Talk:History of the metric system

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)

Well of course if you design the search to return only what you want to see (as in the example above), you will only see that. However, if you frame the search more neutrally, then the results will be entirely different. My search also brought up a reliably sourced analysis of Ken Alder's book which gives a different conclusion to yours, and a conclusion consistent with the other mainstream sources thrown up by that neutral search, that the origins lie in the ideology leading to the French revolution. 212.183.128.143 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one should also look up "metric system" in the "mainstream" Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (9780141920870). Quote: "First suggested in 1585 by Simon Stevin, it later found a champion in Lagrange, and was formally adopted in 1795 . . . ".

Oppose removal of reference to Stevin. Please restore the original text. --Boson (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is quite hard to know exactly what is being argued about here. There are three separate issues involved, which are being confused.

1. The use of decimal notation for numbers. This is relevant to the history, but the fact that we use decimal notation to write distances in feet and inches shows that it is not the same as the metric system. The main relevance is that calculation with measures based on ten is easier if the number notation is also based on ten. If Simon Stevin did nothing except popularize decimal notation, his appearance in the article would be dubious.
2. The use of weights and measures based on powers of ten. This is obviously far more to the point. Simon Stevin proposed a system of weights, measures, and coinage in which there were named units differing from each other by powers of ten. He gives quite explicit examples, for example naming a unit of length, its tenth, and its hundredth. This is different from merely writing numbers in decimal and obviously must be included.
3. The nitpicking over the word "origins". It is perfectly commonplace for an idea to appear and disappear a number of times before it sticks. Stevin and others had the idea of weights and measures based on ten long before the French revolutionaries had it, but was it their ideas that stuck? Did the French know about the earlier ideas? In this we should follow what good sources say and not attempt to make our own storyline. It is actually pretty easy by careful choice of words. Instead of saying that the metric system originated with Stevin, we just have to say that it was first proposed by Stevin. Similarly with other people like Wilkins. Then, in discussing the French we should report what specialist scholars write concerning where they got their ideas from (and since there are such specialist scholars and their work is readily accessible we should devalue popular works, encyclopedias, etc.).

Zero^talk 02:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Zero, the problem isn't about whether Stevin introduced decimal numbering, he apparently did: but it's about what the mainstream, reliably sourced, consensus believes the origin of the metric system to be. Martinvl asserts above that his view is from Alder's book - that synthesis by Martinvl is contradicted by a reliably sourced review of that book that is cited above. Martinlvl then produced above the results of a search tailored to produce his desired results, that is not acceptable. A search for "origins of the metric system" amongst mainstream sources does not support that fringe view, so to put that view as sentence number one in the lead is simply disruptive. This relentless edit-warring to push that view is indefensible.

If the IP editor actually took the trouble to read the article, he would see that THREE citations have been given, yet he persists in trying to twist one of them while ignoring the other two. Martinvl (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Though it is probably nitpicking and I don't personally think "origins" necessarily implies that the French were consciously aware of Stevin's proposals, particularly at the level of precision appropriate for the lede, I have no problem with a rewording of the sentence that omits the use of the word "origins" and instead says something more like the entry in the Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, preferably also making it clear that Stevin's proposal was not just a form of decimal notation. However, we should be careful not to imply that what Stevin proposed was exactly what was later implemented. That is how I understood the motivation for using the word "origins". Perhaps something on the lines of "the ideas behind the metric system go back to . . .", though that may be a bit too vague. --Boson (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How about "The concepts behind the metric system are known to have been developed in the 16th and 17th centuries ...". I have avoided using the word "first", we don't know that this was the first, but we do know that it was one of the earliest developments. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps just "were developed"? --Boson (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see we have now moved away from the assertion that Alder's book supports the notion that the metric system had its origins in the 16th century. Now, perhaps, we can make it clearer in the lead that the true catalyst and origin of the metric system was French revolutionary dogma - that everything be rationalised and given order, and certainly removed from the control of the aristocratic classes. The choice of the natural length standard (be it size of the earth or the length of a second pendulum) and the number base (decimal or duodecimal) were of lesser/no importance to the original implementers of the system. 212.183.128.159 (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Striking out text added by a confirmed sockpuppet. Martinvl (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Implementation in Revolutionary France (1792–1812)

It seems to me that it would be good to make the sentence structure match in the numbered list of tasks: all gerunds (measuring, etc.), all infinitives (to measure, etc.), or all simple verbs (measure, etc.). Maybe all gerunds, as in the first three? What do you think? Awien (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented the gerunds option to all five items in the list. Martinvl (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the metric system/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, I took ten days off. I'm going to start a quick read of the article (a bit of a "contradiction in terms" since this is a long article) to get my thoughts on it; and then I'll start adding comments to this review page. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've now done a quick read of the article, but I've not yet checked any of the citations; and, on this basis, the article in general appears to be well referenced and quite comprehensive. It appears to be at or about GA-level, but there are a few obvious, if relatively minor, "problems". For instance in Development of underlying principles and its first unnamed subsection the text "Most writers credit Simon Stevin with introducing the decimal system into general use in Europe." is repeated almost word for word in both section / subsections. The article uses both "Notes" and "References" and several of the numbered "References" are not references, they are "Notes". Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In respect of Stevin, please see "Response 1" below. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In respect of "Notes and References", please see "Response 2" below. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm now going to work my way through the article starting at the Development of underlying principles section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Development of underlying principles

• • untitled subsection -

• The statement "Most writers credit Simon Stevin with introducing the decimal system into general use in Europe." is a controversial statement that could be challenged or is likely to be challenged, a citation is needed to support it. (See WP:WIAGA Clause 2(b).)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Its unclear from the article what reference 4 is. Looking at the format it could possibly be a Journal or a website; but going into edit mode it is (inadequately) cited as {{cite web}}. It should be properly cited.

Please see "Response 3 below" Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Work of Simon Stevin -

• The first sentence is almost a repeat of that in the untitled subsection (see above comments), the only difference appears to the the minor expansion "Flemish mathematician". Again, its uncited; and is the "most writers" clause needed, without it the sentence would be less open to challenge as a controversial statement?

Please see "Response 1 below" Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y Thanks. The current subsection is considerable improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

• • Work of John Wilkins & Work of Gabriel Mouton -

• I added a wikilink for minute of arc, as otherwise the article would fail to define it.
• These two subsections appear to be compliant.

• • 17th Century developments -

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• • 18th Century international cooperation -

...Stopping for now. To be continued, soon. Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I made a few clarifications to this section, rather than listing them here and waiting for them to be done. On this basis, I regard this subsection to be compliant.

• • Roles of Wilkins and Mouton -

• This subsection reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia, the first two paragraphs would benefit from a copyedit. The final one, in contrast, appears to be more encyclopaedic in its content.

See "Response 4".

• Y Thanks. The current subsection is considerable improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Implementation in Revolutionary France (1792–1812)

• • untitled subsection, Decimal time (1793) & Angular measure (c1793) -

• These three subsections appear to be compliant.

• • Draft metric system (1795) -

...Stopping for now. To be continued, soon. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• • Meridianal definition & Mètre des Archives -

• Further to my comments at Response 2, I'd suggest that the current ref 65 (The technical difficulties were not the only problems the surveyors ....) is a Note and not a Reference. This comment also seems to apply to References 66 and 68, which means that the two statements each of these Ref is appended to are unreferenced.

See "Response 2"

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, these two subsections appear to be compliant.

• • Kilogramme des Archives -

...Stopping for now. To be continued, probably on Sunday. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph (a single sentence) is unreferenced.

I have removed this sentence. (It was a parasitic leftover from am earlier edit). Martinvl (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the problem of English Variants (metre / meter), we now got a few stray "grammes", or is this just the plural (in French) of gram? But again, this seems to be at variance with the Draft metric system (1795) subsection. What is the name of these two base units (well one unit and a multiplier)?

See "Response 5".

• Y Yes, its much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of the metric system

• • France: Mesures usuelles (1812–1839) , The Dutch metric system , The German Zollverein & Spain -

• These four subsections appear to be compliant.

• • United Kingdom and the Commonwealth -

• The second half of the second paragraph is unreferenced. The statements "Meanwhile British scientists and technologists were at the forefront of the metrication movement - it was the British Association for the Advancement of Science that promoted the cgs system of units as a coherent system and it was the British firm Johnson Matthey that was accepted by the CGPM in 1889 to cast the international prototype metre and kilogram." need a citation(s).

• Done Martinvl (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise this subsection is OK.

• • United States -

• This subsection is OK.

Development of a coherent metric system

I think that this section might need a copyedit. Some of the material in Time, work and energy subsection is really an introduction to the Electrical units subsection, and the time frame moves backwards and forwards.

See "Response 6"

• • untitled first subsection -

• This is uncited so I'll take it as a short summary subsection (and basically ignore it).
• Would it benefit from a {{main}} or {{seealso}} link to Centimetre–gram–second system of units & International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units? I'm aware that both articles are wikilinked in the following subsections.

I don't think so - See "Response 6"

I may come back to this point. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a problem with the current wording of This concept, which enabled thermal, mechanical, electrical are relativistic systems to be interlinked was first formally proposed in 1861 using length, mass and time as base units., I think the following words need a minor copy edit: ".... electrical are relativistic systems... ". Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done "are" => "and" Martinvl (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'd "seen the solution" I would have changed it myself. It was such an easy change, but it had me baffled yesterday. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Time, work and energy -

• The second paragraph claims that "....Guass, ...... thereby implicitly making time a base dimension of the metric system.", perhaps that is so, but the reference states "Gauss was the first to make absolute measurements of the Earth’s magnetic field in terms of a decimal system based on the three mechanical units millimetre, gram, and second for, respectively, the quantities length, mass, and time" which is not quite the same thing. For the wikipedia claim to be true, no one could have used speed (velocity), which has distance & time as base units, before Gauss's measurements. That seems somewhat inconceivable to me.

Your observation is noted. I have reworded the section to clarify what I was getting at. Martinvl (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How about: In 1832 Carl-Friedrich Gauss made the first absolute measurements of the Earth's magnetic field using a decimal system based using the millimetre, milligram, and second as the base unit of time.[1]:109 --> In 1832 Carl-Friedrich Gauss made the first absolute measurements of the Earth's magnetic field using a decimal system based using on the use of the millimetre, milligram, and second as the base unit of time.[1]:109? Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Martinvl (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph, I would ask if the final portion "The CGS unit of energy was the "erg", but the SI unit of energy was named the "joule" in honour of Joule." would be better as a Note, since it is uncited and the erg and the CGS system are covered in more detail in the final (fourth) paragraph (and both of these terms are referenced / cited there)?

Current text retained, but citations added. Martinvl (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• The third paragraph is an introduction to the Electrical units subsection, which follows.

No, it refers to dynamic and electrical, not just electrical - See "Response 6"

• • Electrical units -

• The first section about Ohm / Ohms law is uncited and it not really a summary of what follows, its new material. In contrast, the following sentence about the three CGS systems, seems to be the link between the third paragraph of Time, work and energy and the remainder of Electrical units

See "Response 6" Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• The first section about Ohm / Ohms law is uncited. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Martinvl (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• The abbreviations EMU and ESU undefined but they appear to be Electromagnetic units (EMU) and Electrostatic units (ESU). They are to be found in the article Centimetre–gram–second system of units.

Done Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y. Thanks. 20:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

...Stopping for now. To be continued, probably on Thursday. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, looking at the current subsection (which is an improvement), it states: ".... - at least four different systems of units were devised. In the three CGS systems, ....". There are four sub-subsection titles EMU and ESU (for short), Gaussian units and Practical system. I presume that the three CGS systems are EMU, ESU and Gaussian, but could that be made clearer (stated explicitly)?
• I'm not too keen on subsection titles with links and neither is Wikipedia:Manual of Style, could these be changed to non-linked titles with the links provided close by?
• I also assume that Practical system could be outdented, rather than indented as per the three above, but still included as part of Electrical units.
• It's link is to MKS units and this section is CGS. MKS does not get mentioned until much later in the International System of Units (SI) section at the end of the article. This subsection / sub-subsection ends up at International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units, so I would question why the title is a link to MKS system of units?

• (See also below).

I believe that I have fixed all the above. Martinvl (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• • A coherent system & Naming the units of measure -

• These two subsection look to be compliant.
• Could the Practical system subsection be usefully moved into on of these?

Convention of the metre

• This section looks to be compliant.

Twentieth century

....Sorry, I'm stopping for now. I will try and finish the body of the article tomorrow afternoon, otherwise it will be Friday. Pyrotec (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Metre, Time, Luminosity, Temperature & Mole -

• This five subsections are OK.

• • Kilogram -

• A trivial "problem", but IPK seems to be used here, and only here, but its not defined. Also the final paragraph is unreferenced.

IPK has been wikilinked & references to it tidied up. Citation added to final paragraph.Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK.

• • Electrical units -

• Ref 101, (Satellite Today) seems to have some "link-rot", it gives a 404 error, so this subsection is in effect uncited. I'm not sure whether the original reference was a journal (in electronic form) or a web page, since it was not fully cited.

Article was originally published in full. The full text has now been moved behind a paywall - I have changed the URL to reference the paywall version. Martinvl (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have found alternative citations for two of the three occurrences of this citation. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

International System of Units (SI)

• This section looks compliant.

Lede

I'll look at this during the weekend and hopefully will be able to "close this review" as a "pass". Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a comprehensive article and within a four-paragraph constraint (see WP:Lead), the lede does provide both a good introduction to the topic of this article and a summary of the main points given in the body of the article. I'm, therefore, going to close this review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposer's responses

I have taken the liberty of adding text such as "Response 1", "Response 2" etc to the reviewer's comments and am expanding on them here. I suggest that discussion should take place here and that the reviewer formally note when each discussion is closed within his review.

• Response 1 - The text in the "untitled subsection" is designed to be a lede for the section concerned. I have attempted to follow this style throughout the article. Nevertheless, I will be expanding the subsection "Work of Simon Stevin" slightly by mentioning the use of decimal numbers by Arab mathematicians during the Medieval era and by looking for a citation for "most writers". Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 2 - I have always been a little unhappy with this section - I have used the term "Notes" to refer to explanations that have no citation and the term "References" to the list of in-line citations. I am open to suggestions on what nomenclature I should use for these sections. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is only a partial response as I've not yet reviewed the relevant subsections, I may expand later. Several citations have been added, so the numbers have been changed slightly (up by five, I think) since I started reading the article. The current reference 66 (and possibly) 67 and 68 look more like footnotes (or notes) rather than citations. They looked out of place in "References": "Notes" seemed to be a better home for them. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have converted references 66 and 68 (as per numbering above) into notes. I plan to work reference 67 into the text. Martinvl (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Done Martinvl (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 3 - Reference 4 (Dominus) is actually a blog entry. I included it because Naughtin referred to it and the BBC (a reliable source) referred to Naughtin. The date of the blog entry is significant as it was the trigger for including references to Wilkins' work. I am open to suggestions how best to handle these citations. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. It had the "look" of a mis- (or perhaps not fully-) cited journal. I would generally tend to rule out the use of blogs unless they were reliable sources, such as the chairman of the BBC commenting on the BBC, or comparable situations. Blogs don't seem to be covered in the {{cite web}} template, so I can't suggest any "approved format". Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Done - I have amended the list of citations and removed Dominus. Rather than include Dominus (who is mentioned in Naughtin's paper anyway), I have emphasized on the publicity given by Naughtin. (See citation mentioned in Response 4). Martinvl (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 4 - This section reached its current form after a number of attacks by other editors alleging a non-neutral approach - in particular that Naughtin and Dominus were both self-published. I have therefore tried to word it in such a way that I do not reflect any of Naughtin's or Dominus' views while at the same time showing why reliable sources that are post-Naughtin differ from those that are pre-Naughtin. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done - Copy-edit complete. I found a reference that was published since I last looked at this section - that reference enabled me to by-pass the fact that both Naughtin and Dominus were self-published. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 5 - I agree that it is a little messy - possibly I need to go through the whole of the section "Implementation in Revolutionary France (1792-1812)" and standarise things. I propose the following:

• Proper nouns should be in French and be written in italics
• Names of units in sentences that refer to an action that took place before 1800 should be in French and be written in italics.
• Names of units in sentences that refer to an action that took place after 1800 should be in English.
• Names of objects should be in modern English ("gram", not "gramme")

I will also look at other sections and will try to introduce some uniformity there as well. In particular, in the section "France: Mesures usuelles (1812–1839)", I propose replacing

"Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 centimetres"

with

"Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 cm".

Before I go ahead with this, do you have any comments? Martinvl (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to improve consistency, but I'm not sure about the 1800 cutoff date (before and after): in France 1799 was the implementation date for mass and length standards (so 1800 is a minor rounding of dates). However, in the next section Worldwide adoption of the metric system much of Europe seems to have legally adopted metric but practically implemented it by redefining metric units in the the terminology of Mesures usuelles units. Perhaps 1875 and the Convention du Mètre might be another (or better) cut off date? However, as a reviewer, I have no preference. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll settle for 1804 (or thereabouts) - the date that the word "kilogram" first appeared in the English Language. I will check the OED for the exact date and make a note of it at an appropriate place. Martinvl (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Done - the French spelling ("[kilo]gramme", is now entirely in italics, the modern English spelling "[kilo]gram" is not.

BTW, I found a paper written in an English journal dated 1797 written by a French diplomat that describes the metric system which I have included as a citation. The OED lists this as the earliest reference to "kilogram" etc in the English language.Martinvl (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 6 - I did not mean the lede to be an introduction to electrical units - the section is really (or should) show how power and energy are the same in mechanical, electrical and any other physical system. The crucial sentence in the subsection is

"Energy became the unifying concept of nineteenth century science, initially by bringing thermodynamics and mechanics together and later adding electrical technology and relativistic physics leading to Einstein's equation $E=mc^{2}$".

There were problems is extending the concept to electrical systems because Kelvin and Maxwell were not using an electrical unit - this was proposed by Giorgi in 1901. The only reason that that so much of the subsection is devoted to electrical units is because Kelvin and Maxwell could not get it right and their "bodges" (if I may use the term) continued until the introduction of SI. Maybe I did not get this across clearly. In light of this, could I ask you to revisit your comments? I will however be answering some of them. Martinvl (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the lede previously misled the reader about the purpose of the section. I have rewritten the lede which I think explains why the section is there. The crucial sentence in the subsection is

"Energy became the unifying concept of nineteenth century science, initially by bringing thermodynamics and mechanics together and later adding electrical technology and relativistic physics leading to Einstein's equation $E=mc^{2}$". Martinvl (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

General

I have reformatted some of your review headers as 4th level article headers. This was to simplify my editing. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never used 4th level article headers in a GAN / GAR review before. It seems a bit strange, but I'll get used to it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This review has taken much longer than I would have anticipated (some six weeks). Thanks very much for your patience. I'm now happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article to up this standard. Furthermore, there is a lot of information contained with in this article and it is well referenced. I believe that this article could in due course become a FA, but WP:PR would be the next logical step. Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rose-tinted view?

This article is rather skewed in its presentation of the metric system. Little mention is made of criticism of the system or of the cases where it has been rejected. I think a more neutral POV is required. Credibility gap (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with your theory. The article is about the wider metric system. It starts of with the metrification in France of the units of length, area and volume, and then it goes on to the development of a coherent metric system, including Volts, Amps, etc , and then International System of Units (SI). Your edit moved the France: Mesures usuelles (1812–39) from the Worldwide adoption of the metric system into a new section on "Rejection of the metric system", which I don't think is true. France, and if you read the article, British scientists and engineers continued to develop these metric units of length, area and volume into International System of Units. It is clear that the French wanted to keep the old names, and the article states that the old names were refined in metric units. (For example: Thus the toise was defined as being two metres with six pied making up one toise, twelve pouce making up one pied and twelve lignes making up one pouce. Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 centimetres.[72]). The French rejected decimal time and so did the rest of the world. The article makes that clear when it refers to the CGS and MKS systems - "s" is for seconds (60 in one minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, seven days in a week).

I'm make the assumption were are both British, but we may not be and it does not really matter. If we are British, then we would buy most things in metric units: electricity is measured and sold in units of kilowatt.hours (and measured by Volts and Amps - also metric units), B&Q would sell us metric-sized electricity cables, plumbing fittings, timber and tins of paint, wallpaper is metric, bags of sand, gravel and cement are metric. I have milk delivered to the door step it comes in pint bottles, but from the shop its more likely to in plastic bottles or tetrapacks in metric units (0.454 or 1 litre). We can of course buy beer and lager by the glass at the pub and it comes in pint glasses, but in cans its more likely to be metric. Wine and spirits are sold in metric units. Petrol or diesel is sold in litres, but roads are measured in miles and speed limits are in miles per hour. Eggs I think come in half dozens or dozens. Temperature is mostly Celsius, but we prefer to go on holiday when its in the high 70s and low 80s (Fahrenheit). Local English trading standards officers prosecute market traders who sell fruit and veg by the pound and confiscate their imperial scales ("metric martyrs"). Mostly likely I'll buy metric nuts and bolts, but if I'm repairing something old, I might need to use Whitworth threads (BSW), BSF or even BA threads. Those can't be bought at B&Q, but taps and dies can still be bought (I buy them, for a start). My theory is that the UK is a metric country, but the people think that we are not because beer and milk is sold in pints and we use miles and miles per hour on the roads. A metric ton (or tonne) is almost a ton, road vehicles have been metricated. Most scientific measures of energy are in Joules (a metric unit), but there are also Calories (also a metric unit).

So what have the British rejected; metric bottles of milk delivered to the door step, but far, far, far more people buy metric containers of milk at the supermarket or the corner shop; metric beer and lager glasses in pubs (but not metric wine glasses and spirits glasses); metric speed limits on roads and metric "mile measures". Everything else in the article, we have in Britain: volts, amps, joules, ohms, farads. We might refer to acres of land, but it is more likely to be hectares of land; and when did you last use Chain (unit)s or rod (unit)s and perches for linear measurement

In respect of the UK, the article states: "In 1824 the Weights and Measures Act imposed one standard 'imperial' system of weights and measures on the British Empire.[82] The effect of this act was to standardise existing British units of measure rather than to align them with the metric system. During the next eighty years a number of Parliamentary select committees recommended the adoption of the metric system each with a greater degree of urgency, but Parliament prevaricated. A Select Committee report of 1862 recommended compulsory metrication, but with an "Intermediate permissive phase", Parliament responded in 1864 by legalising metric units only for 'contracts and dealings'.[83] Initially the United Kingdom declined to sign the Treaty of the Metre, but did so in 1883. Meanwhile British scientists and technologists were at the forefront of the metrication movement – it was the British Association for the Advancement of Science that promoted the cgs system of units as a coherent system[1]: 109 and it was the British firm Johnson Matthey that was accepted by the CGPM in 1889 to cast the international prototype metre and kilogram.[84] In 1895 another Parliamentary select committee recommended the compulsory adoption of the metric system after a two-year permissive period, the 1897 Weights and Measures Act legalised the metric units for trade, but did not make them mandatory.[83] A bill to make the metric system compulsory in order to enable British industrial base to fight off the challenge of the nascent German base passed through the House of Lords in 1904, but did not pass in the House of Commons before the next general election was called. Following opposition by the Lancashire cotton industry, a similar bill was defeated in 1907 in the House of Commons by 150 votes to 118.[83] In 1965 Britain commenced an official program of metrication that, as of 2012, had not been completed. The British metrication program signalled the start of metrication programs elsewhere in the Commonwealth, though India had started its program before in 1959, six years before the United Kingdom. South Africa (then not a member of the Commonwealth) set up a Metrication Advisory Board in 1967, New Zealand set up its Metric Advisory Board in 1969, Australia passed the Metric Conversion Act in 1970 and Canada appointed a Metrication Commission in 1971. Metrication in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa was essentially complete within a decade while metrication in India and Canada is not complete. In addition the lakh and crore are still in widespread use in India. Most other Commonwealth countries adopted the metric system during the 1970s.[85]" For the USA, it states: "The United States government acquired copies of the French metre and kilogram for reference purposes in 1805 and 1820 respectively. In 1866 the United States Congress passed a bill making it lawful to use the metric system in the United States. The bill, which was permissive rather than mandatory in nature, defined the metric system in terms of customary units rather than with reference to the international prototype metre and kilogram.[86][87]:10–13 By 1893, the reference standards for customary units had become unreliable. Moreover, the United States, being a signatory of the Metre Convention was in possession of national prototype metres and kilograms that were calibrated against those in use elsewhere in the world. This led to the Mendenhall Order which redefined the customary units by referring to the national metric prototypes, but used the conversion factors of the 1866 act.[87]:16–20 In 1896 a bill that would make the metric system mandatory in the United States was presented to Congress. Of the 29 people who gave evidence before the congressional committee who were considering the bill, 23 were in favour of the bill, but six were against. Four of the six dissenters represented manufacturing interests and the other two the United States Revenue service. The grounds cited were the cost and inconvenience of the change-over. Subsequent bills suffered a similar fate.[79]". Pyrotec (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but none of that treatise on how metrified(?) the UK is answers my concern that the article is skewed, in fact it has reinforced it. I think we need to cover criticism in adequate detail. Credibility gap (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mesures usuelles, adoption or rejection?

Mesures usuelles has been given as an example of worldwide adoption of the metric system. It was in fact the opposite. France had adopted the metric system in the 1790s, but as it was so unpopular, Napoleon abolished it again, and introduced instead, a system based on the pre-metrication measures - known as mesures usuelles. I created a new section named "Rejection of the metric system" and moved Mesures usuelles to it, but another editor has reverted my change, with no substantial justification, so far, so I think the content of this section needs to be reviewed for NPOV and accuaracy. Credibility gap (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The above user wrote on my talkpage and asked me to respond, but did not wait for me to do so, thereby causing an edit clash with my response. The above editor has clear not read the article and is deliberately introducing distortions and inaccuracy in his claims. The article clearly states: "Napoleon himself ridiculed the metric system, but as an able administrator, recognised the value of a sound basis for a system of measurement", "all government, legal and similar works still had to use the metric system and the metric system continued to be taught at all levels of education", "a new system of measure – the mesure uselles or "customary measures" was introduced for use in small retail businesses" and "The names of many units used during the ancien regime were reintroduced, but were redefined in terms of metric units. Thus the toise was defined as being two metres with six pied making up one toise, twelve pouce making up one pied and twelve lignes making up one pouce. Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 centimetres.[72]". Small retail businesses were clearing using a metric systems, but merely kept the old names, which had to be adjusted to fit the new units. Pyrotec (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I added both sections to this talk page before I posted anything to your talk page. The first section I added (above) is timed 20:42 UTC, the second (this one) is timed 21:12 UTC and my post to your talk page is timed 21:19 UTC. There should not have been a clash.

The French introduced the metric system in 1795, not in 1812. It was unpopular, even ignored, from day one. In 1812 the French rejected the deeply unpopular metric system, replacing it with Mesures usuelles. Indeed Ken Alder, in his book "The Measure of all Things" (oft cited in the article) states (p. 275) that "The French were not only the first nation to invent the metric system: they were also the first to reject it". There is a distinction to be made between adoption and rejection, and the two need to be given balanced coverage. Credibility gap (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with your theory. The article is about the wider metric system. It starts of with the metrification in France of the units of length, area and volume, and then it goes on to the development of a coherent metric system, including Volts, Amps, etc , and then International System of Units (SI). Your edit moved the France: Mesures usuelles (1812–39) from the Worldwide adoption of the metric system into a new section on "Rejection of the metric system", which I don't think is true. France, and if you read the article, British scientists and engineers continued to develop these metric units of length, area and volume into International System of Units. It is clear that the French wanted to keep the old names, and the article states that the old names were refined in metric units. (For example: Thus the toise was defined as being two metres with six pied making up one toise, twelve pouce making up one pied and twelve lignes making up one pouce. Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 centimetres.[72]). The French rejected decimal time and so did the rest of the world. The article makes that clear when it refers to the CGS and MKS systems - "s" is for seconds (60 in one minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, seven days in a week).

I'm make the assumption were are both British, but we may not be and it does not really matter. If we are British, then we would buy most things in metric units: electricity is measured and sold in units of kilowatt.hours (and measured by Volts and Amps - also metric units), B&Q would sell us metric-sized electricity cables, plumbing fittings, timber and tins of paint, wallpaper is metric, bags of sand, gravel and cement are metric. I have milk delivered to the door step it comes in pint bottles, but from the shop its more likely to in plastic bottles or tetrapacks in metric units (0.454 or 1 litre). We can of course buy beer and lager by the glass at the pub and it comes in pint glasses, but in cans its more likely to be metric. Wine and spirits are sold in metric units. Petrol or diesel is sold in litres, but roads are measured in miles and speed limits are in miles per hour. Eggs I think come in half dozens or dozens. Temperature is mostly Celsius, but we prefer to go on holiday when its in the high 70s and low 80s (Fahrenheit). Local English trading standards officers prosecute market traders who sell fruit and veg by the pound and confiscate their imperial scales ("metric martyrs"). Mostly likely I'll buy metric nuts and bolts, but if I'm repairing something old, I might need to use Whitworth threads (BSW), BSF or even BA threads. Those can't be bought at B&Q, but taps and dies can still be bought (I buy them, for a start). My theory is that the UK is a metric country, but the people think that we are not because beer and milk is sold in pints and we use miles and miles per hour on the roads. A metric ton (or tonne) is almost a ton, road vehicles have been metricated. Most scientific measures of energy are in Joules (a metric unit), but there are also Calories (also a metric unit).

So what have the British rejected; metric bottles of milk delivered to the door step, but far, far, far more people buy metric containers of milk at the supermarket or the corner shop; metric beer and lager glasses in pubs (but not metric wine glasses and spirits glasses); metric speed limits on roads and metric "mile measures". Everything else in the article, we have in Britain: volts, amps, joules, ohms, farads. We might refer to acres of land, but it is more likely to be hectares of land; and when did you last use Chain (unit)s or rod (unit)s and perches for linear measurement

In respect of the UK, the article states: "In 1824 the Weights and Measures Act imposed one standard 'imperial' system of weights and measures on the British Empire.[82] The effect of this act was to standardise existing British units of measure rather than to align them with the metric system. During the next eighty years a number of Parliamentary select committees recommended the adoption of the metric system each with a greater degree of urgency, but Parliament prevaricated. A Select Committee report of 1862 recommended compulsory metrication, but with an "Intermediate permissive phase", Parliament responded in 1864 by legalising metric units only for 'contracts and dealings'.[83] Initially the United Kingdom declined to sign the Treaty of the Metre, but did so in 1883. Meanwhile British scientists and technologists were at the forefront of the metrication movement – it was the British Association for the Advancement of Science that promoted the cgs system of units as a coherent system[1]: 109 and it was the British firm Johnson Matthey that was accepted by the CGPM in 1889 to cast the international prototype metre and kilogram.[84] In 1895 another Parliamentary select committee recommended the compulsory adoption of the metric system after a two-year permissive period, the 1897 Weights and Measures Act legalised the metric units for trade, but did not make them mandatory.[83] A bill to make the metric system compulsory in order to enable British industrial base to fight off the challenge of the nascent German base passed through the House of Lords in 1904, but did not pass in the House of Commons before the next general election was called. Following opposition by the Lancashire cotton industry, a similar bill was defeated in 1907 in the House of Commons by 150 votes to 118.[83] In 1965 Britain commenced an official program of metrication that, as of 2012, had not been completed. The British metrication program signalled the start of metrication programs elsewhere in the Commonwealth, though India had started its program before in 1959, six years before the United Kingdom. South Africa (then not a member of the Commonwealth) set up a Metrication Advisory Board in 1967, New Zealand set up its Metric Advisory Board in 1969, Australia passed the Metric Conversion Act in 1970 and Canada appointed a Metrication Commission in 1971. Metrication in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa was essentially complete within a decade while metrication in India and Canada is not complete. In addition the lakh and crore are still in widespread use in India. Most other Commonwealth countries adopted the metric system during the 1970s.[85]" For the USA, it states: "The United States government acquired copies of the French metre and kilogram for reference purposes in 1805 and 1820 respectively. In 1866 the United States Congress passed a bill making it lawful to use the metric system in the United States. The bill, which was permissive rather than mandatory in nature, defined the metric system in terms of customary units rather than with reference to the international prototype metre and kilogram.[86][87]:10–13 By 1893, the reference standards for customary units had become unreliable. Moreover, the United States, being a signatory of the Metre Convention was in possession of national prototype metres and kilograms that were calibrated against those in use elsewhere in the world. This led to the Mendenhall Order which redefined the customary units by referring to the national metric prototypes, but used the conversion factors of the 1866 act.[87]:16–20 In 1896 a bill that would make the metric system mandatory in the United States was presented to Congress. Of the 29 people who gave evidence before the congressional committee who were considering the bill, 23 were in favour of the bill, but six were against. Four of the six dissenters represented manufacturing interests and the other two the United States Revenue service. The grounds cited were the cost and inconvenience of the change-over. Subsequent bills suffered a similar fate.[79]". Pyrotec (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean to paste all that here too, as none of it addresses the concern that I raised in this section, or was it a mistake? Credibility gap (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have raised only two concerns: one that I undid your edit without explanation - I have now replied to that. Your second concern relates to NPOV and accuracy and possibly the article is skewed in its presentation, but no detail is given. I have replied to that, giving examples of where the article provides information on countries that have not fully adopted metrication. I've also tried to say here that the article is about more than just metrification of length, area and volume. I would suggest the UK and the USA (two obvious examples) have adopted all or most of the scientific parts of SI units, but there is ambiguity on the full or partial implication of metric units for length, area, volume and weights. It would help if you could state precisely what the problems are. I did not write the article, I assessed it for GA and I asked for certain improvements. I believe that in its current form it has a NPOV and is accurate. You appear to disagree, so I would like clarification of what you disagree with and I'd like supporting evidence (or more precisely statements verifiable back to WP:RS). Pyrotec (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I initially raised two unrelated concerns. The first, raised in the section above, is my concern about the balance of the POV in the article. I believe it portrays the system in a rosy light, without due weight being given to criticism of the system. My second concern, raised in this section, is that Mesures usuelles have, mistakenly, been portrayed as an adoption of the metric system, when in fact they are a rejection of it, implemented by Napoleon to replace it after the French population comprehensively spurned it.

You initially pasted identical, unnecessarily long, wall-of-text replies to both concerns. Supporting your unreasoned rebuttals with vast copy & pasted tracts from the one-sided text that I was commenting on. Those replies, which failed to address either of my concerns, then went on, again at great length, and supported by streams of text from the article itself, with a commentary about how proactive the UK had been in metricication and how significantly metric it was, and doubting that the UK had rejected metrification, neither of which I had questioned or even mentioned. You then went on with pastings about the other English-speaking countries, again from the one-sided view contained in the article.

So neither of my concerns have been adequately addressed yet. As a reminder they basically were:

1. That the article is rather skewed in its presentation of the metric system, with little mention being made of criticism of the system or of the cases where it has been rejected. I think a more neutral POV is required. Examples of criticism and rejection include the French themselves, of whom Alder, in his book cited in the article, says: "The French were not only the first nation to invent the metric system: they were also the first to reject it". According to Warwick Cairns, in his book "About The Size Of It", the Japanese has been trying to metricate since 1924. Cairns also tells of the failed 1961 attempt by South Korea to metrify - noting that they started the process again in 2007. Cairns also mentions that Guyana has made switches every few years since 1981.

2. Why has Mesures usuelles, which was a French rejection, rather than an adoption, of the metric system, been included in the "worldwide adoption of the metric system" section?

Please keep your answers succinct, and answer each point separately. Credibility gap (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)