Talk:Metrication in the United States
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metrication in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Measurement||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
ordinary inhabitants of the U.S.
There are a fair number of ordinary inhabitants of the U.S. who are not scientifically-minded or cosmopolitan (i.e. don't often travel outside the U.S.), and who have a vague impression that the metric system was a 1970s fad that went out with white polyester leisure suits and disco music... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a reliable source attesting to any statement in that sentence, or a firm definition of "fair number", "Ordinary inhabitants", "not scientifically minded" or other terms therein? Otherwise the sentence is WP:OR at best and from the looks of it, entirely your opinion - utterly useless to us in making an encyclopedia. loupgarous (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have a specific source (just common knowledge of being around since the 1970s), but many humorous references to U.S. metrication are implicitly based on the popular perception that it was a Carter-administration 1970s fad (see the reference to "the era of mint green leisure suits and platform shoes" at http://themetricmaven.com/?p=373 )... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Intro concluding sentence dispute -- extent to which US uses the metric system
BilCat I disagree with your edit and have undone it again but I would like to see what other people think before opening a formal dispute. Originally the article's introduction was rather short and stated only that the United States is 1 of 3 countries not using the metric system. In addition to several other cleanups I added a second paragraph which states SI is in fact used is in several places. However, after a few edits people on both sides got it to conclude by saying... "yet many Americans remain unfamiliar with the sizes of certain metric units in the context of daily life." I feel this is an important point to make in the intro. By leaving in basic examples of where SI is used but taking out where it isn't, it changes the meaning of the whole article. The user Spaceface already mentioned issues of bias in this article and I think this is a major example of it. I myself am a big supporter of the metric system and I would love to see it implemented in the US. Yet, as a matter of fact I accept that there are a significant number of people in the US who are unfamiliar with the "certain aspects of metric system in the context of daily life". This is not stereotyping or just an opinion. It is also implied in the cited section describing attempts to get people to think metric. If you believe otherwise, try going on the street and ask Americans how many centimeters tall they are or how many kilograms they weight? I guarantee a sizable percentage of them will be unsure. In the end, Wikipedia is about giving people a global perspective on an issue. The article already includes many many examples of things sold in metric sizes. Given this, I feel it is appropriate to prominently indicate the issues facing metric adoption in the US. Without this, skimming readers from other countries will likely end their reading thinking America's metric conversion has already happened. Comment on this talk board. Let's Chat 18:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC) SCBY (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, going on the street to ask Americans how many centimeters tall they are would constitute original research. I think the sentence would be fine as written if we had a reliable source backing it up. - Nellis 00:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
5.56mm NATO <>.223 Remington, 7.62x51mm NATO <> .308 Winchester, contrary to our article
Our article presently says:
"The U.S. military, reflecting its need to ensure interoperability with its NATO allies, uses metric measurements for almost all weapons calibers, even when for calibers that originated as or were derived from a different measurement (e.g. 7.62 mm rather than .308, or 5.56 mm instead of .223)."
Neither of those statements are true.
From our article 5.56x45mm NATO:
"5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington
The exterior dimensions of the 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington cartridges are identical. While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, the chamber leade, i.e. the area where the rifling begins, is cut to a sharper angle on some .223 commercial chambers. Because of this, a cartridge loaded to generate 5.56mm pressures in a 5.56mm chamber may develop pressures that exceed SAAMI limits when fired from a short-leade .223 Remington chamber."
From our article 7.62x51mm NATO:
"Although not identical, the 7.62×51mm NATO and the commercial .308 Winchester cartridges are similar enough that they can be loaded into rifles chambered for the other round, but the Winchester .308 cartridges are typically loaded to higher pressures than 7.62×51mm NATO cartridges. Even though the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) does not consider it unsafe to fire the commercial round in weapons chambered for the NATO round, there is significant discussion about compatible chamber and muzzle pressures between the two cartridges based on powder loads and wall thicknesses on the military vs. commercial rounds. While the debate goes both ways, the ATF recommends checking the stamping on the barrel; if one is unsure, one can consult the maker of the firearm."
I propose we change the sentence in question to read:
"The U.S. military, reflecting its need to ensure interoperability with its NATO allies, uses metric measurements for almost all weapons calibers, even when for calibers that originated as or were derived from a different measurement (e.g. 7.62 mm rather than .308, or 5.56 mm instead of .223). However, civilian rifles chambered for .223 Remington may load military 5.56mm ammunition but not fire it safely because 5.56mm NATO ammunition is loaded to create greater chamber pressure than .223 Remington, potentially causing damage to the weapon and injury to the shooter. Controversy exists whether this is true for civilian rifles chambered for .308 Winchester ammunition using 7.62mm NATO ammunition."
The change is required to prevent a reader who's unaware of the differences in chambering in military and civilian rifles chambered for these rounds from assuming that ammunition made for military use may safely be used in civilian rifles. loupgarous (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Knots in aviation
The article states that knots are used in aviation because of US influence. This is absolute tripe. Knots are used because of a direct relationship between the nautical mile and a minute of arc of latitude measured along any meridian. In other words it is a direct product of geometry. - Nick Thorne talk 09:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC) That was the original notion of nautical miles, but it only works at one latitude because the earth is not spherical. At any rate, nautical miles are now defined in terms of SI measurements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkazdan (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)