can you give the quotes from Alder that you believe supports the statement, the statement that you insist on keeping in the article, the one that claims the decimal numbering system to be the origins of the metric system. 212.183.128.208 (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)