Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion 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 provide a fair use rationale 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 Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes need a citation - even if in the lead

Just to point out to the editor who is persistently removing the 'Cite quote' tag from a direct quote in the lead, and without providing the required supporting reference, that WP:CITELEAD specifically states: "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." (my emphasis) -- de Facto (talk). 09:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Revocation of 22 February 2012

I have revoked DeFActo's changes of the last 24 hours.

1. The section on pre-1799 is part of the history of metrication. I will regard removal of this without consensus as vandalism.
2. Decimalisation and Metrication were both in the Hodgson report. In case DeFacto was not aware of it (I have no idea how old he is), decimalisation took place in 1971 and the bulk of the metication program between 1968 and 1978.
3. The BBC weather site is not indicative of the usage in the UK, the existing text is more accurate, but probably does need a source - I suggest that DeFacto looks for a source. He could go to his local library and looks at a selection of newspapers.
4. The banner regarding history between 1799 and 1945 was unneccessary. If one or two citations were missing, DeFacto would be much better employed finding them than whinging about their absence.

Martinvl (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into those changes, so have re-applied them. Please discuss before reverting. I'll open a sub-section for each point below. -- de Facto (talk). 13:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1799 history

How is this relevant to metrication - metircation being the introduction of the metric system, a system that wasn't invented until the end on the 18th century? -- de Facto (talk). 13:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You had obviously not read the section - the first proposal of the metirc system was in 1668 by an Englishman. That is obviously relevant. The link, unvented in 1620 by an Englishman was a useful measuring device that was a forerunner of the metric system in that it use a decimal system. Martinvl (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no metric system in 1668. This article is about the introduction of the metric system, not its development or history. -- de Facto (talk). 13:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the pre-1779 History section. The metric system was first concieved in 1668 by and Englishman (Wilkins), not 1670 by a Frenchman (Mouton) as is often proposed, so in my view it is valid to mention this here. Your interpretation and my interpretation as to the scope of the article are clearly at variance - ie no consensus, so DO NOT REMOVE IT WITHOUT CONSENSUS. Martinvl (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, if you can verifiably explain, in the article, the relationship between the 1668 "system" and "metrication in the UK" (the adoption of the metre-based system) and if you can adjust the amount of space given to it to be proportional to its significance (see WP:DUE), I'll happily accept that section. Until then though, I still think it should be removed. However, given your passion to keep it, I'll leave it there (possibly bannered, if I can find an appropriate one), in good faith, whilst you work on bringing it into scope and within the 'due weight' requirements. -- de Facto (talk). 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1688 decimalisation

How is this sentence "Proposals that the British people should use a decimal system date back to at least the 1668 paper of John Wilkins - the earliest known such proposal in history." that I removed related to metrication - a system that wasn't invented until the end on the 18th century? -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Weather

Cited content, particularly reliablty sourced content, trumps unsupported OR/POV, I believe. -- de Facto (talk). 13:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way Martinvl, further to your suggestion at the start of this discussion, I did read all my usual newspapers again today, and none of them, that I saw, had anything about the metrication of weather forecasting in the UK. -- de Facto (talk). 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WHat units of measure did they use in their weather reports? When I last checked, even the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail used degrees Celsius as their principal unit of measure. Martinvl (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, I hope you are not suggesting that I indulge in a bit of OR and attempt to draw some sort of general conclusion from that observation. -- de Facto (talk). 08:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Banners flagging inadequate referencing

If you believe that just one of the four banners I added was unnecessary, why did you remove them all? -- de Facto (talk). 13:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You made so many changes, I was not going to sift through and reinstate just those that were unneccessary. That is one of the hazards of making a dozen or so changes on the trot. Martinvl (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing 'Legal requirements' section

WP:MOS is very clear: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." This section unnecessarily obfuscates the true legal position in the UK. There are only a few specific circumstances where unit use is regulated; these are mainly to do with trading by weight or measure and for certain public administration purposes. Even where units are regulated, it is generally acceptable to use both metric and imperial units concurrently. General everday use of units is not regulated, and use in the media is not regulated. Public opinion surveys generally return a massive public preference for the use of imperial units over metric units. -- de Facto (talk). 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This section reflects the legislation. If DeFacto finds it confusing, maybe he should check the references himself and also look for other references - both the UKMA and BWMA sites repeat what is here. If he finds it confusing, then maybe he should contact his member of Parliament rathr than whinge here. Martinvl (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that, if we are to have a 'Legal requirements' section, it should be used to explain the practical consequence of the legislation, its scope (who, when, where) and its meaning (what), not just trot out obfuscating phrases and economical representations. We need due and balanced weight given to all the circumstances in which the units are legal and the limited circumstances in which they are not. When that has been achieved we can remove the banner. And please don't forget the advice given to you here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the article does just that. Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the 'Legal requirements' section for then? -- de Facto (talk). 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It creates a starting point which holds the rest of the artcile together. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that the rest of the article is biased against imperial units too? -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the banner - it is unneccessary. Also, I don't understand DeFacto's question - "the rest of the artcile is an attempt to portray things as they are without bias" the rest of teh article is an attempt to portray things as they are. Martinvl (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, you removed the banner despite not addressing the confusion - why?

Let me describe some of the issues as I see it.

1. The second paragraph contradicts the first. The first says: 'Non-metric units, allowed by UK law for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative' use from 1 January 2000, are limited to..." (I question the accuracy of that too) whilst the second says: 'the display of imperial units being permitted as "supplementary indications"'. They can't both be correct - if all but the listed few imperial units are not "allowed by UK law", how can they be 'permitted as "supplementary indications"'? We need to avoid ambiguity and to avoid vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
2. What exactly does '"economic, public health, public safety or administrative" use' mean. Does it really mean that, say, a police constable would be breaking the law if he shouted to a crowd to "step back a yard" - for "public safety" purposes? Does it really mean that it is illegal for a resident to report that "thousands of gallons of raw sewage is welling up through a gully in the street" - for "public health" purposes? We need it put into plain Enlish, with some examples possibly.

How about something along the lines of this for the first bit:

Generally speaking, for most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK. For certain trading activities (the selling of certain loose goods priced by weight or measure for example) and for certain public administration activities (the wording of new laws and regulations for example), units from a specified system are legally required. Where the unit system is specified it is usually the metric system (for selling pre-packaged food sold by weight, for the selling of loose vegetables priced by weight and in the wording of new laws and regulations for example), although in some cases the imperial system is specified (for the dispensing of draught beer for example). Even when the unit system is specified, units from the other system can be used concurrently as so-called "supplementary indications" (pre-packaged sausages, which require metric system units at least to be used, can be marked "454 g (1 lb)" for example).

-- de Facto (talk). 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the section as above, and thus removed the banner. -- de Facto (talk). 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have re-instated the section on the current legal situation, but have updated the references. I am afraid that what you wrote was Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. If you don't understand something, don't try to write about it. BTW, the legislation that I have cited has an explanatory note. Please read that note carefully and then maybe you might learn something. Martinvl (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, you rejected my proposal, point-blank, without the courtesy of an expalnation of how you think it's flawed; you restored the previous questionable content, but with no clarification and without replying to the issues I raised with it above; you didn't restore the 'dubious' flag; you didn't restore the 'clarification required' banner. As I doubt that you'll be able to provide a good explanation for that, what is verging on disruptive, behaviour, perhaps you could do some of those things now. -- de Facto (talk). 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

• Generally speaking, for most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK. - Whose view of "generality" should be used? Please be more specific.
• For certain trading activities (the selling of certain loose goods priced by weight or measure for example) and for certain public administration activities (the wording of new laws and regulations for example), units from a specified system are legally required. - The word certain is incorrect - apart from the cases cited in my wording, the word all is the correct word, or are you trying tio hide reality?
• Where the unit system is specified it is usually the metric system (for selling pre-packaged food sold by weight, for the selling of loose vegetables priced by weight and in the wording of new laws and regulations for example), although in some cases the imperial system is specified (for the dispensing of draught beer for example). Wishy-washy non-specific wording. Are you afraid of the truth, especially when it is verifiable?
• Even when the unit system is specified, units from the other system can be used concurrently as so-called "supplementary indications" (pre-packaged sausages, which require metric system units at least to be used, can be marked "454 g (1 lb)" for example) - A very wordy way of saying "Supplemetary indicators are permitted". BTW, when I buy sausages, ther are no supplementary indicators.

Are you happy now? Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, let's look at your criticisms; one by one:

• Generally speaking, for most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK. - Whose view of "generality" should be used? Please be more specific.

• "Generally" is used as a synonym of "usually". It is redundant in the sentence, but does not render the rest of the sentence as incorrect or otherwise invalid. Usually no restriction or requirement applies to an activity. Let's then compromise and change that sentence to:

For most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK.

• For certain trading activities (the selling of certain loose goods priced by weight or measure for example) and for certain public administration activities (the wording of new laws and regulations for example), units from a specified system are legally required. - The word certain is incorrect - apart from the cases cited in my wording, the word all is the correct word, or are you trying tio hide reality?

• All? No; just "certain" trading activities. And those activities that are covered all involve selling, so we can rule out all buying activities (one could legally ask for 2lbs of apples for example). Of the selling activities, it is just a few of those, those involving pricing by weight or measure that are implicated, and even then it's only some of them. I can legally sell a 40" television, a pair of 32" waist trousers, a size 15" shirt, a 12-inch ruler, a 2lb lump hammer, a 6-foot fence panel. Am I trying to hide reality? No, just the opposite.

• Where the unit system is specified it is usually the metric system (for selling pre-packaged food sold by weight, for the selling of loose vegetables priced by weight and in the wording of new laws and regulations for example), although in some cases the imperial system is specified (for the dispensing of draught beer for example). Wishy-washy non-specific wording. Are you afraid of the truth, especially when it is verifiable?

• It is absolutely accurate. The truth is that, for some (a very few actually) activities, a certain unit system must be used (usually, but not always, metric). My version is certainly verifiable!

• Even when the unit system is specified, units from the other system can be used concurrently as so-called "supplementary indications" (pre-packaged sausages, which require metric system units at least to be used, can be marked "454 g (1 lb)" for example) - A very wordy way of saying "Supplemetary indicators are permitted". BTW, when I buy sausages, ther are no supplementary indicators.

• My wording makes it clear what it means, yours obfuscates what it means. BTW, thanks for clarifying that last point; I'll remove the text "including those bought by Wikipedia editor Martinvl" from my example - oh, hang on...

With all due respect Martinvl, you seem to be on a mission here to exaggerate the scope of this legislation. We need to present it neutrally, accurately and with due weight; even if that means conveying the true case.

And you didn't respond to my charge that you restored the previous questionable content, but with no clarification and without replying to the issues I raised with it above; you didn't restore the 'dubious' flag; you didn't restore the 'clarification required' banner -- de Facto (talk). 13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you seem to be on a mission to show contempt for the law. The unbiased way to summarise legal matters is, whjere possible, to report the law exactly. I removed the banner because no clarifiaction was needed, least of all the bollcks that you wrote. Martinvl (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to the lack of responses to the issues with the content you restored, I removed it and replaced it with the accurate and verifiable account that you removed. -- de Facto (talk). 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What you have quoted regarding the legal position is a total misrepresentation of the truth. At that time the EU Commission were about to launch a consultation regarding the use of units of measure. This is routine operation and happens in many areas about once every ten years - at any one time the EU has a large number of consultations in place. As things stood in 2007, the use of imperial units as supplementary indicators was to have been disallowed from 2010. The Commission's proposal was to remove thgis "sunset clause", but otherwise to allow thing to remain unchanged. Ashley Mote, who was later to be convicted of fraud twisted the commission's proposal to make the removal of the sunset clause look like the Commission was giving carte blanche to the use of imperial units. The newspapers picked that up and misrepresented things further. What you are doing therefore is summarising a third hand-report about a proposal by the EU Commission. What I am doing is using is an authoritative summary as published by the British Government, not something that was knocked out by a fraudster.

I regard your statement "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable" as provocative. I demand an appolgy. Martinvl (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All I quoted was reliably sourced. As for the narrative; it captures the essence - for most situations there is no regulation. Where there is regulation, it remains legal to use imperial units in all cases, in some cases as the main unit, in others as a supplementary measure. Your interpretation was OR from the primary sources, with no secondary source support, and did not describe the true situation, presented a non-neutral POV of the law and contained unsupported assertions. You didn't attempt to explain or defend your interpretation when challenged, and did not respond to my answers to your challenge of my text - you dumped my text and re-inserted your own, minus the banner that was there before!!! For those reasons I stand by my edit summary. -- de Facto (talk). 19:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I reject your stateemnt and I still demand an appolgy for uncivil language. Martinvl (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have deleted my request on your talk page. I do not regard teh matter as closed and I will not discuss any aspects of it with you until you have given a full and unconditional applogy for the use of uncivil language. Martinvl (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As I summarised it on my talkpage, I dealt with your "request" in what I considered to be the most appropriate way. -- de Facto (talk). 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I utterly reject your explanation. I am still waiting for an appology the text "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable". Teh word "bad-faith" is grossly uncivil while the words "poor quality", "inaccurate", "unjustiied" and and "unsupported", in the context of Wikiepdia writing is a slur on my ability and therefore again, unjustified. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to Defact: - I am still waiting for an unconditional appology for uncivil langauge. Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another reminder to DeFacto: When are you going to applogise for your incivility? Martinvl (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, I thought I'd made my position on this very clear. I'd only need reminding if there was soething that I'd planned to do, but forgotten about. Rest assured, I have not forgotten to do anything in this case. -- de Facto (talk). 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I take it that DeFacto is not going to apologise. I have re-instated the version of "Legal Requirements" that was removed by DeFacto. If Defacto wishes me to consider

The text that DeFacto substituted has a number of shortcomings:

• The opening sentence of the paragraph is utter waffle - the words "most activities" and "most situations" are WP:WEASAL words that disguise the reality of the situation. The section gives no indication as to what constitutes "most", so the use of these words is "WP: POV".
• The words "certain trading activities" is another WP:WEASAL word. If DeFacto actually took the time to check the legislation, a more accurate phrasing would have been "Most trading activities .... the exceptions being ...."
• The legislation mentions "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes". Apart from a fleeting reference to public administrative purposes to Defacto's text deals solely with what has been described as "economic purposes". He makes no mention of public safety - swimming pool depths are quoted in metres as are minimum heights of children using funfair rides. The maximum weight of babies and toddlers using shopping trolley seats is given in kilograms as is the capacity of lifts. These all come under "public safety".
• DeFacto's text "for the dispensing of draught beer for example" implies that many loose products may be sold by imperial measure. The only other product that may be sold is cider. His text is therefore incorrectly applied WP:OR.
• DeFacto referenced a report in The Guardian. That report falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Were those regulations ever published? If so, where? The regulations themselves should be checked before trusting a journalist's version of what they said, particularly when a lobbyist such as Neil Herron is given prominent mention. For the record, newspapers often pick up stories from lobbyists and unfortunately such lobbyists are often economic with the truth.

DeFacto’s arguments had a number of shortcomings as well:

• He argued that “I can legally sell a 40" television, a pair of 32" waist trousers, a size 15" shirt …”. Yes, he can, but he is not describing products that are sold by weight – television sets are not priced per inch (or per centimetre) of screen, apples however are often sold by weight (80p/kg). He clearly did not understand the implicationsof what he was writing.
• DeFacto wrote “With all due respect Martinvl, you seem to be on a mission here to exaggerate the scope of this legislation”. The section is called “Legal Requirements”. It should be a summary of the law, and unless one is quoting eminent jurists, adding to it is WP:POV.

Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl: 1) Please take more care - you resurrected a discredited version which had subsequently had sentences rearranged, reworded, replaced and even removed to another section; including changes made by yourself. I have thus restored the most recent sound version. 2) I do not follow your confused argument against my modifications. You seem to be using different definitions of "weasel words", "POV", "OR" and "CRYSTAL" to those given in the "WP:WEASEL", "WP:POV", "WP:OR" and "WP:CRYSTAL" articles to which you referred us. 3) What exactly was your point about the Guardian? -- de Facto (talk). 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale markets

I have removed the Oil Industry citations. This a a case of "Is the sky blue". If DeFActo is unaware that oil is traded by the barrel, he should look at the financial section of his favourite newspaper - he might learn soemthing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Martinvl, why are you trying to personalise this? There was a citation, apparently there to support the oil industry assertion, but which was actually an example of a website showing prices of crude oil in US Dollars per Barrel - so, although it was an example of the assertion, the extrapolation to the generality was OR. So I flagged it. My personal level of knowledge of oil trading is totally irrelevant, and your arrogant and condescending aside was rude and unnecessary. -- de Facto (talk). 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The following text appeared in Apendix A of the cited report

Entries for 1790 to 1969 omitted

1970

• Electric Cable Makers Conference completes change to metric.
• British Aerospace Companies Limited express drawing and documentation in metric.
• London Metal Exchange goes metric.
• Production of flat glass goes metric

Entries for 1971-5 omitted

1976

• Weights and Measure Act empowers Government to phase out imperial units in retail trade.
• Bulk Petroeum sales go metric.
• Metrication Board publishes report "Metrication and Elderly people".
• Agriculture, horticulture and allied industries essentially metric by year-end.

DeFacto - are youi happy now?

Post 1976 entries omitted.

Martinvl (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, my request for a quote was indeed vindicated! As I suspected, the reference does not support the assertion "Many wholesale markets are almost entirely metric". May I suggest either of the following as the action now required:

• Removal of the unsupported assertion
• Provision of a reference that supports the assertion
• Rewording of the assertion to reflect the source provided, my suggestion being: "By 1976 two wholesale markets had metricated: The London Metal Exchange and the petroeum market."

Until we decide which course of action to follow, I've added a 'cn' tag to the dodgy statement.

-- de Facto (talk). 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No comment on, or disagreement with, proposal in more than 2 days, so I updated the content as described. -- de Facto (talk). 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted - what new text is fundxemetnallly unsound - it implies that no other wholesale markets are metric. Moreover, the agricultural wholesale market actually comprises many markets - including but not restriucted to Smithfield, Covent Garden and LIFFE (that is at least three). Martinvl (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, if the reference doesn't support what you want it to say then you cannot just assert what you want to say anyway, you need to find a new reference that does. Also, why did you restore the 'quotation request' tag, you had already supplied the required quote (just a few lines above) and that tag was thus removed as satisfied. You seem to be behaving rather irrationally here. Martinvl, if you can find a reference or references that support the notion (which I agree is quite likely) that many, if not indeed all, wholesale markets have been metricated then I will gladly co-operate with helping you to re-word the saction appropriately, to reflect the information supported by any new references. Currently though, the wording I restored is the best we can say. -- de Facto (talk). 08:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have renamed "Wholesale" to "Commodities" and have provided references for the principal London-based commodity markets. If you want an independent view of the importance of these markets, please consult the Financial Times. Martinvl (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, the assertion "The principal London commodity markets, apart from oil, are metric" needs RS support as does the one about the agricultural markets. The quote you gave from the Metrication Board's report talks about the agricultural industry, but not the agricultural commodity markets. The reference you cite against the ag market statement gives examples, but no support for the assertion - it's a bit like supporting the assertion that all cars are red with a picture of two red cars isn't it. -- de Facto (talk). 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The agricultural commodity market is part and parcel of the agricultural industry. It deals with selling produce, but does not deal with things like supplying fertilizer. The Farmer's Weekly is the premier farming magazine. If you understood the role of the Farmers Weekly in the agricultrural market, you would not be making statements like the red car analogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So cite a page or article from it that says the ag markets are metric. Drawing one's own conclusion from arbitrary examples examples with no clue of sample size in proportion to the whole population size is speculation and OR. Just like with the red car analogy. -- de Facto (talk). 18:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed wrt London commodity markets

I would like to see a reference added the currently unsupported assertion "The principal London commodity markets, apart from oil, are metric". For this reason I added the 'cn' template to the end of the statement. An editor has removed (twice now) that template, insisting that the fact is "common knowledge". Was I really being unreasonable expecting such an asertion to be reliably supported? -- de Facto (talk). 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the tag. We need such assertions to be verifiable by all readers. We cannot assume that everyone even knows what the "London commodity markets" are, let alone what the principle ones are or that they have all metricated. -- de Facto (talk). 10:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Common knowledge is a subjective matter and in DeFacto's case, since he is so secretive abotu his background, onwe does not know what should be accepted as "Common knowlwedge". Ther are artciles in Wikipedia, such as Kalman Filter which assume that a knowledge of matirx algebra and first order simulataneous differential equations are common knowledge. If DeFacto ias aschoolboy, then maybe he doesn't know too much about the international markets. If he looks at the prfoces in today's papers, he might well see "Brent Crude $120" - it is assuimed that everybody knows that Brent Crude is sold by the barrel. Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The commodity market tag was in the nature of collateral damage when DeFacto pointedly tagged agricultural markets as well, even though there is a perfectly good reference to Farmers Weekly. This is the sort of thing where WP:PRIMARY permits primary sources for validation. It would be desirable to have a cite for the commodities but it is not something that needs to be an excuse for the tendentious and disruptive editing to which DeFacto is prone.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles, you need to be more careful with your editing then. Also, you should know that citing the market price page in Farmers Weekly to support the assertion that all the agricultural markets have metricated, even though it doesn't explicitly state that fact, and based solely on the fact that it gives metric prices, conflicts with the direction given in WP:NOR. And finally, please be a bit more respectful of my desire to improve this article. It has been an embarrassment to Wikipedia for a long time, and in dire need of a radical makeover. Please help me, rather than hinder me, with this objective. -- de Facto (talk). 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, if I understand your comments correctly... You appear to be saying that you cannot judge what level common knowledge is because you do not know what my level of knowledge is. You also appear to be saying that the article is targeted just at the readers of newspaper financial pages. Martinvl, remember today is Leap Year Day and not April Fools' Day. -- de Facto (talk). 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a habit of twisting things. What I am saying is that you are not a farmer, so you are poorly placed to criticse the use of the Farmers Weekly as a reference, especially when the statement is also backed up by the Final repOrt of the Metrication Board. Martinvl (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, you don't know whether I'm a farmer, or not. And whether I am, or not, doesn't affect the need to reliably support assertions of generalities. The FW may give examples, but does not explicitly support the assertion (see WP:NOR). The MB report mentions the agricultural industry, but not the agricultural marketplace in relation to the London Commodity markets. The assertion remains unsupported. Will you provide support please or shall we tag it for the time being, or remove it? -- de Facto (talk). 08:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Majority comparison

There is an editor in our midst who has attempted to characterise the metrication rejection result of the survey documented in the article as a "small" majority.

To understand the size of the opposition to metrication, let's compare the results of the survey documented in the article with those from the recent United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum. To get a like-for-like comparison, I have presented the survey Yes/No percentages as the percentages of those expressing a preference (i.e. treating the abstentions as the results of the referendum treat those who don't turn up).

For AV: Yes = 32.1%, No = 67.9%, Turnout = 42.2%

For Metrication: Yes = 34.1%, No = 65.9%, Turnout (those expressing a view) = 85%

Now as the BBC described the result of the AV referendum as "The UK has voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the way MPs are elected..."[1], I believe it is grossly misleading to describe the result of the survey in terms of a small majority. -- de Facto (talk). 07:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Even within the 56% there were 14% who did not feel strongly about it. Those who did not care hasve an opinion too and they were not against complete metrication. 56% is a small majority in any terms.--Charles (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In binary terms the 14% are part of the 56% opposed to metrication. Let's turn it around and look at it the other way. There are 19% who support metrication (including the 8% who did not feel strongly about it) - is that a miniscule minority then on your personal scale? -- de Facto (talk). 11:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No restrictions for buying by

I plan to reinsatate my removal of this sentence unless there is good reason to the contrary. In my view:

• The phrase is grammatically incorrect - since when did a sentence end with the words "buying by"?
• I believe that it is factually incorrect - the legislation makes no distinction between buyer or seller so this phrase is incorrect WP:OR.

Martinvl (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that you can improve the grammar, please do so. The fact though is that there is no law stopping you asking for produce by imperial measure - or do you know otherwise? -- de Facto (talk). 10:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly restrictions regarding certain types of buying - for example a local authority putting out tenders to buy goods must use metric units (under both the "economic" and "public administration" headings). I therefore think it best to make no mention of the buyer at all. That is alos the reason why I wrote the section on the legal position the way I did -I used the exact wording, where possible, straight from the EU directive/UK legislation as that avoided issues of WP:OR. Martinvl (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Retail trade "buying" isn't regulated in the Weights and Measures Act (the subject of the paragraph), as far as I know. -- de Facto (talk). 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I support removal. The meaning is unclear; whoever wants to keep it should rewrite it to make their intended meaning clear and provide a source that supports whatever meaning they intend this sentence fragment to have.--Boson (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-worded it and provided a RS. -- de Facto (talk). 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've changed the wording slightly to better reflect the cited source and avoid the ambiguity of the word "use", clarifying that it applies to the words used by the consumer, not the concepts that form the basis of the contract of sale ("the retailer must weigh in metric and sell the metric equivalent"). I also removed the word "primarily" because the sale must take place in metric units, regardless of secondary use on labels. I also clarified that some products are excepted (that may have been the intended meaning of "primarily"). --Boson (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

Hostility to metrication

This discussion has nothing to do with Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom. If you must continue the discussion, please take it to a user talk page. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just reinstated a point that the UK public are hostile to metrication - following its removal by another editor who questioned the source supporting it. I have added several more sources that support the same general point, and from a cross-section of sources. Can there really be any doubt that the UK public is hostile to metrication? -- de Facto (talk). 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC) It's a weaselish, meaningless, POV statement. Exactly what do you think it means? All UK residents are opposed? Most? Many? A majority? A few? Two? If the source was a quality one, it would quantify it. If it's not quantified, it's not a quality source. The one thing we do know for certain is "DeFacto is hostile to metrication" HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Actually, one thing you know absolutely nothing about, is my personal view of metrication, because I've never discussed it here, and do not plan to. Please concentrate on the content and refrain from attempting to personalise it. -- de Facto (talk). 10:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC) It's recommended that in a difficult negotiation one tries to ascertain the true goals of those with whom one is debating. I tried to trigger a conversation to find out. You avoided sharing. That's a shame. Anyway, can you discuss more than just my final sentence now please? HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC) First tell us whether you agree that you actually have no idea what my personal view on metrication is. When we've eliminated the unnecessary personalisation, we can discuss the content. -- de Facto (talk). 19:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC) There is a massive amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that you are aggressively opposed to metrication. It's hard to think of any other explanation for your behaviour. Beyond that I have no idea. Feel free to further enlighten us. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) You appear to be confusing the result of a passion for neutrality and a passion for the elimination of OR/SYNTH, which has inevitably moved the POV balance of this article from one which was very heavily biased towards anti-imperial and unashamedly pro-metrication, to a more neutral position, as being "aggressively opposed to metrication". That, I believe, explains more about your behaviour and your position on this than about mine. -- de Facto (talk). 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Yep, I thought we'd end up about there. My view hasn't changed. Back to the real point... It's a weaselish, meaningless, POV statement. Exactly what do you think it means? All UK residents are opposed? Most? Many? A majority? A few? Two? If the source was a quality one, it would quantify it. If it's not quantified, it's not a quality source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) You can't escape that easily from your resonsibility to defend your accusation that I am "hostile to metrication". Can you show us examples of what you consider the evidence is to support that position? -- de Facto (talk). 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand...

The edit warring on this article needs to stop. It isn't going to resolve the issue. If it continues, the article will probably get full protected. Looking over the history, it looks like the dispute is once again about the strawberries. Since that discussion, it appears that this source by BBC has been published, which may be relevant to this article. However, I still can't find any sources establishing the current status of ASDA's trial. And there really isn't much information on the ASDA trial. It was just a few news sources stating that a grocery store chain was attempting a trial with imperial units. Overall, it really didn't have a lasting effect on the subject. It might be worth considering the possibility of removing ASDA paragraph altogether. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a term for winning an argument by outlasting all those who disagree? I would agree with removing the Asda material. DeFacto won't. I moved away from editing this article precisely because of the unacceptable behaviour of that editor AND the fact that Wikipedia seems to have no processes to stop someone who has more time on his hands than anyone else winning a fight by wearing everyone else into the ground. It does not lead to good encyclopaedic content. It does not lead to consensual discussion. I think I'll walk away again. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alpha_Quadrant. With respect to the Asda/strawberry content, you know how difficult the discussion was, and how long it took us to arrive at a concise and RS wording to cover that information. Since then, another user (User:Jillipede) has appeared on the scene and attempted to insert something, similar to the OR/SYTH that we had managed to get eliminated, back into that paragraph. A curious aspect of 'Jillipede' is that the account has only been used three times (here, here and here). All 3 edits were to Asda related content, the first time was just 2 minutes after the account was created, and the other 2 were yesterday to insert this content about Asda strawberries. I reverted the 2 attempts to put the OR/SYNTH content into this article, fully reasoned in my edit summaries, (here and here). But shortly after my 2nd revert, User:Charlesdrakew reverted me, thus restoring the anti-consensus and OR/SYNTH, un-reliably-supported, POVy-worded content, and with the bizarre, inexplicable and infammatory edit summary: "Rv more POV-pushing by DeFacto"! Then User:Tom Morris came along and protected the article, so the bad content is locked in for the moment. -- de Facto (talk). 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ASDA trial was extensively discussed atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers recently with a clear consensus that it is worthless as evidence of anything. We have no information on sample size, raw data, participation rates or methodology or even that this was anything more than a cheap publicity stunt without any meaningful survey ever being done. I would not know exactly where to find that discussion among the walls of text created by DeFacto's ad nauseum circular arguments which consist of repeated assertions withouy any reliable sources to back them. I agree with HiLo48 about the wearing down of opposition instead of gaining consensus. To me this behaviour is against the whole ethos of Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, I notice that rather than explaining why you reverted my removal of the OR/SYNTH content, you chose to personalise the discussion yet again. Do you have nothing worthwhile to add regarding that content, and why you chose to restore it then? -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion needs to stay on topic. Bringing up past disputes isn't going to resolve the current issue. Accusing other editors of point of view pushing won't help this discussion either. I agree that User:Jillipede is clearly not a new users. In particular, this edit used the term "rv" instead of "reverted", suggesting they have a fair understanding of Wikipedia jargon. There is really no point in trying to figure out who the account belongs to. Yesterday I asked Tom Morris in IRC to full protect the article, given that the edit warring wasn't resolving the issue.

I understand that we had a very long discussion back in October to establish the current wording. However, we don't know the current status of the trial because there hasn't been any additional coverage in reliable third party sources. Given the fact that the trial received such limited coverage in the first place, would it be possible to agree on it's complete removal? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The event is part of the bizarre UK unit of measure saga. It would be a shame to lose that part of the picture. The BBC found it notable enough to mention it in their recent piece that you mention above. Although we do have reliable sources supporting the fact that it started, we certainly don't know of a reliable source describing what became of it. So we certainly shouldn't keep the OR/SYTH addition by User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew currently locked into the article - the addition that is based on speculation and a personal interpretation of the Asda online shopping site (we don't even know if the offer was ever available online). -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the BBC is being led by rubbish in this article? HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, led where, and what part of the article are you characterising as "rubbish" - presumably not any of the notable, duly weighted, reliably sourced content? -- de Facto (talk). 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose to raise an 'edit protected' to get this User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew addition of OR/SYNTH content reverted. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove problem addition

I believe that this edit has a) removed important supporting context, b) produced implications not supported by the sources, c) added an unsupported assertion and d) added a worthless reference, to the 'Retail' section of this article.

Let me explain each of those points:

a. Replacing "the Asda supermarket chain stated" with "Asda stated" means that readers unaware that Asda is a supermarket chain will need to follow the link before they can understand the context of the sentence.

b. The insertion of the phrase "Despite suggesting they would" is to editorialise the sentence to inappropriately undermine the reason for the experiment.

c. The assertion "the majority of Asda's fruit and vegetable lines were still packaged in round metric sizes (with no supplementary Imperial indications) ten months later in March 2012" is not supported by any of the cited references. We must remember that we do not know the scope of the experiment - whether it involved just selected shops, all shops, the online service, or what. So we cannot, based on our own personal observations, and with no RS support, declare that the experiment has now finished and what the results were.

d. The reference to "http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/catalog/sectionpagecontainer.jsp?departmentid=1214921923758", a transient live dynamic webpage liable to change at any time, does not and cannot support anything written in the text.

I propose therefore that we undo that edit completely. I understand that not having a comment about the results or outcome of the experiment is not a desirable situation, and believe that we could discuss how to deal with that, but we need to restore the integrity of the paragraph first. -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems unlikely that we will obtain impartial comprehensive and reliable sources for worthwhile encyclopedic content, I would suggest that the best course is to remove the whole Asda paragraph completely. It looks to me as if this article, together with the readers comments, gives the truest picture of what indeed looks like a short-lived publicity stunt attempting to gain sales from the anti-metrication segment of the market. At a minimum, the contentious paragraph should be removed until consensus can be reached on the Talk page, --Boson (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that it happened, and was in the article by consensus, and reliably sourced, do you support or reject this proposal? -- de Facto (talk). 14:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Boson, do you realise that article you referred us to is on the site of a single issue, anti-imperial-units, pressure group? -- de Facto (talk). 14:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the mention of the Asda experiment

Given that 9 or 10 months after its commencement was announced and that we have not seen any reliably sourced report of its outcome, I would like to propose that we add the following sentence to the end of the short paragraph about the Asda experiment in the 'Retail' section.

• As of March 2012, the outcome of the experiment has not been reported.

-- de Facto (talk). 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comment in the preceding section. --Boson (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Better still, remove all mention of it - it is not encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)