Talk:William Pène du Bois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Force conversions
2 Straw poll
3 name
4 Bottsford's reign

[edit] Force conversions

A passage quoted from "The Twenty-One Balloons" makes references to weight and lifting force in "pounds." An editor recently added conversions of these values to kN (kilonewtons). I've replaced them with values in kg (kilograms).

I'm not sure it's necessary to provide these conversions in the context of a nontechnical literary quotation dealing a fictional situation. However, kilograms are used throughout the world providing them is a useful courtesy to readers unfamiliar with U. S. Customary units.

I am familiar with the technical between distinction between mass, weight, and force. The value of g being approximately constant in all everyday situations, in common parlance "pounds" and "kilograms" are used to refer to weight and force as well as mass. Kilonewtons are, however, a technical term utterly unfamiliar to the general public, and using them here (in preference to kilograms) is pedantic. Dpbsmith 15:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. It is weight which is the word which has a different meaning (and a quite legitimate and proper meaning) in common parlance than it has in physics jargon, not kilogram. When kilograms are used for something called weight they are almost always units of mass, not units of force. They should be units of mass, not units of force. Take, for example, those billions of items on the shelves of grocery stores and pantries and hardware stores and auto parts stores and workbenches in the United States which have their net weight listed in kilograms as well as pounds. Those pounds and ounces are, of course, every bit as much units of mass as the grams and kilograms right alongside them: 1 lb ≡ 0.45359237 kg, by definition.

When we buy and sell goods by weight, we are interested in how much stuff we have. We don't give a damn how hard our butter presses down on the table. We don't want to measure some quantity that varies with the strength of the local gravitational field, we do not do so, and we have never done so.

There are no kilograms-force in the modern metric system, the International System of Units.

Newtons are not just a "technical" term. They are the SI units for force, in any context.

There is, of course, no place in the world where newtons are legal units for the sale of goods by weight. That's because weight is not a force in this context.

When it comes to measuring loads, these can be measured as either mass or force, so this case would be borderline--without all the "lifting pull" and "total strain" comments referring specifically to force. Gene Nygaard 05:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's absurdly pedantic to fuss about this in a passage from a work of fiction. It can be argued that readers outside the U. S. may be assisted by converting pounds to kilograms, but the number of readers who will understand the passage better by having it converted to newtons is minuscule. It makes about as much sense as saying "Kirk Douglas starred in Disney's '20,000 leagues [111,120 kilometers] Under the Sea.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Readers inside the United States, as well as outside, will understand better if you are using units of force to measure force, rather than units of mass.

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that if you don't understand those newtons when you first run across them, you can click on the link and learn something.

Verne's leagues were more like 4 km. Saying 20,000 Leagues (80,000 Kilometers) Under the Sea can help people understand that he couldn't be meaning that literally for Earth; Jules Verne, of course, was well aware that the diameter of Earth is less than 13,000 km. Wouldn't bet on Disney executives knowing that, however. Gene Nygaard 15:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As someone who's worked extensively with both metric and imperial units, I've got a good feel for how much mass both a "pound" and a "kilogram" represent. I couldn't tell you what a "Newton" is like to save my life. Kilograms force, even if scientifically wrong, are the more useful unit in this situation. Wikilinking to newton won't help one bit -- numbers can't convey the same thing that actually having held a one-kilo hunk of metal can. --Carnildo 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Familiarity is not the same thing as understanding. Being duped into thinking you understand something is worse than being challenged by something you know you don't understand.

People who actually go to the newton page might even figure out that newtons are not capitalized in English.

There is nothing "scientifically wrong" with the kilogram-force. It simply isn't part of the modern metric system (the same is true of dynes, ergs, maxwells, millimeters of mercury, and other old non-SI metric units as well). It is a matter of setting of standards, not a matter of science.

If this weren't a direct quote, it could probably be rewritten to talk about mass rather than force. But it isn't exactly a model of clarity now, and would probably be less so using kilograms. Gene Nygaard 08:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're pushing a point of view. Specifically, you are pushing the view that all Wikipedia articles, even those about general, nonscientific topics, should educate lay users to understand and use SI units. Not just "the metric system" as familiar to laypersons in countries that use it, but scientifically correct SI units. This would be perfectly appropriate for an article on a science or engineering topic. I think it's wildly inappropriate for an article on a 1947 book of fiction--a book of fiction which most libraries shelve in the "juvenile" section, by the way.

The purpose of providing conversions is to make the passage clearer to readers who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with U. S. customary weights and measures, not to encourage them to "learn something new," or to proselytize for the use of newtons in common parlance. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It has less to do with educating those who don't understand SI than with making it accessible for those who do.

The metric system is still fully supported and updated. The trend everywhere is for increased use of SI, for elimination of non-SI units such as the kilogram-force, etc. Japan, for example, in recent years has made a concerted effort to get rid of kilograms-force.

The same is not true for the English units. Nobody is ever going to bother to tell us to stop using the pound-force, without telling us to stop using pounds all together. Gene Nygaard 16:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

What should be done about the U. S. customary units such as "six hundred pounds" in the quoted passage in the article? Vote for ALL options that would be acceptable to you; qualify with short comments if you like. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Key word in context (without any conversions) is relevant here:

"a combined lifting pull of six hundred pounds"
"a lifting pull of three hundred pounds"
"a total strain of nine hundred pounds"
"weighed a little over four hundred" [sic, no units]
"with an antigravity pull of 50 pounds-force each" [since this one was not a direct quote, the original "pounds" have already been disambiguated in this one]

[edit] Don't provide conversions

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Most non-U.S. readers know that a pound is about half a kilogram, that's all the precision needed to understand the passage.
Carnildo 19:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Given the context, there is no need for conversions.

[edit] Provide conversions to "kg"

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC) The most familiar and conformtable unit for readers who live outside the U. S. and who are not trained in science or engineering.

Comment. That's irrelevant, because the kilograms they are familiar with are units of mass, not force. Gene Nygaard 16:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Provide conversions to "kgf"

[edit] Provide conversions to N (newtons)

Gene Nygaard 16:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC). The correct conversion. Since the quoted material is old (from before the International System of Units existed), that's all the more reason to convert to modern, international units. The SI is not just for science and engineering; some measurements are less often used outside those fields, but that does not mean that SI is not the appropriate system when they are used.
Bobblewik (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks to Dpbsmith for drawing my attention to this discussion. I understand the attraction of the other options but this is my choice. Translation is a balance between word-for-word and idea-for-idea. The conversion may be less satisfactory than the original but that can be the cost of of translation. It is the same with translations of language (e.g. poems, songs, speeches). If you are fortunate enough understand both languages, you say which version is more poetic. C'est la vie (that's life).

(Since you provided the conversion to N in the first place I thought you should participate; I was aware of the possibility you wouldn't agree with me...) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] name

The article gives his birthname first as William Pène Sherman du Bois and later as William Sherman Pène du Bois. —Tamfang 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)