Talk:Metrication controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Re-Organisation

It seems the 'arguments' here can be split in two categories:

- against the metric system (hard to divide, unnatural...)
- against changing systems (too much of an effort, habits...)

I think rewriting the article in these two sections would make it more organised. This way, criticisms of the metric system would be highlighted instead of being drowned in "any system is fine, it's just too annoying to change" What do you think? AtikuX 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Absolutely not neutral and sometimes ridiculous

This article is per definition not neutral, since it is called "Anti". Some arguments are simply ridiculous, especially in the view of one who grew up with the metric system. Examples:

  • In the first paragraph ("Natural evolution and human scale") the development of other measures (however they are called) are compared with a "Darwinian evolution by natural selection". If one really wants to compare the development witch evolution, then the metric system is on the top of the evolution. It succeeded almost all over the world. People in countries with the metric system use most of the units even in private life (and don't know any other) although they don't have to. But it's nonsense to compare the development of measures with Darwin's evolution anyway. All measures had to be defined once, otherwise one could not measure with them.
  • My english is not good enough to understand the second paragraph ("High modernism and 'legibility'") completely. But it sounds somehow like "the French invented it, they wanted to rule the world with it, so don't use it if you don't want that they rule the world". I can tell you, people think as much of France if they use a meter, as they think of Germany if they use Fahrenheit. Additional there is a quote: "Telling a farmer only that he is leasing twenty acres of land is about as helpful as telling a scholar that he has bought six kilograms of books." from James C. Scott. Okay, nice, but what is an acre? Acre is not part of the metric system.
  • 3th paragraph ("Price inflation"): Companies might try to use a change in the system to increase prices. Simple solution: Law could force them to use both, the new and the old measure, for some years. But: "Those educated in the old measures, and able to make conversions, may spot this. But those educated since the abolition of customary measures will not necessarily do so." ??? I certainly don't know what my grand grandparents paid for a can of beans and how much was in it before the metric system was used. But what would it change when I knew? I'm sure they paid less than I do now, but prices are changing far more often than measure systems.
  • 4th paragraph ("Unit confusion"): Things one doesn't know could be confused. That applies to all changes of everything, it's no argument against the metric system itself. If one once knows, that "m" (milli) means 1/1000, "c" (centi) 1/100 and "k" (kilo) 1000, it's rather difficult to confuse "mm" with "cm". It's much less confusing than all the gallons and miles.
  • 5th paragraph ("Tradition"): The redefinitions of the metric units were very, very small and only important for exact scientific use. This cannot be compared with the large changes of other units (The mile ranges from ~1,000 m to ~11,000 m).
  • 6th paragraph ("Æsthetics"): Oh my god! Are you serious? I can't believe it. Here I wanted to place my comment to this paragraph. I'm glad that someone already (partially) did this in the last sub paragraph. I can't comment such nonsense seriously.
  • The rest seems rather okay. But some citations are missing. --84.60.205.127 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, the paragraph about high modernism is more about state-imposed standards than the French ruling the world. Traditional societies use locally useful units because they were defined with reference to what would be most useful to them. Government bureaucrats, by contrast, seek to impose uniform measurements on all because of the need for central administration. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It might be noted that such units as you find in the imperial and U.S. customary systems are not examples of "home-grown" measures and were no less government-imposed than any metric ones. Yes, I agree that the current title Anti-metrication invites bias. Jimp 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


These metric fanatics do make me laugh. Of course an article on opposition to the metric system will summarise the arguments of the opponents of that system. What else could it do? It is a sign of the dictatorial intolerance, characteristic of these zealots for global uniformity, that even in an article dealing with resistance to their ideas, they cannot bear to see the opinions of those who disagree with them displayed.

Look, none of this would arise if the partisans of the metric system would accept the continued use, in daily life, of customary units. Supporters of customary units do not seek to ban the metric system, or to prevent its being taught in schools or used in scientific measurement or international trade. On the contrary. They merely seek to be allowed to buy coffee or bananas by the pound, or milk by the pint, in private transactions, and to use measures of distance in their ordinary lives with which they are familiar. When pressed to provide arguments for this, they could simply say "It's none of your business" or "the secret of good government is to let men alone", both of which are not bad mottoes for free men and which would give any reasonable, well-mannered opponent pause for thought. But the more they are besieged and belaboured by arrogant functionaries, and the more they are threatened with criminal penalties for actions that are plainly not crimes, the more the defenders of custom (who until now had thought they were just living normal' honest lives that needed no defence) have been able to find good practical reasons, as well as good aesthetic ones, for the retention of the measures they like and know.

Out of the oafish intolerance of the metric dictators has been born a serious and coherent argument for the indefinite retention of customary measures. It is best summed up thus. The National Socialist concentration camps and the Soviet Gulag measured their fences in metres and their starvation rations by the gram. The nations which liberated and saved Europe from these tyrannies advanced by miles and inches, and measured their aid and charity in pints, pounds and ounces.

If you don't like the counter-attack, then abandon the attack.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(In accordance with Goodwin's law this discussion is now closed and the argument lost by the submitter of the previous post. Lklundin 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Not neutral: missing any Pro- arguments and showing only Anti- arguments

I second the excellent argument made in the preceding section by (84.60.205.127) Absolutely not neutral

I came to this page from the Metrication arguments and counter-arguments redirect and was surprised to see it's complete Anti- bias, without any pro-metrication arguments. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrication_arguments_and_counter-arguments&redirect=no

  • I believe this article should be re-written to include both pro- and anti- arguments as per the intent of that wiki link, which is linked in several places.

Eddyholland

Then again, this article is called anti-metrication, not pro-metrication, should it be renamed? OttoMäkelä (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wine bottling information wrong

Under the "Government Compulsion" heading, refering to the United States, there is the following sentence:

"Wine may also be bottled or packed in containers of 4 liters or larger if the containers are filled and labeled in quantities of even liters (4 liters, 6 liters, etc.)"

This statement is clearly incorrect, as every liquor store I have ever been in (this includes stores in a number of different US states) sells box-wine in 5 liter plastic bladders. I haven't edited this because I have no idea what the law actually states in this area. Grokmoo 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who put this in meant by "even litres" a whole number of litres, so that 5.5 litres would be disallowed but 7 litres would be OK. Perhaps the example just used some unfortunate numbers. In any case, if there is no citation it may be deleted. --Gerry Ashton 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SI units in everyday life

I would like to present the informal definitions of the SI-units, since from my point of view they provide an argument pro-metric system.

These definitions come in extremly handy when doing back-of-an-envelope calculations.

Examples of informal definitions of SI-units.

  • 1 meter is choosen such that the equator has a length of 40.000 km
  • 1 liter is a cubic decimeter
  • 1 kilogramm is the mass of 1 liter of water (at 0 Degree Celsius)
  • 1 Newton is the gravitation force acting on 100 gram
  • 1 Watt second is the energy needed to lift 1 kilogram up 1 meter, it's also the energy generated by an electric current of 1 ampere over a potential difference of 1 Volt lasting for 1 second

Note: these definitions are correct with a precision of less than 1%, which is usually sufficient in every-day life.

To illustrate my point, I like the following example:

A pump with 1 horse power can lift 1 cubic feet of water 1 yard within 1 second. What is it's efficiency?

A 1 kilo-Watt pump can lift one liter of water 1 meter within 1 second. The efficiency is of course 1 percent.

There is a place for this. Jimp 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] English phonology

Smerdis of Tlön removes my request for a reference and replaces it with a dictionary citation. Many thanks, Ihcoyc. However, for some reason I still feel unsatisfied. Am I just hard to please? Does the dictionary really support the claim of the article. The article states the following.

“ The corresponding traditional units, though not all of Anglo-Saxon etymology, have been in use long enough to conform thoroughly to regular English phonology. ”

The dictionary of Smerdis of Tlön would seem to claim that

“ the word "pound" existed in English before 900 AD, and has cognates in Old Norse and Old High German. Likewise, the words "inch" and "ounce" are attested in English before 1000 AD. ”

Okay, that would be long enough but the obvious implication is that the names of metric units do not conform. Time for me to break out a dictionary. Behold the IPA transcription ... I won't bother to transcribe it but you can either take my word for it or click on the link to see that the the word breaks no phonotactic rules of English. If you're up for it, you might like to do the same for all metric units but is that necessary? Of course the names of metric units conform to English phonology. To claim otherwise is absurd. Jimp 08:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are hard to please. :) And no: at least some of the metric units do not conform to the ordinary rules of written English. The graphemes litre or liter look like they ought to rhyme with mitre and nitre, and ought to be pronounced the same as lighter. The representation of [iː] obviously is following an alien convention. English typically borrows foreign spellings along with foreign words that use the Latin alphabet, yielding a raft of irregularities: pizza, czar, lingerie and so forth. The unusual writing convention of the metric word likewise marks it as a foreignism. I have tried to reword that section to make it clearer that what happens is that the spelling is irregular and marks the word as being not native English. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well done on the rewrite. It is a whole lot clearer ... more correct that way. After all what we really are talking about is not conforming to regular English phonology but conforming to regular English orthography. However, as far as I can make out, we're talking about the word litre/liter, which, yes, looks like it should be pronounced like lighter. I don't think the same can be said for other names of units ... Henry, Newton, Gray these look fine to me. As for the ~re endings as spelt outside of the U.S., this is pretty regular in Commonwealth English (albeit a Frenchification for the most part); then we've got acre which isn't aker in the U.S. So we have one word with its i plus magic e giving /iː/ like police ("borrowed" from Middle French in about 1530[1]) and machine (from Middle French 1549[2]). Jimp 00:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US law regarding metric-only and customary-only labels

This article says that most US states permit metric-only labels yet also says that it is a federal offense to label using only one system. Therefore, either most states have nullified the federal law (i.e., ignored it) and it is not generally enforced or there are exceptions for many products (for which most states have permitted metric-only labels).SteveSims 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The US law does not apply to all products. For those products that the law does not apply to, most states permit metric-only labels. --Gerry Ashton 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is in not neutral

Agreed, not a neutral entry. Bordering on nonsense in some parts:
"One major obstacle to metrication in the United States is its established system of title registration for real property. The metes and bounds descriptions of land in deeds and other title documents typically use English measures such as feet, rods, and furlongs. All of these systems of land measurement were in place well before there was any thought of converting any measurements in the United States to metric measurements."
Customary units are defined clearly in relation metric units. If X feet (or rods or furlongs) does not equal Y metres across all measurements in which the terms are used, then Z feet (or other customary unit) does not equal Z feet (or identical customary unit).skyskraper 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] no human scale?

the article states:

The metric system, on the other hand, employs only a small number of base units (7), none of which are based on the human body. As such, their selection was made without regard to human scale.

well, while walking, our speed is about 1 m/s, that means one meter is about one step long and one second is about the time we need to walk a step: what's more "human scaled" than this?! The Celsius degree is closely related to water, that's the most common thing in nature... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alejo2083 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't say that the first follows from the second. Consider how the metre was arrived at. First they took the circumference of the Earth (through the poles) and divided it up into grads. This gives you 100 km. Why, then divide this by 100000 for your base unit? Perhaps this figure was chosen with regard to human scale. Okay, now we've got a metre but drink a cubic metre of beer and you'll be more than just drunk ... so how about we drink a cubic decilitre? There you have it: a litre. And if a litre ain't human scale then what of a quart? Of course, the litre is not an SI base unit but it was used for the original concept of the kilogram, quite a human scale unit (a bit over two pounds). How about temperature? Celsius was originally based on the melting and boiling points of water ... plain fresh water not water too salty to drink. What could be more human-scale than this? Certainly not Fahrenheit with it's zero at frigid -18°C odd. Of course, the base unit is the kelvin but the use of this is pretty much restricted to science & technology. As for time, well, the base unit is the second ... a 60th of a 60th of a 24th of a day, nothing unhuman here. And what's left? There's the mole, the candela and the ampere; there are not imperial/US equivalents for these, they are technical/scientific units would you really expect human scales here? But look more closely ampere is defined as that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10–7 newton per metre of length. Why 10–7? Amps and volts are normal-size units for dealing with in daily applications e.g. s small normal battery is about 1.5 V, mains power is typically 100 to 250 V. The candela traces back to the brightness of a candel (hence its name). So making selection of units with regard to human scale doesn't mean that you have to base the unit specifically on the human body. Jimp 06:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What a piece of junk!

This is the type of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name. What a piece of junk! Delete!! Sean O'Casaidhe 10:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Unit confusion?

I think that this section should be deleted as it can't be substantiated: By design, the names of metric units use prefixes (such as milli- and centi-), which may look similar, and may confuse people unfamiliar with the system (e.g. mm and cm).. How could centimeter be confused with millimeter? centi and milli are completely different. Unit confusion is more prone outside the metric system than inside it, since the same unit is used to depict different amounts on some non-metric systems. Unit confusion is an argument in favor rather than against metrication. Loudenvier 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but, could somebody on the anti-metrication field give their opinion? Luiscolorado 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really in either camp, but deci- and deca- are definitely confusable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a good thing, then, that they're hardly ever used. There's the decibel. Jɪmp 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is deci and deca more confusing than say inch and ounce?Remkos (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And there is much more confusion to point out in the Imperial system.

  • A fluid ounce of water (or whatever) does not weigh one ounce.
  • One ounce of gold does not way the same as one ounce of silver. Really, and I'm not talking about volumes here!
  • Pressure of blood is measured in mmHg, air pressure is measured in inchHg, but tire pressure is measured in psi. So if there is so much "natural feeling" to the Imperial units, then why measure pressure in three different units depending on its use?Remkos (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move back to Metrication arguments and counter-arguments

At 10:38, 31 January 2006 User:Seabhcan moved Metrication arguments and counter-arguments to Anti-metrication stating "Title is overly long. Current article 'Anti-metrication' redirects to 'Metrication'." I propose we move it back. Yes, that title was overly long but, I believe, better described the purpose of the article. The current title is inherantly biased and thus invites biased edits. Jɪmp 07:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, the article is almost entirely about anti-metrication. A "pro and anti" article would have even bigger problems with POV and OR. Let it stand. --Red King 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Liberia & Burma

The article had stated as follows.

“ only the United States of America, Liberia and Myanmar (Burma) continue to use their traditional measurement systems to any great extent ”

I had added {{fact}}s to this due to the lack of any source backing the claim up. These were removed by User:Zafiroblue05 who provided this reference. However, the "reference" does in no way support the specific claim that had been made i.e. it makes no mention of the use of traditional measurement systems in Liberia nor Burma. I have changed the wording of the article to fit what the reference actually does say i.e.

“ the only other countries that have not officially adopted the metric system are Liberia (in western Africa) and Burma (also known as Myanmar, in Southeast Asia) ”

Jɪmp 08:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added reference to CIA World Fact Book - Appendix G - Weights and Measures where they officially declare (as of Sept. 6, 2007) that
“ "At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry." ”
--Bluewind (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Boy oh boy

This article is a mess. Any suggestions for clearing it up? A lot of it needs to be referenced if it is to be kept. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll start whittling away some of the personal reflections etc in 24 hours. --John 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you did, but I've had another deep pruning. But I suppose it's a clash of values! expecting wikipedia to stick to verifiable facts or notably cited statements is an example of the Pure Reason that is being objected to. A little honesty like "it's different, it's not what I grew up with, I don't like it" is needed. I've seen French artisans declare "across finger tips - that's 10cm", or "forefinger to thumb, that's 20cm". A bucket is 10 litres, because that's how they are made. A bed is 2 metres - long enough for 95% of modern men to lie straight. Beer comes in 25cl, 33cl, 50cl (or if you are at Oktoberfest, a one litre stein). But now I'm editorialising so I'll stop. But at least I've kept it to the talk page. --Red King 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cans

Since the comparable European metric size for cans would see a 7% decrease in quantity (12 oz = 355 ml vs. 330 ml) if such a conversion occurred, it would likely encounter resistance from consumers.

I removed the above as it's mostly a BS example and was unsourced. There is no reason why 330 ml is more naturally metric then 355 ml. 330ml is close to 1/3 of a litre but that's about it. Indeed in New Zealand and Malaysia these cans are generally sold as 355 ml cans, no mention of fluid ounces. I'm presuming that cans in the US are sold as 12 ounces rather then 355 ml cans. Nil Einne 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In Australia cans are 375 ml a nice round 3/8 of a litre and a 5.6% increase. Jɪmp 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) ... "Increase", that is, from 335 ml (~12 US fl oz) which was never a standard size in Australia. Jɪmp 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Best example?

An example of this is when liquor started to no longer be sold in fifths of a (U.S. fluid) gallon (0.2 gal, about 757 ml), but instead in the international standard (750 ml, about 0.198 gal), and the price remained the same.

Is this really the best example of a metric price 'increase'? The quantity change is less then 1%. Surely there's a better example then this? Nil Einne 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially as it can just as easily be justified as a substitute for an inflation-linked price increase for the same quantity. --Red King 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a counter-argument the other day, in that the more common sizes, ones with nice round numbers you're likely to actually encounter in everyday life, the metric sizes are a little more than their closest U.S./imperial sizes (1 meter > 1 yard, 1 liter > 1 quart, half a kilogram > 1 pound). The example cited above seems a bit arbitrary... I don't doubt that given the inclination to do so, one could find a myriad of examples of "a⁄b of imperial unit X is slightly more than c⁄d metric unit Y"... but like I said, most of the simple, everyday, non-compound-fraction measures are bigger in metric than in US/imperial. -- Vystrix Nexoth 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me... John Duncan 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] is this article in dispute anymore?

because looking at the list of recent edits, it doesn't seem like it. furthermore, to my reading, the article seems about right re: neutrality - most of it is straightforward & factual. unless someone objects i'll remove the neutrality dispute tag sometime over the next whenever. Mjharrison (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is still disputed. One reason for the dispute is the reliance on an anti-metric activist group (the British Weights and Measures Association) and an anti-metric author (Warwick Cairns) as sources. An additional reason for dispute is the paragraph that begins "One major obstacle to metrication in the United States is its established system of title registration for real property." This paragraph is false and unsourced.
I could go on, but I won't. I consider this article broken beyond repair and not worth improving. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Lklundin (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It certainly still needs a lot of work, both tidying the layout and correcting false information, but I agree that it is probably not worth the effort. Anyone volunteering? Dbfirs 09:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Article needs to be completely rewritten, maybe as "Metrication Controversy". This article is full of POV and factually unfounded or wrong statements.Remkos (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incredibly POV and naive

I can't help it, but I feel that this was written by an Imperial units fanatic or advocate, and that the article is trying to suggest between the lines that there's some kind of global conspiracy trying to brainwash everyone into SI and that SI isn't really all that superior to Imperial measures. I would never ever have problem with this article (I think having an article on those people that oppose SI and their views is important), if it weren't so naive. Most of the anti-SI claims made in this article sound like the author hasn't even understood how metric units work. The most ridiculous parts were:

  • The reality, however, is more complicated. Guyana, for example, has officially adopted the metric system every three to five years, on average, since 1981, each time with little success. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, continue to use some imperial units in both official and everyday usage, often in combination with the equivalent metric units. Certain measurements remain exclusively imperial, for example, UK road signs almost exclusively give distances in miles and yards. - I don't think it's really all that objective to say the world isn't really using SI all that much and it's not that widespread and then giving one "example" (Guyana). "Other countries, such as the UK" is also misleading, as it only lists UK but suggests that there are many other countries doing similarly.
  • This has led, however, to a system where the standard official units of length: the metre and the millimetre, capacity: litre and millilitre, and weight: kilogram and gram, are either too large or too small to be conveniently usable or memorable for many purposes. - This part claims that I either have to measure in litres or millilitres when measuring capacity even though the most commonly used in e.g. cooking is decilitre. Besides, the "standard official units" are metre and kilogram, litre is just a synonym for 1dm3. People using SI units have a horde of scales to use in powers of 10 with the units, so why would they have trouble choosing the most convenient measure for their desired purpose? And why don't people have trouble visualizing 250ml, 5l, 1m3 and 3000mm if the SI is so inhuman and artificial?
  • Anyone who has struggled to visualize the actual size of a 220mm envelope or a 13mm nail (8.7 inches and half an inch respectively,) will recognize this. - Excuse me? Hasn't this author noticed that even if the SI units would be highly artificial, people have a tendency to create analogs in their minds to visualize different things. For example, I know that 1cm is roughly the length of my index finger nail, I know that 220 is 1cm longer than the shorter side of an A4 paper, almost all coffee cups are 2dl so I can easily estimate 200ml, 100ml etc, I know that 1 litre of milk weighs roughly 1 kilogram etc... How can this author argument that visualizing 8.7 inches would be so much easier? I would like to hear that.
  • The instruction to place 100 ml of liquid into a bowl without an official measure would also flummox many. - I bet it would be easier than to place 1 gill of water into a bowl without an official measure. Don't be so subjetive in your unreferenced guesses of what could be hard for people to grasp.
  • Similarly defenders of the fahrenheit scale argue that it was designed specifically for the purpose of weather-measurement. The gradations between 0 and 100 degrees reflect actual weather extremes. Therefore the scale provides an easy and accessible reference for the varying temperature ranges likely to be encountered. - Yes, I can clearly see how much easier it is to visualize the temperature between freezing and boilingpoints of 32 - 212 instead of 0 - 100. Btw, I encounter close to 100°C every day when I boil some tea or cook spaghetti and -18C° when opening the freezer. Also, Celsius aligns with Kelvin, the unit of science, helping students deal with extremely low/high temperatures, Fahrenheit does not as a messy conversion is always needed.
  • Here the article completely contradicts itself. First it says that Imperial units are based on human scale. But that is definitely not true for the Fahrenheit, which is based on the freezing temperature of water saturated with sea salt (0°F), and puts 180°F between freezing distilled water (32°F) and boiling water (212°F). Believe it or not, that was how Fahrenheit was defined. The 0-100°F range is purely coincidental. And who says that the human-based range should be 0-100 and not say -50 to +50? Remkos (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Therefore, saying that a temperature is in the "sixties" fahrenheit gives a useful level of information, but saying that a temperature is in the "tens" celsius covers too great a range for the statement to be of much practical use. - I don't understand this. Just because people in the Imperial world like to say "fifties" or "sixties" doesn't mean it's the most logical and intuitive way of telling the temperature, especially in the metric world. I and my friends simply say the actual degree when referring to temperature and everybody immediately understands how hot/cold it is, simply because it's easy for us to grasp the scope of the celsius scale.
  • Again, here the article contradicts itself. Saying the temperature is "in the sixties" gives a range of about 5°C, whereas saying the temperature is around 18°C is more specific. Is it really more "natural" to talk about "in the sixties", "in the lower sixties", "in the uppers sixties", etc? Remkos (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thus, it is claimed, they have grown in a way that the metric system, with its rigid systemization, could not. - Yeah, everyone can claim whatever they like. Besides this is foul language "it is claimed" - by whom? Where are the sources? The metric system doesn't need evolving, it evolved out of the inadequate and complicated "natural" systems and it is usable, precise and practical enough for everyday and scientific usage. That's why it doesn't need "further evolvement". The scientific community would hang themselves if they had to change measures all the time and try to remember how much a 1960's furthwad of a finglegig was compared to the modern pinthog of squakgletod. That's why SI is so much more relaxed.
  • Pre-metrication there was significant variation between units. - As I said above. Do we really want to go back to those days? "How much is a pint today?"
  • The adoption of metric measures in shops, especially in supermarkets, can provide an opportunity for traders to increase prices covertly. - Similarly, if the shops suddenly introduced Imperial units in Finland, we would be swindled for years, as people would have horrible problems adjusing to the illogical properties of the Imperial system. We were swindled when the Euro currency was introduced to replace the finnish mark. So: what exactly does this sentence say that really goes against only the SI system and not every change of a measuring system?
  • An example of this is in the United States, when liquor started to be sold in the international standard (750 ml, about 0.198 gal) instead of in fifths of a (U.S. fluid) gallon (0.2 gal, about 757 ml) and the price remained the same. - Either you're an incredible nitpicker or don't know how measly amount 7ml is. You can barely even notice the difference if the bottles are similar in shape. Besides, there is always ~1% variation in the amount of liquid in almost any bottle due to the precision of the machines filling them.
  • Since the units are multiples of a single base unit, they are less memorable than many non-metric units. Hence, sometimes fatal, mistakes can be made between millilitres and centilitres, grams and milligrams. - The idiocy of this text makes me almost want to shout in caps, but I try to calm down. Nobody that uses the metric system will ever mix grams and milligrams - that's a thousandfold error! Words like "milli" "kilo" "centi" "mega" etc. are burned so deeply into our intuition that it's simply not possible. Nobody mixes metres and kilometres. Don't be ridiculous.
  • some countries, like the United States, have a preference to deal with whole numbers, or use fractions (e.g., ⅞ inches), to avoid the use of decimals fractions (e.g., 0.825). This allows for more accurate calculations, since there are no precision losses due to the lack of decimals to store values. - Oh please! So as an SI system user I'm prohibited from using 7/8 litres, 1/2 kilometres or 3 and 2/3 m2? The news is: we can use both. I'm pretty sure SI users have no problem using fractions but Imperial users have this fear of decimal numbers they just can't overcome.
  • Dividing by three is simple in a base twelve system but difficult with a base ten system. - I'd say they're equally "difficult". If you're claiming otherwise you haven't really mastered the basic calculus. Perhaps it is the issue here: you can't think outside your 12/16 (whichever fraction) system, but SI users can calculate in both decimal and fractional and still make sense of the answer. 10/3 is either 1/3 or 0,333... and they're both equally valid styles of representing the value.
  • you have to use one hundred to avoid getting a fraction - I don't understand why we should avoid getting fractions. Mathematics is a broad area and none of it should be an area to be afraid of. The more you understand about math the less you're afraid of getting irrational numbers as answers or using decimals and complex numbers.
  • Metrication as lead to many of these sizes being expresssed as crude conversions to millimetres, expressed to the nearest millimetre. Hence plywood which was sold as 1/2inch (i.e. 12.7mm) thick is now sold as 13mm thick plywood. - That's not the fault of metric system, it's the fault of people that label 12,7mm plywood as being 13mm thick. Also, 0,3mm is such a small measure that it easily falls within the normal humidity expansion/contraction of wood which, in 99% of cases doesn't really matter in construction. I haven't seen 12,7mm plywood being constantly sold as 13mm, but I've seen 10mm MDF being sold with +-0,3mm tolerance while still being exactly 10mm thick.
  • It should also be mentioned that so-called "two by fours" sold all over the world, are in fact not even close to 2 by 4 inches. This is because they are sanded first. So there is also nothing to prefer in the Imperial system. Remkos (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm sick and tired of these childish arguments against SI system. It sounds similar to the young earth creationist claims that the majority of scientists really love young earth theories but an evil small conspiracy of bad scientists keeps the world brainwashed in favor of evolution. I feel like both of the groups completely lack the understanding of the subject they're criticizing. In this case I feel like the critics of SI system don't understand how SI works or how it's used and why it's so logical. Wikipedia says to be bold with edits - so I'd suggest someone to do a major cleanup on this article (I really don't have the patience to search and source anti-metric claims for a proper article). If nobody takes up the job and it's let to rot in its current form, I suggest deletion of this article as it doesn't serve its purpose. --piksi (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Neutrality and Accurancy!

28 April 2008 - This arcticle shows bias to the Metric Argument, using language intended to ridicule those opposed to metrication. It also contains inaccuracies that I have attempted to correct, in doing so I was politely threatened. If this is the standard of Wikipedia it will NOT be much of a reference source for very long!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.8.23 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The complete opposite: this article is using flawed "arguments" trying to promote Imperial units over metric ones. Actually, now after looking through your contributions I see that most of them fall into the same category I've criticized on this talk page (above). Your writing on the modular system was a mess as imho it fails to tell how the common EU module is inferior to your Imperial module system: it only suggests that the euromodule was crudely derived from the imperial version and thus is a "cheap copy". So, why don't you stop sobbing, register and contribute something meaningful to Wikipedia instead of making POV contributions and then complaining when they don't get accepted right away? --piksi (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this argument, but the title of the article is Anti-metrication, so surely it is fair to represent the view of the many people who oppose metrication, provided that the view is balanced and does not make false claims. We have an article on Metrication which can fairly put forward the advantages of metric units (though, of course, both articles must be balanced and referenced). Perhaps we can work to improve both. Should we have links between the two? Dbfirs 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've said in my other post, I feel it's imperative that both sides of the issue are represented. This article should be a part of Wikipedia, but not in its current form. Its problem is not that opposing views are represented, but 'how the views are represented: as facts while most of them currently are highly subjective viewpoints based on "gut-feelings" instead of arguments. I suggest you read my first comment on the current anti-metrication arguments.
If the only arguments against metrication are the ones now presented in the article, it should simply state "People seem to oppose metrication because they are against a change in the status quo, loss of familiar ways and the trouble they would have to go through in learning a completely new measuring system. Most of the criticism is sentimental and tied to nationalistic feelings opposing the forced introduction of a 'foreign' system". I sure as heck understand where those feelings come from, I would have similar strong feelings if someone tried to force Imperial system in Finland. Measuring is a part of the national psyche and identity, especially because it's tied closely to language and the way of perceiving things. So, summa summarum, the thing that bothers me is that there seems to be no real facts supporting the evidence that some system would be superior to SI - still this article claims there are. Thus, the article should represent the subject from a different perspective. --piksi (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Metrication is about the the process itself. That article should mention the pros and cons of metrication in breif. This is the article in which to focus on them. The links between them are in order. The article used to have a more neutral title. I've proposed moving it back. A more balanced title could be a step towards a more balanced article. The article as it stands is very unbalanced and lacking in support or substance. JIMp talk·cont 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know where to start correcting this article, I wish there would be someone knowing more about the anti-metric "movement" and it's arguments who could write a balanced article. I think it's important for this article to mention properly the social, political, cultural and economical reasons behind the opposition to metrication and not try to argue over the superiority of anti-metrication. That way the article could still make its point and still be a balanced and interesting view on the reasons behind the subject. --piksi (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Piksi's last comment. I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to re-write it, but if a few of us work at it, perhaps we can turn it into a valid article? Dbfirs 08:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree too. That way we can have citable statements like "The anti-metrication movement argues...", because it is a matter of record that they've said X, and we don't have to get bogged down in debates as to whether or not X is objectively true. Look at Health freedom movement as a for example. --Red King (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the first thing to do is to rename the article. If we are presenting both sides of the issue, it is weird to have the article named "anti-metrication". It should be "metrication controversy", or something similar. Ratfox (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Metrication controversy sounds ok. If Dbfirs, Jimp and Red King agree too, I'll move this page under that title after which we can start cleaning the mess up. --piksi (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion! Go ahead! Dbfirs 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Piksi, Dbfirs, Ratfox, and others on the talk page. It seems that there are a fair amount of sensibly thinking people out here on the talk page that do know the SI as well as the imperial units, and seem to know also a fair amount about the debate. Presenting the debate under the name "Metric Controversy" in a neutral fashion, would be useful to Wikipedia. I've already tried some edits, but it usually resulted in me converting a anti-metric argument into a pro-metric argument. This was not by design, but merely because most of the arguments presented here are unfounded or POV, like the "unit confusion" that would exist between "mm" and "cm". When written by an metric opponent with no sound knowledge of the metric system, this article is getting nowhere, nor when it would be written by a metric proponent with no US background knowledge. There are many arguments against metrication in the US, and they should be represented. Yet they should be founded, or even disputed in a fair manner. The current article just breathes POV and invites editing wars. Remkos (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to have drifted into a pro-metric one, even in the area labelled anti-metric arguments. This is an article about a controversy, and should fairly reflect the arguments of both sides. Xandar (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, the article contains a fair amount of anti-metric arguments even now. If you would just read what we have discussed above you would understand that we want to change the style of the article from "Metrication is bad" into "Anti-metrication movement SAYS metrication is bad". There's a big difference between presenting anti-metrication opinions as facts and presenting them as opinions from people opposing metrication. We are doing a major cleanup for the article in the sake of making it non-POV, so bear with the unfinished article for a while. --piksi (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fahrenheit "citation needed", "dubious"

I've tagged the statements about Fahrenheit as dubious because none of the sourced histories at the article Fahrenheit support it. The assertion about "range of temperatures encountered" is highly WP:LPOV - there are few places on earth where these are the minima and maxima. The text here clearly offends WP:OR and needs good citations if it is to stand. NB A citation of a claim made by a notable pro-fahrenheit organisation is perfectly acceptable and if provided, the text could stand as a valid record of that opinion. What is not acceptable is for individual editors to post their own opinions. --Red King (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "dubious" tag becuause I've realised that I was forgetting the point of the article. It is certainly not dubious that there are those who make such claims. The fact that the claims are erroneous does not change the fact (when cited) that the claims are made. --Red King (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)