Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Scottish education system sources

I found this 2000 document for Standard Grade maths.

p. 34, in the section on "measure and shape"

In some contexts it will be more realistic to use contemporary imperial units so that pupils will become familiar with those imperial units that are still in common use, eg miles, to express the distance between towns. However, the emphasis in measurement activities should be on metric units and their interrelationships.

p. 24, dealing with ability to read instruments, to get a middling "general level" grade students need to be able to:

read off values on scales in measuring instruments...[including] everyday instruments including those with imperial scales;...

p. 60 (final) page on mathematical vocabulary for measurment it lists metric units of measurement and says

The following units of measurement (the list of metrical units) and their abbreviations are assumed. Familiarity with the language of the more common Imperial measurements is assumed.

As this is a primary source, I think only the page 34 material is usable; the rest is too vague for us to cite or paraphrase (eg what does "assumed" mean? That they'll be tested on it? That they'll not be taught it?). I don't know if there is a more recent document. The whole system is apparently being overhauled for 2014.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the following pages are also of importance:

Para 5.1.3 (pg 33)

• "In some contexts it will be more realistic to use contemporary imperial units so that pupils will become familiar with those imperial units that are still in common use, eg miles, to express the distance between towns. However, the emphasis in measurement activities should be on metric units and their interrelationships."

Para 5.2.3 Content Checklist

• Number: Page (pg 36/37)
• Measure: Page 39

In particular, it should be noted that although provision is made for handling decimal numbers, percentages and the like, no provision is made for handling the numbers that have non-decimal subdivisions (eg feet and inches). If one consults classical references on handling numbes, one will see that considerable space is devoted to this topic. I have easy access to three such references - Encyclopeadia Britannica (1772) which is on my bookshelf, a book in Dutch (1826) and one in German (1842). The latter two are available on-line. Speaking from my own experience (I completed my formal education before the advent of metircation), a large amount of time was devoted to handling quantities with non-decimal subdivions and the references that I have mentioned illustrate what was still happening in the 1950's and 1960's. If anybody reading this learnt how to add, subtract, multiply and divide pounds, shillings and pence or pounds and ounces or gallon, quarts and pints or yards, feet and inches and many more combinations will know what I meant. If you never had this experience, ask somebody a little older that yourself to see what was involved. It is inconceivable that this was hidden in the depths of the Scottish syllabus (or the English syllabus - cited in the artcile) or the Northern Irelands syllabus (which I have found). I have not yet looked for the Welsh syllabus. I, like many thousands of other Wikipedians, do have the experience of having helped my own children with their homework and comparing their syllabus with my own.

If you wish to make reference to the phrase "Familiarity with the language of the more common Imperial measurements is assumed", why not quote it verbatim. Finally, just refering to page 34 and disregarding the rest is nothing more than cherry-picking - either enusre that you properly capture the meaning of the whole document or don't use it. I think that as far as metric units vs imperial units, the paragraph that I extracted from page 33 sums the situation up.

Martinvl (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you agree with me in saying that the paragraph on p. 34 is the only usable material. Great. Changes over time to classroom practice would be very important to this article - arguably more so than the current state of play. Do you have any RS material about changes in classroom practice? (recollections by anonymous editors are not RS. Funnily enough, I had an enterprising primary school teacher (a maths graduate) who had a friend and me mess around not only with imperial (including cubits and rods, poles and perches), but also invented measuring systems (1 cubit=2 faces=28 thumbs or something like that) as a way of getting a handle on non-decimal systems of counting. And that was after metrication. That's not RS either.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Which part of my statement "Finally, just refering to page 34 and disregarding the rest is nothing more than cherry-picking" do you not understand? Martinvl (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It was your other statement that led me to conclude you were agreeing with me: " either enusre that you properly capture the meaning of the whole document or don't use it. I think that as far as metric units vs imperial units, the paragraph that I extracted from page 33 sums the situation up." The paragraph you "extracted from page 33" is actually from page 34 (the section starts on page 33), and was the same one I had originally posted and which I had concluded was suitable for inclusion. I admit I couldn't work out the contradiction between you accusing me of cherry-picking a paragraph that you also thought was a fair summary of the situation, but I decided to pass over it in the hope that we were actually agreeing on something. Quite honestly, I have no idea what the difference between what you and I think should be included is. We even quoted the same text.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think an appolgy from me is required in this instance - though the error arose from you quoting the PDF page number and me looking the printed page number (The PDF file lists the cover page as page 1). Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Asda report - 12 October update

We have gone round and round in circle for too long.

I have again put the Asda report back into context and reduced the number of times that it was mentioned from three to one. I now place on formal record that I will regard any reversion of my changes or the removal of the Which comments while retaining the Asda statements at POV. Martinvl (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You cannot insist on making changes which more editors than you one your lonesome oppose. You're really cutting things fine here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the material about the Asda survey being doubted by Which?, as only Martinvl reads it like that (and more than him don't), and also the incorrect claim that Medical News condemned Tesco's policy as a "confusing pricing tactic". It was a report of the Which? report condemning things, and that particular sentence referred to supermarkets in general, not Tesco. (The next, illustrative, sentence is about Sainsbury's, for example.). Martinvl, there's clearly a dispute. This is the third time you've tried to edit during the dispute without any attempt to build a consensus on the talkpage. I have not reinserted the material about Asda in the lede, as I have already said it should be replaced by reference to polling and to more general comments about supermarkets.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please revisit the Which? article and explain how the text that you reinstated in this article squares up with the Which? subtitle Is buying by weight going out of fashion? to which the author write the answer I’d even take it a step further and say there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping. Most fruit and veg is pre-packed in supermarkets nowadays so we don’t have a clue what it weights..

In other words, you have taken the Asda statement out of context: all I have done is to put it back into context - since Which? is the reliable source, it is the Which? article that must be reported, not the Asda statement. This is exactly what I have done. Martinvl (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Two editors have disagree with your interpretation of that source. We do not see any doubt being cast on the survey (nor support either). What is being reported is Asda's statement and actions. The journalist's opinion is not the context for the survey - I find this idea really quite surreal, as if Asda did a survey in response to this journalist's views(!). We have the information in other reliable sources too, which don't have the same commentary. I note that, whatever the interpretation, you're very keen to insert the opinion of a single journalist based on personal impression, but are willing to edit policy to keep out well-regarded polling companies as RS. Interesting.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Martinvl, your POV on the Which?/Asda material has been rejected in discussion, please accept that. You can try again to convince us, or drop it altogether, but please don't just push it into the article regardless - and please avoid the WP:OWN overtones. -- de Facto (talk). 13:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reported Martinvl to WP:ANI/3RR for this latest revert.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to establish consensus

Martinvl's reinsertion of his interpretation of two articles makes one paragraph in the retail section read like this:

Tesco's practice in the first few years of the millenium of giving dominance to imperial units based in its assertion in 2000 that 90% of its customers used such units,BBC link was identified in a 2004 Which? magazine report as a possible means of appearing cheaper than its rivals and condemned by Medical News Today as a "confusing pricing tactic".MNT link Which? magazine also questioned the validity of a survey conducted in 2011 by Asda who claimed that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units by asserting that buying [fresh produce] by weight was "going out of fashion".Which? link

I would like to replace that text because it does not represent the sources. In particular it invents criticisms or inflates them in a manner not justified by the sourcing. How about this:

In June 2011 the Asda supermarket chain stated that consumer research had shown that 70% of their customers found metric confusing and would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units. As a result, they would begin experimenting with selling certain produce in round imperial measures again.Which? linkThe Grocer link In 2000, the Tesco supermarket chain began selling produce in imperial, stating that their survey of 1,000 customers had shown that 90% of their customers "still used imperial measures in their heads".BBC link Tesco's use of imperial units over metric, with prices per pound displayed more prominently that those per kilo, was identified in a 2004 Which? magazine report as a possible means of appearing cheaper than its rivals.MNT link

The detailed rationale: the current version misrepresents Medical News Today. MNT does not "condemn" Tesco for anything. MNT is reporting Which?'s criticisms. Reporting criticism is not joining in the criticism. Moreover, the "confusing pricing tactic" refers to supermarkets in general, not to Tesco in particular, and to tactics in general, not those related specifically to the use of imperial. The article does indeed contain direct criticism of Tesco (hell, I found the source and inserted it myself), but the current version gives the impression that there are two publications independently and very severely criticising Tesco in particular. The source simply doesn't support this.

The second problem is the continuing one of the misrepresentation of the 2011 Which? report on the Asda survey. To put it simply: the Which? article does not question the validity of the survey. It doesn't endorse the survey either. It reports it. We also have other sources reporting it, which is why I've added the link to The Grocer for good measure. The Which? journalist's personal impressions are just that - that she personally thinks young people (not all people) don't understand imperial or care about weight. As Martinvl has helpfully pointed out, Asda shoppers are over-represented by people from lower socio-economic groupings, the kinds of people who, unlike the journalist, don't shop at farmer's markets, take half-year career breaks to travel round Asia, write theatre reviews or get their work experience at Harper's & Queen. Her personal impressions would not be a good authority for Asda customer shopping preferences; most importantly for Wikipedia, she does not claim them to be.

I've tried to make the attribution of the surveys as clear as possible, so as not to give the impression that we treat either poll with particular credibility. So, your thoughts, people?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lets go back to the beginning. In order to simplify things, I have extracted the Which? article and cut it down until only the bold text and the most crucial sentences remained. The rest of the article backs up what was wriotten previously. Here it is:

Now lets go to the artcile Secondary source (which is referenced directly from WP:RS); there we find the text "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". Looking at the above text, the analysis is "there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping" which implicitly questions the Asda statement.

Sorting this out determines the position and handling of the Tesco reference. Martinvl (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I profoundly disagree with your interpretation of the article. You appear to be cherry-picking from it to promote one particular POV. -- de Facto (talk). 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. The difference in standards of evidence Martinvl continues to apply to material that does or does not promote a particular POV (pro-metric, anti-imperial) is astonishing. A non-supermarket shopping middle-class journalist's explicitly personal impression ("I'd even take it a step further...") is held to be good sourcing for the opinions of a whole age-group (!) when earlier, he deemed opinion polls conducted by respectable polling firms so inherently unreliable he tried to edit RS policy (unannounced to the rest of us) to keep them out of this article. Martinvl, if you genuinely want to take part in building consensus, you have to show consistency in how you handle sources - and that means also you can't rule out multiple national publications but rule in your wife's trips down to the shops, as you did previously. Editors may differ somewhat in their general standards of evidence, but at least if we are all consistent, we can try to find common ground with each other on what can be good content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, I certainly believe that Martinvl's text isn't NPOV and doesn't reflect the sources, and so should be replaced as soon as possible. Your draft is pitched about right. I'd support inserting that as it stands - perhaps putting the date of the Tesco case into context by mentioning the law change in January 2000. Like this perhaps:

In 2000, following the introduction of legislation mandating the use of metric units for the sale of most goods, the Tesco supermarket chain began selling produce in imperial, stating that their survey of 1,000 customers had shown that 90% of them "still used imperial measures in their heads".

-- de Facto (talk). 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, we need more detail about the 2000 legislation in general. I think it should be dealt with in a previous sentence or sentences of its own. Would you be OK putting in my suggestion as is and then hashing out some more information about 2000 in general?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go with that. -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK - I've put it in, with a couple of tweaks (mainly explaining the Which? report in 2004 was an investigation into supermarket pricing tactics). The ANI advice seemed to be that the previous content was there by dint of an edit war and added against consensus: the new version doesn't really differ from what had been there previous to the war. I hope we don't have another war on this and use dispute resolution if any editors object.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

An open invitation to User:DeFacto and User:VsevolodKrolikov

I still disagree with the statements relating to the Asda survey and believe that the only way forward is to ask for mediation. A prerequisite for mediation is that we have an agreed statement as to what the nature of the dispute is. I propose that we use the follwoing text:

A dispute has arisen as to which text best reflects this source in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. All editors are agreed that Which? is a reliable source.

• User:DeFacto and User:VsevolodKrolikov believe that this text best reflects the source:

Following the results of a survey of their customers in early 2011 - which concluded that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units - the Asda supermarket chain are experimenting with selling produce in round imperial measures again.

• User:Martinvl has questioned whether this source is really approriate for the article, insisting that if it is, then it is best reflected by the text:

Which? magazine also questioned the validity of a survey conducted in 2011 by Asda who claimed that 70% of their customers would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units by asserting that buying [fresh produce] by weight was "going out of fashion".

As can be seen, these two summaries present diametrically opposing views as to what should be written in Wikipedia.

I invite you to agree this text so that I can initiate mediation. Martinvl (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a fair summary to me. Where were you thinking of taking the matter up? RSN? Or are you still interested in having sanctions against us for interpreting the source differently?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember me? I retired from discussing this issue due to an inability to get certain editors to accept in any way at all some perfectly valid points I was making. If it's going to mediation, I would like my perspective included. In VERY simply terms it is that mentioning claimed precise numeric results of surveys of which we know absolutely no details is inappropriate, no matter how reliable a source is normally regarded as being. I have presented this view in considerable detail over recent weeks, and don't want have to repeat myself again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If your problem is with the general use of opinion polls, the feedback on RSN and at Identifying Reliable Sources was pretty clear that opinion polls published by reputable polling organisations are RS. If your problem is with reporting Tesco's and Asda's claims, properly attributed so as not to give them unjustifiable credibility or too much weight, the feedback in both places was pretty much the same - if these claims are reported in reliable sources, then the content is reliably sourced, so long as we don't put too much weight on them as surveys. You appeared to agree with this approach at RSN. (You'll notice that the Asda survey is not in the lede anymore, as it has been long agreed that this survey should not be used to portray general public opinion.) Martinvl has suggested a very specific issue to resolve, which is a productive way of going about things. Are you challenging the feedback about opinion polling by reputable companies, or have you changed your mind on the fully attributed mention of Tesco's and Asda's stated reasons for changing pricing policy? What kind of mediation were you thinking of?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of going to the WP:Mediation Cabal. Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mediation cabal is usually for more complex cases (and I think it takes a month, too). Wouldn't the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard be better for the disagreement as described above?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the time to waste on debating matters with intransigent editors, or with editors with inadequate appreciation of the dangers of reporting poll results when we do not know the question(s) asked, who was asked, and in what context. Poll results without such details are meaningless, no matter who reports them. It's no accident that we have the old saying "There are lies, damned lies,and statistics." HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, if you're not interested in interacting with editors with whom you are in a dispute, or indeed those brought in to advise on a dispute (who have disagreed with your view on polls), you're not going make much headway in Wikipedia dispute resolution processes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi agree with User:HiLo48's sentiments. We have been aroud the trees many times on this one which I why I want to go to MedCab. Martinvl (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If you agree with HiLo48's sentiments, then your summary above is inadequate. HiLo48 seems to want to discuss the inclusion of any and all statistics in the article - which would be more complex and thus appropriate to MedCab. Could you work something out between you (perhaps on a user subpage) and see then if other people agree with it? (I say "seems", because HiLo48 doesn't want to clarify his current position following the feedback we received).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NO!! A thousand times NO!!!! Can you not read? It was the frustration of having to repeat myself time and time again which finally led me to moving away from this thread for a while. I DID NOT say I wasn't interested. I said "I do not have the time." That doesn't make my perspective any less important. Decisions on Wikipedia discussions should never be made based on sheer volume of garbage posted by people with nothing better to do. I now rest my case, and shall again move on to other aspects of my life. Thank you for reading this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you HiLo48. Does your perspective on the interpretation of the Which? report vary from that of Martinvl? If it does, then suggest an alternative wording and see if you can get Martinvl to agree with it. -- de Facto (talk). 07:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you clearly cannot read! HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify your position. Do you support the summary of Martinvl's position exactly as it stands - or not? If not, do you think you'll be able to put a summary together that both you and Martinvlsupport; or are there three separate positons to be considered? -- de Facto (talk). 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The summary sounds OK to me if the scope is simply the interpretation of the Which? piece. Bear in mind though that there is now another source too supporting the current wording, so, even if your opinion of the Which? content gained support, it would have to be added as a subsequent discussion point. I'm not too familiar with the different forums though, so I will rely on the wisdom of others to decide that. -- de Facto (talk). 07:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sport section

I'll go through this section by section.

Sporting bodies vary in their preference for metric or imperial units.

All the sources in the rest of the section are primary. Per WP:PSTS, [a]ny interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This is an interpretation of primary source material without a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

For example, the Premier League uses just metric measures on soccer players' profiles and so do several of the teams However, other teams use both measures but put Imperial measurements first. and several teams do not publish this information.

All of this is original synthesis of unit policies of websites based on actual units they use on particular pages. We're claiming that each of these sites have a full-blown policy, based in each case on only one player. Again, this is interpretation of primary sources without the required reliable secondary sources. If any of these sites actually have the specific units policies that we claim they have, we haven't cited those policies.

Also, the relevance to metrication in the UK of the units chosen by the websites of the Premier League and of Premier League football teams when describing players is not established - indeed the point seems trivial. Unless a reliable secondary source can be found that affirms the relevance of this point, it would need to be removed even if no OR was present.

The English Rugby Football Union provides information about the height and weight of players in both measures but puts the metric units first.

Exactly the same deal. We're claiming that there's a policy here based on original synthesis from the page of just one player, and again, the point appears trivial.

Cricket does not give information about the height or weight of cricketers, but the laws of cricket, though giving both measures, put Imperial units first.

The first part is original synthesis (because, as before, it's inferring a policy for all players based on a profile for just one), and yet again, it appears a trivial point. The second part is actually what I expected to read about in a section on metrication in UK sport. It's still original research, because we're inferring a unit policy for all of the laws from just one part of them. But I at least have some hope that a suitable secondary source could be found for this - unlike just about all of the points preceding it.

British weightlifting records use kilograms for the weight of both competitors and the weights that they lift and athletics uses metric measures but horse racing uses Imperial measures for the weight of the jockeys and the lengths the horses run.

First, we're relying on a reference to weightlifting for a section about athletics. But even if we weren't, the weightlifting point is entirely unreferenced anyway because it's a dead link. Weights of jockeys and horse racing distances, again, it's all based on individual instances of units, not on policies. I'd note as an aside that the reference for horse race distances interestingly does not use furlongs.

The entire section is purely based on primary sources. It draws interpretations from those primary sources in violation of WP:PSTS, but even with those, much of the content seems trivial. A proper, good sports section could be written here from secondary sources, I believe - making appropriate mentions of units used and the reasons for them. But if it is to be written, it needs to be written from scratch. Pfainuk talk 10:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Pfainuk removed the section on sport, and Tony1 has restored it asking for discussion on the page. I would support the removal or replacement of this section, and for two reasons.

One, it is implicit if not explicit OR: it takes examples from specific pages from specific websites (all primary sources, too) to imply the measurement systems used throughout the sport in the UK. (A good example is the sentence "Cricket does not give information about the height or weight of cricketers", sourced to a single page of one organisation, that details the cricket stats for a single South African player, and which happens not to include height or weight. If that's not OR, what is?) There have been several examples on this page of editors asserting that this or that organisation only uses metric based on such primary source research, only for these statements to be shown inaccurate (an example of imperial usage suffices). The alternatives "they use both" or "usage varies" is also original research, because it's entirely possible that uses of imperial found are exceptional, and we should not imply even usage at all.

Secondly, it is not at all placed in the context of metrication in the UK, which is a process, not a snapshot. It doesn't go into how, why or when metrication happened in each of these sports. There's nothing telling us why that particular sport is relevant in metrication in the UK. For example: weightlifting. Is that (a) a significant sport in the UK, and (b) is its own use of metric part of metrication in the UK, or a result of earlier decisions made in other countries?

In sum: the section is essentially a random collection of webpages wot editors found.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that User:VsevolodKrolikov has overloooked the fact that weight is important in some sports but not in others. This prevents a generalisation of sport in gerneal, so it is quite appropriate to list the principal sports in the and to reference the principal documents (eg rules/laws of the game) relating to the sports in order to make comments. Weightlifting, by its very nature must measure the weights lifted. In addition, heavier people can lift bigger weights, so the sport has divided the competitors by weight group. All that is needed is to see what units are used in the relevant British Associations' rulebook. Similarly, the weights of jockeys are important - again that is catalogued in the association's handbook. These are reliable sources. At times, we are forgetting the the prohibition on WP:OR relates to the publication of a novel proposition, not the collating of facts in an ordered manner.

May I draw to VsevolodKrolikov's attention that the flagship publication from the United Kingdom Metrication Assocation was entitled "A Very British Mess". If this title is valid, then trying to make order of the mess is difficult.

Finally, if the section concerned is addressing a genuine issue and does not contain any glaring inaccuracies, then it should not, in my view, be removed until and unless a better text has been prepared.Martinvl (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not simply that we don't have a generalisation of sport in general, we don't have any sources saying that these particular sports underwent metrication (some may have always been metric) and when (and why). All sports will have regulations about measurement of some kind or another (at least, I can't think of any in particular that wouldn't). I think I came across something about the metrication process in football somewhere (which is of course relevant) and there should be something somewhere about the move (or moves) in British track and field from 440yds to 400m in domestic competitions.

In general the big problem with this article is that its section on "Current usage" is far too long. This is drawing people in to trying to think of any aspect of British life and do their own (and worse, often amateurish) research to fill in perceived gaps without any reliable sources indicating the information has anything to do with British policy or decisions, and in some circumstances, carry on contemporary arguments pro and anti metrication by proxy (it's a POV magnet of sorts). But that's not really what this article is supposed to be about. It's about the process of moving over. I think your additions about Wilkins and the EEC regulations are exactly what this article needs more of: the history of the process. "Current usage" really should be a short bit at the end for the notable anomalies, such as retail and road signs, and what the prospects are for future change. Why on earth is there no history section??? I'd love to see some more content that actually addresses the process of turning metric, as that's the main topic of the article. It's also far more interesting, at least for me, anyway. Do you have any more about Wilkins, or the various Parliamentary debates over the past two hundred years? (On edit: Very odd - my browser failed to load properly when I looked at the page and there was no history section there...Sorry for that. It must have appeared strange.).

A Very British Mess is a frustrating source in Wikipedia terms. It has a lot of good information, and makes some useful general statements about the situation today (such as on sport, which is what we need, rather than incessant details of the various measurements used in worm racing in 2009 dug up from t'internet), but it's thoroughly interlaced with commentary. I'm really humming and hawing over whether it can be used to source basic facts. It's an advocacy group but... Should we ask at RSN? The bibliography at the end certainly has some nice pickings, in any case. We should go through it to find what we can. Things like the metric timeline on p.52 (right page number this time - sorry (>_<) about the education one) can be independently sourced, but that doesn't stop us using it as a cheat sheet.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I would however note that, to my mind, having the sort of OR-y trivia that we have in this section is actively bad for the encyclopædia because it encourages others to put in similarly trivial OR. There is benefit to the encyclopædia in removing the current section, even if it is not immediately replaced with something properly sourced. Pfainuk talk 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Speed of Eurostar

I have reverted DeFacto's changes to the lede photgraph.

Why do British newspapers use 186 mph when the design document said 300 km/h? On its own, the speed of the Eurostar is irrelevant to this artcile. One of the purposes of this article is to provide readers with the neccessary information so that they can form their own conclusion as to why some writers prefer mph and why others prefer km/h. Martinvl (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your OR comparison of two sources is not a suitable caption for a photo in the lead of an article. As you point out, without the OR, the picture is irrelevant to the article - so should surely be removed - not embellished with personal POV. -- de Facto (talk). 12:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If you go to WP:SYN. you will see the following as being totally acceptable:

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

What is your problem then with the caption of the lede photograph. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Following the Smith and Jones example would give the perfectly acceptable construction:

The South East England Regional Assembly state that the maximum speed of the Eurostar train is 300 km/h (186 mph). The BBC agree, reporting the maximum speed as 186 mph.

Can you see the difference? Your caption had unsourced connotations which are unacceptable. You 'appeal to authority' to imply the figure from the Regional Assembly is is more correct than the number from the BBC, and you use the word "but" when referring to the BBC figure, when actually, the numbers are equivalent, with the BBC using units that it thinks will be more familiar to most of the consumers of its output. Incidentally, the link to the Regional Assembly report is broken, for me at least. -- de Facto (talk). 13:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Can either of you enlighten me as to why we have a picture of Eurostar in the article? We don't actually mention Eurostar in the text.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the picture there in the first place.

Question 1: Why is its speed given in nice round numbers in certain documents (300 km/h), but is awkward numbers 186 mph in other documents.

Question 2: How many people recognise that 186 mph is a direct conversion of 300 km/h?

Answers to these questions (and a host of other questions) - Read the article.

Of course, if you can come up with a better picture, I woudl like to hear your suggestions. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A picture of a dual system ruler, or a dual-labelled article of clothing or food would be better, given that the article is (as I'll keep repeating till I'm blue in the keyboard) about the changeover. It would avoid this willy-waving over which system of measurements gets used to describe Eurostar. If you really want it to be about trains, you could have pictures of a 125 and a 225 next to each other.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is already a better picture in the article - the one with the half-eaten packet of sausages in it. It shows some of the results of metrication. What does the one of the train show, without the non-neutral OR caption, that is? -- de Facto (talk). 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, the summary for this edit, "Better reference found", fails to mention that you have also made a reversion. You were specifically criticised for this kind of behaviour by the blocking admin in the ANI/3RR case that led to your block only a couple of days ago. For someone thinking of using dispute resolution, this is a pretty silly thing to do. If I were you, I would restore the previous text.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You will notice that I have found a reference that better describes what I wanted to put across in the first place - the text that DeFacto put in place was unsuitable for the new reference as the new reference was a trade journal, not an EU publication. It is therefore not a reversion but an upgrade. Martinvl (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you reverted the neutral "and" to be the non-neutral "but" again. You also reverted from the verifiable specific to the unverifiable general again. One example of the railway trade press is not the trade press (anymore than a publication from the EU is "international publications") and a 2007 BBC report isn't the public media anymore than it is "some British newspapers". Please undo your change, or at the very least modify it to:

"Eurostar whose design speed is cited as being "300 km/h" by Railway Gazette International and as "186 mph" by the BBC in a 2007 report."

-- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No, Martin, it's a reversion. You absolutely have to respect the objections of other editors, and not presume that you know better than them. Changing sources makes absolutely no difference, and I think you know that perfectly well, otherwise you would have felt confident enough to bring it here to get people's agreement. How many times do editors in dispute with you need to give you advice on how not to get sanctioned?

As it is, your sourcing does not support the claim that Eurostar is cited as being "300 km/h" in the trade press, but as "186 mph" in the public media. If you had genuinely had the stats training to the level that on these pages you've repeatedly claimed to have, you'd have known perfectly well that a sample of one (or two) does not provide grounds for making statements about a whole population (in this case, of news organisations). It would be a very odd thing for a statistics specialist to try and do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall we remove that picture?

I don't see how that picture of the Eurostar train is relevant to the article - it doesn't illustrate anything discussed in the article. It appears to have only been put there to hang a non-neutral and OR caption onto. I suggest that we remove it immediately. What do other editors think? -- de Facto (talk). 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Extract from WP:POV - "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."

The section Current usage starts with the text

"Many aspects of life have been metricated either totally or partially; including industry, building, education and some sports such as rugby union. Many remain without visible evidence of metrication where Imperial units are used or even mandated; - including road signs, estate agents' advertisements and the non-specialist media". (My highlights)

The picture that I used pulls together the two highlighted items in this paragraph. Please explain what non-neutral point I am allegedly putting across. Alternatively, please state what novel assertion I am making. Martinvl (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Synthesising (aka "pulling together") points from a wikipedia article is therefore doubly unsuitable for content. I agree with removing the Eurostar picture unless someone produces some secondary sourcing for its relevance to metrication in the UK. This basic principle of secondary sourcing should not be dismissed as easily as it seems to be repeatedly being dismissed on this page. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a scrapbook.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, the picture pulls nothing together - it shows a train. The caption then adds some non-neutral OR to it. The OR being the implication that because those single sources use a particular unit that the total of one of the groupings that they belong to does too. To satisfy WP:VER you need a source to support the assertions that you make. Bias is introduced by the connotations of the word "but" in the context that you use it in. "And" is better, but you rejected that - why? -- de Facto (talk). 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is going the same way as the previous arguemnt. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to argue - no WP:POV, no WO:OR, nothing. If you persist in pushing this line, I am be going to the ANI noticeboard. Martinvl (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, yes this one is going the same way as the previous argument, you are failing to convice us of your case. WP:VER requires an RS to support an assertion of fact. Where is the RS that supports this assertion: "Eurostar whose design speed is cited as being "300 km/h" in the trade press, but as "186 mph" in the public media."? You need to supply the required RS or allow the content to be modified to reflect the supporting sources without continual reversions and misleading edit summaries. Even if you can support the assertions, you still need to achieve a consensus that they should be included in the article, particularly as a caption on that picture. -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It always felt to me that it had been stuck in for the sake of sticking a nice picture in. I also question its value. --Red King (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have modifed the caption to clarify the rationale for including it and also to accomodate Defacto's request to use the word "and" rather than "but".Martinvl (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

All we need now to justify keeping the image in the article is an RS that supports the assertions made in the caption and a consensus to keep it in. Currently 3 of the 4 editors contributing to this discussion seem to favour removal the image. -- de Facto (talk). 09:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have two reliable sources already - one for each source: The Railway Gazette and the BBC. Martinvl (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't. You're making the same mistake that Michael Glass does of confusing primary and secondary sourcing. Secondary sources give information about a topic independent of them. Primary sources are the topic themselves. These two sites are reliable secondary sources for the speed of Eurostar. However, as support for the usage of imperial or metric on these websites/publications, they are primary sources - the websites themselves. They are samples of one for each of the populations of all articles in trade press and all articles in public news agencies, and you're seeking to make a generalisation about these populations based on these samples. As I said above, that's bad stats.

This may seem like a lawyerly and irrelevant distinction at first, but it isn't. The statement on the picture is demonstrably false. This BBC page uses "186mph (300kmh)", while this one uses metric first for 320kmh (200mph) and cites 300kmh without any imperial conversion at all. Conversely, this Railway Gazette article uses 320 km/h (199 mile/h) and 300 km/h (186 mile/h). We're not trying to be awkward by insisting on secondary sourcing; We're trying to avoid inaccuracies and the serious potential for inaccuracies in the encyclopedia. I hope now you see what we mean by OR, and the dangers it involves, and why the policies limiting the use of primary sources really do need to be taken seriously. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I should say thank you to you for changing "but" back to "and". It gives greater confidence that we can work collegially.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable works about metrication in the United Kingdom? If so, I would like to hear of them, if not, then avoiding WP:OR is very difficult. If we are genuinely interested in improving the quality of this article, then we should target the sections that are pure WP:OR - especially the section on the retail sector. Martinvl (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki policy is clear - there should be no OR in the article. If content is unverifiable then it should be removed. Currently the image caption is OR. We need a new section to discuss other OR problems. -- de Facto (talk). 11:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If avoiding OR is impossible, then you're trying to work in content that has no place in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is unequivocally not a place to publish the results of your research. In general, deciding what one wants to see in an article and then trying to find any means possible of getting that material in regardless of the existence of proper secondary coverage, is to get Wikipedia editing quite the wrong way round. It usually results in OR, POV and a poorer quality article. And it creates a lot of wikistress, too. As for what's OR now, a good deal of the "Current Usage" section needs either proper sourcing or deletion. For example, the material on use of imperial in the airline industry appears to be either very imaginative OR or just completely random links to laws which say nothing on the subject. I suspect it was someone relying on their personal experience of flying and then trying to hammer that info in with a footnote.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, we have 2 reliable sources, yes - but neither of them support the assertions that they are cited against. Currently a leap of faith is required and the assumption that because one of a certain genre uses a certain unit of measurement in one report that they all do - always. -- de Facto (talk). 11:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A third party has modified the caption to remove the references to the "trade press" and the "public media". Would people be happy to extend their changes to "... cited in various British sources as 300 km/h^[1], 186 mph^[2], 186 mph (300 km/h)^[3] and 300 km/h (186 mph)^[4]. Before we get too hung up on the picture, may I draw to attention the following from WP:IMAGE:

Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article. For example:

• [deleted - not applicable in this case]
• Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality.

Martinvl (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have requested clarification at WP:IMAGE. Martinvl (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to be Eurostar, when we can have perfectly tangible examples: objects which are dual labelled in shops, where their labelling has been the subject of secondary sources (produce, for example, or milk, or clothing). Eurostar is a symbol of European integration: having the photo there gives the impression that metrication is all about Britain's EU membership. (Actually, it started before EEC membership, and imperial countries in general are moving towards metric. The EU is part, but not the whole of what's been happening.) The two issues of Europe and metrication may overlap in the popular imagination (on both sides of each of these divides, judging by the blogs I've read over the past few days), but it doesn't serve us well to side with that view. Having a different picture avoids this particular POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How about a purely British train, provided that I can find one with four different reference, one in mph, one in km/h, one in mph(km/h) and one in km/h(mph), illustrating that different communities use different units of measure. Martinvl (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you'd only need one RS for that - one that says: "...different communities use different units of measure...". Looking for four suggests that you are going to assert your own OR conclusion again. -- de Facto (talk). 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The image doesn't contain anything useful, and as noted, the caption is original research. VsevolodKrolikov's point about the different measurements used is telling. de Facto's point above is also pretty much spot on so far as I'm concerned. If we want to demonstrate dual use of measures, we should use a picture of something that's marked in both systems as proposed. To be clear, I support removal. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A few quotes from WP:CAPTION:

• (The first line of the article): A caption, also known as a cutline, is text that appears below an image. Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text.
• (The first line after the lede) There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption

1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.

I believe that my choice of caption meets all these criteria, thereby vindicating my choice of image. Martinvl (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why people would argue against a picture when the main point of contention appears to be the caption. I would say, keep the picture but try to agree on the wording for the caption. Michael Glass (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they're both points of contention. I hope that clears things up for you. I count a clear majority in favour of removal and replacement with something actually connected to the article by secondary sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, WP:IMAGE contains the following advice: "Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality. and WP:CAPTION contains the follwoing advice: Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text. Metrication is a somewhat intangible concept. Thus it is quite clear that this image is suitable for the artcile provided that the caption makes the link (which it does). The one point that I am willing to take up is your observation that the international connotations of the Eurostar might not be appropriate, so I am willing to do a little research and replace the picture with one of a British train, changing the captions accordingly of course. Martinvl (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, decisions in Wikipedia are not based on what you alone think is correct, even if you personally believe that people who disagree with you are not competent to have an opinon on the matter. The majority of editors here have clearly stated they think the picture is inappropriate, and they have cited reasons that are directly related to the criteria you mention. I'm sure you are familiar with the existence of WP:consensus. You do not get your way if a clear majority of editors disagree with you like this. The clear majority does. The consensus clearly seems to be that the picture,if it is to be about dual usage, should relate to an issue of dual usage as mentioned in secondary reliable sources on metrication.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the "third party" referred to above. I don't see a problem with this picture in the article, provided that people can agree on the caption. Of course it would be better if it could be replaced with a less controversial choice (replacement is not the same as removal): perhaps the people arguing against its inclusion could suggest specific alternatives? Note that consensus on Wikipedia is based on the quality of the arguments presented. It has nothing to do with majority opinion, and it certainly shouldn't be determined by people competing to write the largest quantity of words. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages. The sheer volume of discussion on this page makes it difficult for other editors to join in; this whole thing would be more constructive if all parties restricted themselves to making each point only once. Jowa fan (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jowa - you're right that consensus is not a vote, but I think it's fair to say that all editors on both sides have expressed arguments founded in policy, so a clear majority would normally be taken as consensus: it certainly isn't the case that one editor decides what policy stands for, which was the most important thing. Anyway, here's some ideas for pictures; I don't know about the licensing - perhaps someone could take a photo of something they have at home that would be similar.

dual measurement ruler

dual measurement height sign

face of dual measurement weighing scales

dual measurment jug (Although I think this particular one is American - but you get the idea.]

My favourite out of these would be the ruler, as it best represents the notion of changeover from imperial to metric.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing alert

Martinvl, this is called canvassing, and is not welcome. If you ever want to have more eyes on a dispute, you post a notice that is neutral, and you do not keep that notice secret from the page where the dispute is. (You were told the last time you opened discussions about this page elsewhere that you should have kept people here informed, so you are aware of the principle.) If you do not feel confident editing honestly and openly with other editors (for example, your edit summaries have also been a problem), then you should reconsider editing this page full stop.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice clearly breaks WP:CANVASS rules on campaigning. It doesn't break the letter of the rule on stealth canvassing (since that requires off-wiki notice), but it would still have been a good idea to mention the notice on this page, in order to improve communication and trust between editors. Pfainuk talk 20:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving the history section to be first section?

Any objections to moving the history section up to be the first section after the lede? I don't see the logic in not having it there. It would keep matters chronological, provide the context for all the information on current usage, and it would be in keeping with general approaches in other topics. Ordinarily, I'd just be bold about it, but there are a lot of frayed nerves around.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me; in fact I support the idea. -- de Facto (talk). 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done (+ extensions regarding the contributions by British scientists to metrication during the ninteenth century). Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is some really interesting stuff there in what you've added . But, do we need to make it clear why there is also stuff in there about "decimalisation", which isn't the same thing as "metrication" (clarify any relationship between the two) - or should it be removed? -- de Facto (talk). 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at History of the metric system, you will see the sequence:

• 1570 - Stevin proposed using decimal numbers for measurement
• 1620 - Gunter (British) used decinmal numbers for one type of measurement
• 1668 - Wilkins (British) proposed a coherent system of measure - unit names were to be those already in use, but redefined.
• 1670 - Mouton proposed using prefixes
• 1790's - French pull everything together and launch the actual metric system.

You can see the enormous British influence is setting up the foundations of the metric system before it was actually launched by the French. Again the article shows the 19th century influence of British scientists (who, IMO were "sold down the river by the British politicians", but I have tried to word this in such a way that you can make up your owen mind). I believe that all of this is relevant to "Metrication in the United Kingdom". Martinvl (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the section, Martinvl. The article is so much better with that simple change. Now the reader meets solid, established text, setting a better standard for the article as a whole. I'm trying to add sourcing to more modern stuff where I feel it's necessary.

Decimalisation is clearly related to metrication. I think highlighting where they diverge is enough. It's interesting and helpful for readers who might not realise there is, with a light touch of strictness, a difference between the two.

As for letting readers make up their mind whether British scientists were "sold down the river" - we need to be careful of slanting the reader towards a reading that is not founded in sources (NPOV is fundamental). Is there a source that supports this narrative? If there is, it would add spice to the history. If there isn't, we shouldn't hint at it.

All in all, it's much more fun going over text like this. (^o^).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Costs, but no benefits

This article has a section called Costs (with some very nebulous content), but nothing on the benefits. Hardly a neutral point of view.

Given that the details provided on costs are so poor, the most sensible approach would seem to be to delete the section. If not, the section needs to be balanced with full details of the long term benefits. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The material itself is due, but I agree that it's presented in less than ideal fashion, with in a standalone section with a stark title. Perhaps it should be a paragraph in the history section? As for benefits, the one thing I came across was actually a study of the costs of not changing over early and properly in British manufacturing here. I imagine a lot of the benefits analysis will have been done in the 1970s.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to lay my hands on appropriate material. About two years ago this article was dire. Large chucnks lacked WP:VER, there were large amounts of WP:OR (most of the section on current usage) and the artcile was certainly lacked a WP:NOP. I, amongst others, have been steadily working on it to add verifiable material, but so far have not done too much about mateial that showed WP:OR or lacked WP:VER. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy groups

Is it appropriate to publicise advocacy group's publications? DeFacto believes not and has removed soem material that I added. Would he please give references to Wikipedia policy that supports his action.

I believe that the only criteria is that a WP:NPOV is taken and that there is no WP:OR. I believe the relative publicity given to both the UKMA and BWMA in this instance is about the same - a short description taken from the Database of NGO's followed by a single sentence identifying their supports and principal published works. In the case of ARM, there is no NGO database entry, so I have only included the name of their principal spokeman. Martinvl (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's appropriate to publicise anyone's publications on Wikipedia, let alone the propaganda of a pressure group (see "WP:Promotion"). See also "WP:External links", paricularly the section: 'Links normally to be avoided'. -- de Facto (talk). 11:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have re-instated the bit about Tony Bennett. If you look at the reference you will see "To link your campaign or to obtain web-space on our site, contact Tony Bennett ... " - if you follow the WIkilink attached to Tony Bennett, yo ucan read all about him. Martinvl (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to the fact that he founded the group, cited from the BBC. That should be OK. In general, I think it's better to have a quick look for better sourcing for a proposition, rather than immediately remove it because you don't like the sourcing as is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why the "Eurosceptic" label, rather than other possible labels, and which RS supports it? See also WP:LABEL. -- de Facto (talk). 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

De Facto believes it is POV to label Tony Bennett a Eurosceptic politician. That's exactly who Tony Bennett is, though - a former UKIP member and member of Veritas. They don't have fuzzily defined Eurosceptic wings, where one might not be sure where any one member is on the spectrum. They are defined by Euroscepticism. (A quick look at the "other issues" supported by ARM shows it's hardly POV to mention Tony Bennett's main career in conjunction with this.) I'm about to add a Telegraph article which cites Bennett complaining about Europe and metrication just to make things watertight in terms of sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, I think that Wikipedia is good enough - the last peson to work on version of Bennett's biography appears to have been Bennett himself - see WP:BIOEDIT. Martinvl (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Remembering that Wikipedia itself is not considered to be a reliable source, are you happy that the label and the sourcing in this article fully comply with the strict requirements set out in WP:BLP?

2. In what way is the label actually relevent in this article?

-- de Facto (talk). 14:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) to martinvl: Ha ha! Brilliant. I've found a quote that I think makes it quite clear that it's not POV to associate Bennett's euroscepticism with his opposition to metric: This NYT article quotes him saying "Up to now, the English have gone along with the European stuff, allowing these kinds of idiocies to mount," said Tony Bennett, who is running the (UKIP)'s anti-metrification campaign. "Finally it's gotten to be too much." I really would stress to De Facto that it's always better to have a quick look for a better source before removing stuff as poorly sourced, particularly where the content seems quite plausible (the ARM's list of campaigns it also supports is a shopping list of the hard eurosceptic right, for example - so there was a good chance of sourcing out there confirming an anti-european connection). It helps the encyclopedia get better faster.

After edit conflcit, to de Facto: You have got to be kidding on BLP. There is nothing libellous about calling him a eurosceptic. He is a eurosceptic, and by all accounts, an intensely proud one.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's OK if it is relevant, has due weight and supported by an RS - otherwise it's open to challenge. That's all I'm saying. -- de Facto (talk). 15:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Speed limit increase - any discussion of metric units?

The speed limit on UK motorways is to be raised to 80 mph. Gordon Brown previously rejected metric speed limis because of the cost of new signs (however, for example, expensive special motorcycle training areas had to be built because European regulations require speeds of 50 km/h, higer than the 30 mph allowed on equivalent British roads). Has there been any discussion related to this in terms of metrication? (A search on Google News doesn't find anything, but I'm not in the UK and it sometimes misses broadcast media.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No wide discussion to my knowledge. Note that the 70mph speed limits on motorways is rarely actually signposted: it's assumed you know about it already. Where it is signed (due to variable speed limits), the sign is generally done by computer. And any permanent speed limit signs on motorways will look like this - already compatible with an 80mph speed limit. Pfainuk talk 07:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The 70 mph speed limit is signposted (with the "70" in a roundel) on motorways and on dual-carriageways, where it is applicable, in Scotland. -- de Facto (talk). 07:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no certainty that the motorway speed limit is going to be raised. That's nothing more than a proposition at the moment - put out for consultation. But even if it is adopted, there is no suggestion of metrication of speed limits or distances on signposts. -- de Facto (talk). 07:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How can a straightforward descriptive statement fall foul of OR when the policy says:

Policy says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Is the above statement a dead letter? Michael Glass (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "straightforward descriptive statements" concerned here involve inferring policies on units for organisations based purely on the units that those organisations happen to use on specified pages on their websites.

For example, it is argued that: [2][3][4][5][6][7], taken alone - and specifically in the absence of secondary or tertiary sources - can be used to make "straightforward descriptive statements" about the policy of units on http://www.royal.gov.uk. The assumption being made is that these websites are necessarily and inherently representative of the site as a whole.

Note that no secondary or tertiary sources have been provided that would demonstrate the relevance of the use of units on the specific websites to the topic of this article: it is argued that the existence of said primary sources is sufficient to demonstrate such relevance according to the above cited rule. Pfainuk talk 09:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rfc comment: It's difficult for uninvolved editors to respond to this without some more context being provided. Could you spell out which specific statements and which source are the subject of this discussion? Jowa fan (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The section below has some good examples of what's being discussed. We could also cite the text:

The units of measure used on web pages associated with the British monarchy vary in a similar way. For instance, the Jubilee Walkway Trust's 60 km walking path commemorates the Queen's diamond jubilee (one kilometre per year of the Queen's reign), but a privately produced publicity pamphlet for the trail shows it as being 37 miles. The official website describing the royal residences (URL: .royal.gov.uk - the government website) and the Prince's Rainforests Project (which is scientifically-oriented) use metric units. However, the “private” websites (URL: .co.uk or .com) describing Balmoral Castle and the Sandringham estate use miles for distances but hectares for areas.

Which is entirely based on specific instances of usage, as opposed to any form of discussion on the subject of units (let alone secondary sources). Pfainuk talk 10:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The units of measure used ... vary" looks to me like a simple statement of fact that no reasonable person ought to disagree with. There is an example of metric units, and an example of imperial units: the conclusion that both sets of units are used is inescapable. Bear in mind that the policy WP:PSTS does refer to the use of common sense. Of course it's important to avoid drawing inferences from the bare facts. For instance, any assertion that a given organisation does or doesn't have a policy on this issue would need to be backed up by a source. But there is no such assertion in the text quoted above. Jowa fan (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the argument has been that such sources can be taken down to the level of simple factual statements without interpretation (and nobody has ever denied this) but that those bare facts, on their own, are not relevant to the article. That to be relevant, a point needs to be made, but that any point interpreted from these sources is original research. This is a point that Michael failed to mention in his starting text. In your view, given the absence of secondary sources, is there any merit in the argument that these sources demonstrate the relevance of such a discussion to metrication in the United Kingdom?

It has also been argued that "[t]he units of measure used ... vary" requires something different from simply that there is at least one unit from each system somewhere on the website. If, for example, one system is overwhelmingly more common than the other - as is plausible in this case - then saying that usage varies implies that the minority system is used far more widely than it actually is. Pfainuk talk 11:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is that these statements are not based on a proper survey. They're based on what you get out of google when you type in "(Royal residence) metres" or "(royal residence) inches". It's data fishing. The same standards of sourcing can be used to provide the following statements:

• The number of legs on dogs in Canada varies. (two stories of three-legged dogs turn up on google straight away, and there's loads of pictures of Canadians dogs with four legs on the internet).
• Belief in evolution among biologists varies. (I can find an example of each.)
• Some climate scientists believe that global warming is happening, while others do not. (I can find an example of each)
• Some of the cast of Eastenders have been drug dealers. (I can find examples of actors who have or haven't been drug dealers)
• Sexual orientation of US congressmen varies. (etc)

None of these statements would be suitable for an encyclopedia. Giving one description of each variation would also not be appropriate, as it would amount to making the same point and misleading the reader. The policy on the use of WP:Primary sources is pretty clear that assembling them like this is not allowed. Wikipedia would be open to all kinds of nonsense and abuse, particularly in political areas (and this topic is very political for those who want either to trash imperial (silly, backward) or trash metric (European/foreign) if we didn't have such a policy. Although UK metrication may not be such a global burning issue as climate change or evolution, that's no reason why we should have poorer quality articles on the topic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no intention of reading the tens of thousands of words of previous discussion on this. Since the text quoted by User:Pfainuk isn't currently part of the article, I can't comment on relevance at this point. I assume that the paragraph in question would be been preceded by something at least loosely related (the first sentence includes "...in a similar way"), so the context could make quite a difference one way or the other.

I've told you how this looks to an uninvolved editor taking a first look at it. Namely, the policy on primary sources doesn't forbid this type of argument, in my opinion. If people are arguing that it's inappropriate here for different reasons, that's another matter. (The above examples of "data fishing", taken out of context, are unobjectionable. Using them in articles is a different matter, and requires the exercise of some common sense.) Others may be prepared to go more deeply into this, but I'll leave the discussion at this point. Good luck. Jowa fan (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed a second argument against the content as currently sourced: there is no evidence that the information is even relevant to the article. Not a single reliable source has been presented (and I've tried hard to find some myself) that connects varying use (either now or over time) of imperial or metric systems in the Royal Household with the process of metrication in the UK. From WP:DUE: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Why should we mention the royal household or family here when it seems no RS in the real world thought to make the link?

These two arguments are connected by the common problem of no secondary RS at all: no RS means the sample text (which is a summary of what Michael Glass has said he wants included; something like it was deleted previously) is both OR and undue for inclusion. There's lots of text about this dispute on this page because the central point about needing secondary sources to establish relevance and for analysis applies to several sections of this article - including the sports section being discussed below.

I strongly disagree that those examples are unobjectionable. For example, a statement like "Some climate scientists believe that global warming is happening, while others do not." would be reverted on the spot in any article connected to climate change as an obvious example of Climate change denialism: trying to give the public the false impression of substantive dispute in climate science. "Some" in normal English is not the same as "some" in formal logic.

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a very good example of a straw man argument. Pick the most outlandish examples and say that this is what you are trying to argue against. This isn't about three legged dogs in Canada, climate change denial, questioning evolution or any other such nonsense. What it is about is whether an article on metrication in the United Kingdom can make simple factual statements about the units that are used in Royal residences or football or cricket, or for that matter, whether we can document the size of milk containers on sale in England from the nation's largest stores or get our information from some obscure Scottish tabloid that happens to mention milk containers in passing (secondary source). This nonsense is what comes from refusing to look at good sources of information because they are deemed to be "primary sources" and then somehow not notable or not suitable.

Let's see how silly this could be. We want to check the area of Australia. Commonsense would take us to Geoscience Australia as the most authoritative source, but under this regime we turn our backs on the best information and turn to a secondary source, say, the CIA Factbook. Here the figure is slightly different, but as it's a secondary source, we have to take its word for it because the other source is a primary source. And don't even think of noting both measures, for this has obviously involved fishing for information and therefore must be Original Research. A list of Royal Residences is given on the Royal Website [8]. It's an easy matter to click on each residence and find out what units (if any) they use. However, if we dare look, this is automatically deemed Original Research, even though the facts can be checked by a few mouse clicks. So why not just look at Buckingham Palace? Not Notable is the reply. So it's a case of heads they win and tails you lose. Michael Glass (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, that last post shows a certain amount of confusion. In particular you keep jumping between the issues of general statements (OR) and individual statements (undue) and muddying issues.

• What Geoscience Australia publishes as the size of Australia is not a primary source for the size of Australia. Australia is a primary source for the size, as would be the various raw readings taken by Geoscience Australia that they use to calculate their published figure. The figure that Geoscience publishes would only be a primary source for content on Geoscience Australia itself. In your case, you're making a statement about the website, not about the building, and so the website is a primary source. We've been over what is a primary and secondary source a few times; I'm not at all convinced you understand the difference, and I think it's one of the reasons we keep going round in circles.
• The size of Australia is not the size of an example of "an" Australia. It's the size of Australia. There is only one. Here, on the other hand, you're trying to gather examples of usage to make or imply a general claim.
• There are lots of articles and books that note the size of Australia in relation to the topic of Australia. There is not a single source yet produced here on metrication that makes mention of any of the Royal residences or the Royal household, or vice versa. You alone, a wikipedia editor, are making the connection.

If there's no secondary sourcing to be found, why do you persist? I wouldn't. I would perhaps, if I were in your position, think to myself "well, I'm surprised there's nothing on it, but if there isn't, I can't put the content in." Thinking otherwise would just lead to a great deal of wikistress.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, If a wikipedia article noted the difference between the Geoscience Australia figure for the area of Australia and the CIA Factbook, the two publications would immediately become primary sources for the purpose of comparison. Your argument would prohibit this. However, the policy clearly says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Why do you try to prohibit something that the policy explicitly allows? Michael Glass (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources don't become primary just because they disagree (I'm trying to work out quite why you think that might be the case). If editorial consensus cannot be reached on which one to go with, both are noted. As WP:RS states: Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. You musn't lose sight of the basic principle: primary sources are the subjects themselves, or, as in this case, examples of the subject. Primary sources that make statements about themselves may be used, with care. You are not doing this - you are trying to characterise their behaviour based on personal observation of samples.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, You have said that Geoscience Australia's measure of Australia is a secondary source and given all sorts of reasons why it should be. Exactly the same reasoning applies to the measures of Buckingham Palace that are given on the Royal website. The rules that make one measurement primary or secondary apply in exactly the same way to the other. In any case, whether the measures are primary or secondary, this statement still applies: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Therefore, if it is in order to say that the figure given by Geoscience Australia for the area of Australia is slightly different to the figure given by the CIA Factbook, it is also in order to point out that the Royal website gives the dimensions of Buckingham Palace and St Georges Hall in Windsor Castle in metres. (Of course, that would not stop someone from arguing that Buckingham Palace is too unimportant for the fact to matter.)

I should also state that I don't believe that secondary sources become primary sources because they disagree. It is beyond me how you could get that interpretation from what I wrote. Also your point about deciding which source to go with is a red herring, as is the idea that this is trying to judge usage from samples. Michael Glass (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, this page is not about the actual physical length, height or breadth of buildings, or babies (or speeds of trains for that matter). It's about the units used when measuring and reporting. You're acting as if the two things are the same. They're not. Think of it like this: whether you measure in imperial or metric, the object you're measuring stays the same size.

As such, this page would be interested not in the actual length, height or breadth of any particular royal residence or birthweight, but how certain websites publish this information. Thus, these websites are primary sources.

To establish what units they use, you've been collecting pages from websites. Data gathering. Sampling primary sources. This is original research. Even assembling a list implies that these numbers are collectively important (otherwise why restrict your search to royal households?). Why are you so determined to get theis material in? You don't seem to have made any policy-based case for its inclusion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, I am arguing for the general principal which is set forth clearly in the policy on original research: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." We can say without doubt or generalisation what the Royal website uses for describing the royal residences. We don't have to collect this information because Royal website itself has collected it. No data gathering, it's already been gathered. No sampling primary sources, it's all there. No collecting pages from websites, the pages are already collected. Therefore your argument simply doesn't apply in this instance. What does apply is the policy that clearly states that primary sources can be used to make straightforward statements.

Quite simply, in defending the right of editors to use primary sources in accordance with the policy, I am arguing for Wikipedia policy. Michael Glass (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, remember there are two issues here: due weight and OR.

1. I've got a source that the British group Young People's Trust for the Environment measures the birthweight of aardvarks in kilograms, and one from toilet maker Duravit that clearly and unequivocally states that To test the wash of bowl, 20 grammes of fine sawdust are sprinkled onto the WC bowl. In accordance with the standard, an arithmetic mean of no more than 50 cm2 of the surface area may remain unflushed after five tests. These are simple descriptions of primary sources, and as such may be used on wikipedia. Are we therefore obliged to include them? No. A positive case has to be made for inclusion, and you haven't made one according to policy. You have no secondary source saying that what this website uses has any significance at all in terms of metrication. It's a .gov.uk site - is it just part of the government? Do they have independence in how they choose to present things? Is there a policy? Who knows?

2. Are you going to go through all the pages of www.royal.gov.uk to check whether they use imperial or metric? If not, why not? Does the website have the same policy as paper publications from the same organisation? What other measures are you taking to ensure representativeness of the examples you choose?

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, I have said more than once that data would still have to pass a test of relevance. This, of course, applies as much to the birthweight of aardvarks as it does to royal babies. As you know well, a may is not a must so your first point is a red herring.

The second red herring is about the checking the rest of the Royal website and their printed publications, activities that you would describe as data gathering, sampling primary sources and original research. However, when it comes to royal residences, the relevant information has already been collected and collated. This means that your second point is also a red herring.

I think the point is more easily made with a different example. If we want to say something about the sizes of milk containers, one way is to find out what the biggest grocers are selling. Another way is to on a fishing expedition and find an obscure and ambiguous reference in a tabloid newspaper about the selling of milk. If the information is thought relevant, then I for one would prefer to go with My Supermarket than an obscure provincial tabloid newspaper. We shouldn't be put off using better information just because it can be labelled as "primary source". Michael Glass (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in carrying on this conversation. You haven't made a case for inclusion, and there's the end of it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

May I draw attention to the title of the United Kingdom Metric Association's publication - "A Very British Mess". Michael's list of royal residence websites confirms that this mess starts at the very top - advisors to the Crown do not have a consistent view. This lack of consistency is apparent to anybody who linves in the United Kingdom - why are road distances calculated in kilometres but broadcast in miles? The article Driver locations signs explains why the mobile phone caused problems in this area.

May I go a step further an suggest that the removal Michael's list is an act of denial - a denial that the imperial and metric systems co-exist uneasily side by side. By removing Michael's list you are precenting people from making up their own minds. Martinvl (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a false step (and a rich one considering your efforts to remove information about supermarkets' dual use). My problem is with what, in Wikipedia terms, is insignificant trivia cluttering up the article. We can have examples of the two systems being used side by side, if they are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. And many of them are. So we should have those in. We happen not to have any secondary sources about the royal household's use of measurements, and it should not be up to us as Wikipedia to decide that it's suddenly an important little factoid. The same goes for some of the other trivia here. I strongly recommend that one of you go and try get published on the matter, if it's really that important to you. Otherwise, put other examples, properly sourced, into the article, if it's heft you're worried about. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The assumption here is that the Royal household's use of measurements, or the use of measurements by "advisors to the Crown", is necessarily and inherently reflected by the choice of units in certain particular webpages that have some connection to the Royal family. I do not except this conclusion, as it is original synthesis from primary sources. (And let's remember that the list included an example from the Prince's Rainforests Project, where the only units actually used are the second and the football pitch.) Pfainuk talk 17:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not that it is invalid per PRIMARY or OR to conclude, for example, that "The official websites (or web pages) on British Royal residences use a mixture of measurements." The issue is one of significance. It is not disputed that Britain uses a mixture of measurements, and since, for example, we are unlikely to rip out ancient milestones or rename all the Seventy Acre Woods in the country in the foreseeable future, will continue to do so for some time. There are plenty of RS for the mixture of units, the fact that one or more royal or governmental website use a mixture is not overly significant. If, on the other hand, there was a claim that a significant proportion of government websites used deprecated units, that would be relevant, and a discussion on admissibility of cites might be worth having, if no third party RS could be found. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

I am struggling to grok exactly what this RfC is about. The RfC as stated appears to ask a policy question without reference to anything in the article. If that's what the discussion were about it is in the wrong place - it should be on a policy page. However, the request is followed by a huge block of discussion which seems to revolve around statements made in the websites of royal residences and whether they can be used in the article. I have two comments here: first of all, the editors here do not seem to understand the purpose of an RfC - it is gather input from uninvolved editors, not to continue an existing argument. Secondly, if you want comment on the suitability of royal residence websites or any particular source then ask that question directly, not in this oblique way - I am not going to trawl through the history to try and guess what this is all about. To answer your direct questions: "How can a straightforward descriptive statement fall foul of OR?", it can't if it used according to the WP:PSTS policy. "Is the above statement a dead letter?", no, it's policy. SpinningSpark 18:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

MedCab mediation offer

Per the mediation request from Martinvl at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom, I would like to offer to mediate this dispute. If I do mediate, the outcome of this informal mediation will be non-binding. My purpose here is to assist you in establishing a consensus. Please indicate below whether or not you accept me as a mediator. If you do accept, please also include a short statement (preferably below 1,000 words) of what you feel the issue is. Please avoid commenting on contributers in your statement, and instead focus on the content. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mediation

I understand that we are all agreed:

• The supermarket chain Asda surveyed their customers and on the basis of this survey, changed their packaging policy.
• The Consumer Association magazine Which? devoted an article to the Asda survey.
• Which? is a reliable source.

I assert that as it stands, the results of the Asda survey are not encyclopaedic unless one indulges in WP:OR, they do not convey any useful information other than the pricing policy of a single supermarket chain; a chain whose customer base is not representative of the coutnry as a whole.

I assert that the Asda article on itself is not reliable as minimal information has been published about the survey. My immediate reaction was that this was a con trick to disguise a downsizing from 500 g to 454 g (1 lb). When the results of any decent survey is published, the methodolgy is also published as a reassuarance that the survey was reliable, not a "Damned lie" (Benjamin Disraeli spoke of "lies, damned lies and statistics"). In this instance such information was not published, so one should look at the survey with caution.

I assert that even though Which? devoted a whole article to the Asda survey, it did not give the article a "clean bill of health" – instead it cast doubts on Asda’s interpretation of the results. Since Which? did not do their own investigation, they had to be careful about the libelling Asda, so they they worded things in a roundabout way. Since Wikipedia places more reliance on interpretions from secondary sources rather than quotes from the primary source itself, any mention of the Asda survey must be written in the context the in which Which?'s presented it.

In summary, I do not think that this source is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but if it is included, then the inclusion must be in the context of Which? casting doubts on its validity. Martinvl (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mediation

There are three issues here: is the content reliably sourced, is it due, and how should it be represented. The Which? article, the first found (but not the only) source for the content, has prompted problems regarding this third issue.

1. The content is clearly reliably sourced. In addition to the Which? article, this event received coverage in major trade newspapers The Grocer here, and Retail Week here (this second source appears to have fallen behind a paywall, but it's clear that it received coverage). It has also featured in the Daily Mail here. I don't particularly like the Daily Mail as a source (it's a constant issue of contention at RSN), but it confirms the details in the other two sources, and it's a major national newspaper. In addition, there has been coverage in the large circulation The Sun (newspaper) here and the Daily Express here, which are not usually RS (they're tabloids), but the fact they repeat the same basic information can reassure us that nothing funny is going on here. It has also been noted by the umbrella organisation the National Farmers' Retail and Markets Association here. The information looks very verifiable.

2. The content is due. This is an article about metrication in the United Kingdom, and the second biggest food retailer's actions in relation to metrication are obviously part of the article. It also clearly got attention in both the general and specialist media. We are talking here about one sentence, not a whole section, and the content clearly has enough weight for that.

3. How do we handle the issue of Asda's consumer research? The sources all refer to the results of a consumer research poll. We don't know whether or not it was a properly independent market research organisation or Asda's own research. As such, I have argued that the correct course of action is to report the results of the survey while quite clearly attributing them as something Asda said, not as necessarily reliable research in and of itself. This approach of "cite with clear and careful attribution" has been recommended to us when going for outside advice both at RSN and at Identifying Reliable Sources. I do not see or understand the need for horse-trading over its inclusion.

The Which? article commentary has caused dispute. I completely disagree with the view that the article questions the legitimacy of the poll. (It doesn't endorse it either.) The journalist approaches the topic by personalising it, before stating the facts of the Asda move, poll results included. These introductory personal experiences are not meant to be confirmed statements of fact about the world in general. Details:

• One sentence in particular has been presented as evidence that Which? magazine challenge the survey results as legitimate: "I’d even take it a step further and say there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping". For me, this is explicitly conjecture ("I'd even take it a step further..."), based on personal impression, not a statement of fact. Indeed, I struggle to understand why reservations about the mere mention of polling results do not apply all the more so to taking this statement as a serious finding. It's just a personal, impressionistic opinion included as a means of starting a debate amongst readers - who are being openly invited (see subheading) to agree or disagree with it.
• Even if one were to believe that this sentence was placed deliberately as a serious factual statement to contradict (and thus implicitly challenge) Asda's claims, it doesn't actually contradict the survey results: She thinks that young people don't care about units at all (a pretty big claim as it is if, unlike her, you're a bit short of money), which is quite compatible with Asda customers overall preferring one set of units to another. In any case, to get this far is to indulge in OR.
• The journalist states that she buys her produce at farmers markets; she does not even appear to be an Asda customer. This reinforces the view that the journalist is simply talking about her own background and shopping habits as a segue into mentioning Asda's actions and garnering people's views about it. The transition "But, if Asda’s research is anything to go by, there’s plenty of demand to bring back the old system." does not sound to me like someone aggressively trashing Asda's findings as obviously false.
• As for the claim that the journalist was trying to avoid libel - I have to be honest and say I simply cannot fathom how the article could be read that way.

For these reasons I prefer the first version of content as listed in Martinvl's application for mediation. It's neutral, and has attribution for the poll findings. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mediation

The issues as I understand it are:

1. Whether we accept at face value the simple assertions of fact about the Asda survey contained in the Which? magazine article, or whether we try, by reading between the lines (original research in my opinion), to build a case to attempt to discredit the Asda survey.
2. Whether we need to concern ourselves with the details of who performed the survey and how scientifically it was conducted, given that none of that information is available in any of the currently found sources.
3. Whether we need to establish or judge whether the primary source (presumably a press release, or whatever, from Asda) of the information reported in the secondary source (the Which? report) would be considered to be a reliable source under the Wikipedia policies.

My views on these three issues are:

1. That provided that we accurately convey and attribute just the asserted factual information from the Which? article, then it fully complies with the Wikipedia WP:VER policy, and so is acceptable to include in the article.
2. To attempt to discuss the survey methodology would involve nothing more than pure speculation (original research), given that the available secondary source doesn't discuss it, and the primary source doesn't appear to be available.
3. To discuss the reliability of the primary source is irrelevant as it isn't cited in the article - we trust the secondary source (the Which? report) for our information.

I believe that the text currently in the article (the first version in the mediation application) adequately covers the survey, and so is my preferred solution. -- de Facto (talk). 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I do not accept this process

I have made my points many times already, having been forced to because some editors seem to have far more time to spend on this than I do, and keep repeating their invalid logic. Right now I don't have the time to do it again. This does not invalidate my points. If the points I have already made many times are ignored because of this demand, it's a failure of process at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk)

New additional source material

If anybody has a copy of The Times, dated 22 October 2011 (last Saturday), please don't throw it out - there is a report on page 38 that exposes some "sharp" practise by Asda - many products have have their prices increased and then in a blaze of publicity, had "special offers" when they were offerred with big "discounts" which reinstated their old prices (and sometimes on partially). I will use this source (which only became available since I last posted anything on this matter) to back up my assertion that I distrust many advertisements. Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of these reports at the moment, such as here, and this Telegraph report. They all appear to be at it. Do these reports mention the use of imperial and metric units? I can't find a reference to that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was drawing attention to "sharp practice" of any type. My reaction when I saw the Asda survey was that this was just another piece of sharp practice which is why I questioned it. Meanwhile this is not an appropriate place to have this conversation - I was letting the mediator know that new material had become availalbe. If you wish to continue this discussion, please open up a new thread. Martinvl (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the three of you are willing, I will proceed with mediation without HiKo48. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fine by me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Fine by me.Martinvl (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Fine by me. -- de Facto (talk). 06:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• From the several sources presented above, it appears that the mention of the survey is due. As to how Asda obtained the survey results, the information isn't mentioned in the source. Any speculations on how they obtained it would be original research. With that said, The Times article might be of use, if it mentioned the survey. If the article questions the survey, it may also be due to include that information. Although the Which? source does appear to be quite neutral. I will note that at the end of the Which? article, it is fairly skeptical toward the survey and the weight measurement changes. I'll see if I can find any more coverage on the issue. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When you refer to the end of the Which? article, do you mean this sentence: "But, with so many confusing logos, lists and schemes already competing for space on our food labels is there really room for two different weight measurements as well?" Dual labelling has been around for years. Not all products have it (supermarkets have varying policies), but it's hardly unusual. (The difference in Asda's case is in the whole numbers: for example, 500g/1lb 1.6oz versus 454g/1lb.; 1L/1.76pints versus 1136ml/2 pints) Indeed, the original EU policy of phasing out imperial measurements as optional secondary units by 2010 was publicly abandoned in 2007 to much hurrah-ing from the imperial lobby. The only sense I can make of that comment is that the journalist is trying to stimulate debate in the comments beneath by suggesting for and against arguments.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. The comment does suggest that the journalist was merely attempting to start a discussion. Any interpretations one way or another would be relying on original research. This source is on a different ASDA survey, and it mentions that it was conducted by a independent party. I couldn't find any information on how ASDA obtained this particular survey though. I'll keep looking. Right now it appears that unless we can find a source that clearly questions the survey, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the first proposed wording would be most appropriate. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli spoke of “lies, damned lies and statistics”, so when I first saw the article, my immediate reaction was to ask myself what the punnets contained previously. Could it have been 500 g? If so, then this was a downsizing of 10% being justified by the use of something worse that “damned lies” - statistics. Given Asda’s track record (they are part of Walmart), one has every reason to be suspicious of their advertising. One has to remember that when an organisation sponsors a survey, questions can always be worded is a manner so as to “give the right result”. I believe that one of the reasons that the Which? journalist wrote about the farmer’s market was to emphasise such markets were one place where words are not put into customer’s mouths – customers would publicly, without prompting, buy good by pounds, kilograms or count as they saw fit and an observer who was doing a genuine survey could discover their preference by listening to the customers requests.

This leads me on to the next question – assuming that the Asda survey was true (which I don’t), why are people confused by the metric system – is it because the educators have not done their job? Is it because of “indoctrination” by the tabloid press? Without this context, this statement is just a report of a one-off marketing exercise by a single supermarket chain whose customer base is biased towards the least-educated members of society. As such it is just not encyclopaedic.

Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the punnets were 400 g, 300 g or 227 g (1⁄2 lb) - which seems quite likely as they are the pack sizes generally available in other supermarkets - then they would have been upsizing. Did you also consider that what they might actually have been doing was attempting to win market share by addressing the preferrences that their customers had expressed; to be able to buy strawberries in the units that they preferred and understood?

As for your second question: perhaps the British people do not want their customs, way of life, traditions and heritage legislated away from under them. Would you expect them to roll over and start obediently conversing in French (and consign the English language to the rubbish bin of history) if the EU commission issued a diktat mandating that that was the only legally allowable language in Europe? Also, why do you think that the socio-economic profile of the shop's customers impacts the value of this information about the shop's customers, especially given that Asda has the UK's second largest market share in their sector?

-- de Facto (talk). 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto has agreed with me that we don't know what the punnet size was previously, so without that information, the real reason for the Asda pricing strategy is unclear - please provide evidence of your statements. DeFacto's anti-EU outburst has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of how the EU Commission works. For the record, the EU Commission is unable to issue a dirctive until it has been approved by both the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The EU Parliament is elected directly by all EU citizens while the Council of Ministers is a committee made up of the relevant ministers from EU countries - for example, when discussing transport matters, it is made up of the British, Dutch, French etc ministers of transport. I believe that the socio-economic mix of Asda's customers is crucially important in this context - "Are you confused by the metric system?". Since socio-economic group D (unskilled and manual workers) are the least educated, they are more likely to be confused by the metric system than the country at large.

Fnally could I ask DeFacto to be consistent in his approach - he is making suggestions that maybe Asda meant this, maybe Asda meant that as a means of justifying this statement, but at the same time he is on a crusade elsewhere in Wikipedia removing material that is unsourced (rather than marking it with "citation needed") - one rule for DeFacto and another for everybody else. Martinvl (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't clutter this discussion with comment about the irrational and unjustified personalised comments made against me by Martinvl, as I don't think that would be constructive, other than to invite him to apologise for them.

The real reason for the Asda pricing strategy is irrelevant as it isn't mentioned in the, so far, found sources. Martinvl offered one possibility, I pointed out there were also others. I'm not sure which statements require evidence from me - all I wrote in the article is supported by the RS. I was exploring why the Britsh people may prefer imperial measures (not that it matters much, but their motives were being questioned). The socio-economic mix isn't mentioned, nor the wording of the question, so we cannot (and should not) speculate on either of those.

I am not making suggestions to support the statement as I believe it is already fully supported by the RS. What I am doing is making suggestions as to why I think Martinvl's assertions as to what Asda actually meant are not relevant and nothing more than original research.

-- de Facto (talk). 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If the real reason for the survey is irrelevant, why is this material encyclopeadic - as I said before, it is one supermarket chains pricing strategy for one product. It is totally not worthy of mention. Either way, it is not worthy of being in Wikipedia. The analysis that the reliable source offers is to question the value of the Asda statement: you disagree, but assert that Asda were raising it as a discussion point whoch means that either the RS was rubbishing the source or they were inviting comments forn their readers - eitehr way they were not giving it a clean bill of health - again, not worthy of including in Wikiepdia. Martinvl (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The "real reason" is something you've invented, Martin. It's a little reminiscent of St Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. In effect you're saying that because we can conceive of a ulterior reason for Asda's change in policy, then by dint of our reason and intuition alone, that ulterior (and probably damned nefarious) reason must exist. Or at least it must exist if the content is to have the divine quality of dueness. Alas, on Wikipedia, we need reliable secondary sources for the existence of things, not mediaeval logic. The "real reason" is indeed irrelevant unless and until you provide sourcing for it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My last statement started off "If the real reason for the survey is irrelevant, why is this material encyclopeadic ...": in other words, I have put the "real reason" on hold. VsevolodKrolikov's last statement shoudl therefore also be put on hold and my last question be answered. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The material is due because it's been mentioned in several reliable secondary sources and is clearly related to the topic. Those are the usual criteria for inclusion. My last statement addresses not just your final sentence, but your whole approach of raising objections based on and/or framed by nothing more than your own personal beliefs. You may be perfectly correct in your suspicions about Asda. But that's not enough.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov wrote "You may be perfectly correct in your suspicions about Asda. But that's not enough." That is more than enough, especially when Which? magazine cast dispertions on the validity of the Asda statement, even if it was only "We don't agree - what do you think?". Martinvl (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that the Which? article states what the "real reason" for the statement was, or that an ulterior reason even exists? I can't find anything like that in the text. By the way, what exactly is the criticism of the Asda statement in Which? You've never really isolated it from your own views on ehe general unreliability of statistics. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We are going around in circles again. Statistics are inherently unreliable which is why Benjamin Disraeli spoke about "lies, damned lies and statistcs". In the hands of properly trained people, statistics can be useful which is why the universities have courses on statistics. One of the things that is taught in a university course on statistics is that of Statistical hypothesis testing and the background to such testing depends on a number of things including, the way in which data is collected and processed. The reason why HiLo48 did not accepted mediation was because of your refusal to acknowledge how statistics can (and often are) misused, even though this is part of mainstream teaching in a univeristy course. When I was asked for references and I quoted my undergraduate textbook you scorned that. Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin, this is the opposite of what I asked - I asked you to state/rephrase the criticism of Asda's survey without repeating your own views on the general unreliability of statistics.

Your radical skepticism on statistics (inherently unreliable is certainly a radical approach, rather than, say, something like "stats are full of pitfalls", which is what statistics courses generally try to communicate) is well-established, as is your fondness for repeating Disraeli's maxim. You even tried editing policy (on the quiet, too) to get the publications of established reputable polling organisations ruled out as RS, despite receiving clear advice on RSN from editors that they were RS. This is a skepticism that appears to extend in one direction only, however, given the weight you want to put on the opinions of a journalist regarding people's attitudes to weights and measures. This is a central frustration in the disputes on this page: I do not see a consistent handling of sources.

The thing is, your passion for correct stats on this issue is misdirected. I've never said that we treat these Asda results like they are reliable information about the state of any part of British public opinion. Indeed, I recommended taking them out of the lede (they now have been) because of this - de Facto too, as far as I recall. All the advice we have been given is that any stats that Asda mention should be clearly attributed - something we've been maintaining all along. The numbers are mentioned in every source we have, and it would be odd not to mention them at all. HiLo48 actually agreed to this idea of "with clear attribution" at one point; he's subsequently refused to say if he's changed his mind or not.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I accept your definition that "stats are full of pitfalls", unscrupulous people can also manipulate statisitcs by covering up these pitfalls. Given Asda's track record for sharp practice, I need to see evidence that they have avoided the pitfalls. This is where Which? comes in. Which? questioned the validity of the Tesco analysis, but then threw the question open to readers. Reader's comemnts are of course not a reliable source of input, so all we are left with is Which? questioning the validity of the Tesco analysis - the only reliable bit that we have about Asda's staement is that they made the stqatement, not some third party.

Meanwhile I am getting very bored of repeating myself time and time again while you throw up one silly argument after the other.

Martinvl (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You repeated yourself even though I specifically asked you not to. You assert that the Which? article "questions the validity of the analysis", but after all this time you have not actually made it clear exactly what these criticisms (to be clear, made by the journalist, not you) are, or what the libel charges are that the journalist is, you claim, trying to avoid. The twenty-something erstwhile theatre critic and former Harpers & Queen trainee, based on her experience of not actually shopping at supermarkets, said something she feels about people her own age. It makes for friendly journalism, but it's not Which? questioning the validity of the survey. I don't remember ever seeing a chapter on this kind of analysis in a stats book, anyway. So what is the criticism made by Which? of the survey analysis, such that we should excise all mention of it from Wikpedia regardless of attribution?

I've not been putting up one silly argument after another. I've been putting the same silly argument from the beginning: we have sufficient reliable sourcing for the content that Asda said what they said and did what they did to be both verifiable and due, so long as we clearly attribute the material. I think de facto's been saying the same thing, at least for as long as I've been involved in this page. We've asked for outside input in two different places, and we've been advised by pretty much every non-involved editor that this clear attribution of the Asda claims is the appropriate way to handle the material. If you're getting tired of this, please don't forget that it was you that wanted to challenge this advice and go to mediation, thus prolonging matters. I actually warned you that mediation can take a long time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Which? magazine, which is a reliable source, gave their view to the question "Is buying by weight going out of fashion?". The Which? author wrote "I’d even take it a step further and say there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping." That is an analysis of a writer from a reliable source. The fact that she threw it open for discussion does not alter her view- she was the mouthpiece for Which? - or dopn't you understand that. Quite frankly I think that you are filibustering. Please swallow your pride and back down. Martinvl (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, that one single 'view' from the author though was not about the reliability, or otherwise, of the survey, it was more about the demograph of the people who she speculates don't pay attention to the weights. They would presumably be part of the 30% who wouldn't necessarily prefer to use imperial units - why should we assume otherwise? -- de Facto (talk). 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto, you have a choice - you can accept the writer's viewpoint in which case you accept that the Asda article is not reliable or you can reject the writer's viewpoint, in which case you you are stating that this particular Which? article is not a reliable source. Either way, the Asda statement has no place in WIkipedia. Which do yo want to do? Martinvl (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, the author doesn't assert or imply that the Asda survey is unreliable - that is a figment of your imagination. -- de Facto (talk). 08:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin, first of all, the Which? piece is not the only sourcing for this information, so your current tactic to eliminate this information wouldn't suffice anyway. But in any case, Which? is a reliable source for factual statements because it has editorial oversight. A journalist's opinions are not typically part of that oversight. As such, it's not Which? making the statement about people in Hannah Jolliffe's generation, it's Hannah Jolliffe making it. This is how we handle opinion in news publications - it's the author, not the publication, expressing opinions (see WP:NEWSORG). Any concerns that Which?'s fact checking has gone awry on what Asda stated can be laid to rest by the fact that the same information appears in multiple sources.

Secondly, as De Facto points out, and I have pointed out before, Jolliffe's talking about young people, and the Asda survey talks about Asda shoppers - who are not limited to her generation. Even if she were right about young people (based on what research?), it wouldn't contradict Asda's claimed findings. Draw a Venn diagram of the two groups and you'll see what I mean.

Thirdly, you're applying radically different standards to sourcing on one side and the other. You insist that even the most transparently attributed description of a large and notable organisation's policy statements - sourced multiply and consistently - has no place on wikipedia, you try to have opinion polls by the most reputable market research companies taken out of the entire encyclopedia on the grounds that they can't be trusted, yet you're quite happy to massively overinterpret the explicitly impression-based musings of a single generalist journalist who doesn't even shop at the supermarket - or apparently any supermarket - for her produce. I'll repeat the point: your intense statistical fears regarding statements about public opinion and usage only seem to operate in one direction. This isn't about pride for pity's sake, it's about maintaining neutrality and good sourcing in the encyclopedia. If you have reliable sourcing that actually challenges the Asda statement as a con-trick, I'd be perfectly happy to include it. I searched very hard for it myself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the original subject of this sub-thread - does your new source material have anything to say about Asda's survey that could be used to develop the content on this? -- de Facto (talk). 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Real Asda

This morning I had an opportunity to do a five-minute recce in a branch of Asda in a nearby town. I only looked at the pricing structure for fresh produce and I found that strawberries were sold in 400 g punnets. Moreover there was not a single mention of pounds and ounces anywhere, not even as supplementary units. I identified the following ways of pricing produce:

• Some items such as strawberries were sold in packs – each pack having its weight marked on it. The weights were all round numbers in metric units though there were a few products (less than 10% of this class of product) that were sold in either 450 g (1  lb) or 220 g (8 oz) packs.
• Some items (eg apples) were sold individually
• Some items (eg potatoes) were sold loose and priced by the kilogram
• Some items were sold in packs containing a specified number of products (eg six apples, diameter: 50 - 55 mm).

The Asda exercise of using pounds was therefore either abandoned or superceded within a few months making this story totally unnewsworthy. I doubt therefore that any other quotable material will be found relating to this story so I propose that we close this discussion down and remove the references as they place WP:UNDUE emphasis on what is or has become a on-event. Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that each time you've gone elsewhere to present disputes, we've complained that you should have told us, and that you should have presented the dispute neutrally, this is disappointing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A question for the mediator

Alphaquadrant, what are we supposed to do when an editor pushes blatant original research like the section above this one, particularly in consistent pursuit of a POV? He's been directed to WP:NOR countless times for various edits on this page (including previous personal trips down the shops!), so it's not as if he's unaware of the policy. His responses in disputes here indicate he believes that none of the core policies on verifiability, NOR, RS and consensus apply to him (not even 3RR) so long as he thinks he's right. If we don't have even the common ground of working to these basic policies, it's difficult to see how mediation can work.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For a policy standing, original research cannot be used. Per our verifiability policy, all information in the should be covered in reliable sources. Occasionally, this means that the information isn't necessarily completely accurate. The information presented by Martinvl needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. Martinvl appears to be well meaning in his attempt to keep the article accurate. I understand his views regarding the information, but unless there are sources backing his speculations and original research, there isn't much weight to his arguments. This line from WP:UNDUE sums up the policy well:

“ Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Also, if you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. ”

Currently, the arguments presented by de Facto and VsevolodKrolikov appear to be more in line with policy. If Martinvl has any reliable sources verifying his information, this may change. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia currently says "In May 2011 the Asda supermarket chain stated that consumer research had shown that 70% of their customers found metric confusing and would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units. As a result, they were beginning to experiment with selling certain produce in round imperial measures again."

• I went to Asda today and after five months there was not single pound or ounce to be seen in the fresh produce section.

Something is clearly wrong. On reading the artcile Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world we need to get this right. What sort of evidence do you want? Do you really want me to go over to Asda with a camera to photgraph the produce to prove my assertion? Remember that Asda, like any other supermarket carries 1000's of lines and they do not always advertise all their prices in the press. Martinvl (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Those here wanting to argue that ASDA uses imperial measurements really are beginning to look like Flat Earthers. Quite independently of Martinvl, I thought I would look at some of ASDA's online marketing. You can look at some examples yourself here, here, here, here and here. Lots of kg, gm and lt measurements. Not a sign of lbs, oz, etc. Now, I could stop right here and you could say that those above are primary sources and so unacceptable. That's true, for Wikipedia content, but what they do do is demonstrate that you are attempting to defend the indefensible. What's the point of using Wikipedia policies to justify the inclusion of utter crap in articles? (Unless, of course, you have a POV to push.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, I don't see anyone here wanting to argue that Asda uses imperial units - do you? What I do see are people wanting to include relevant and reliably sourced information about a survey of shoppers of a large supermarket chain. Incidentally, according to Asda's website help, you can choose whether you order goods in pounds or kilogrammes - it says: "If you'd like to say how much of a weighted product you'd like to buy in lbs, simply change the value in the dropdown box next to the quantity. When we add it to your trolley we will convert it back to kg." -- de Facto (talk). 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But what is the point of including the material about the survey? Surely it's to imply that ASDA uses imperial measurements, which is clearly untrue. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it happened, it is notable and it is relevant to the article. It doesn't imply that they use imperial, it details the results of a survey and its consequences. Why do you want to suppress that information? -- de Facto (talk). 07:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your memory must be failing. For about the tenth time, it's unreliable. We don't know who was surveyed, what the questions were, and the context in which they were asked. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing what reliability means on Wikipedia. That Asda said and did what they did is reliably sourced. You're correct in that we've been over this before, but the problem has been you think we're using the survey to source informtion about public opinion when we're not. The consistent uninvolved advice we have received, which coincides with the position I've taken since the beginning, is that we do not present this survey as evidence of public opinion, but instead clearly attribute it to Asda (the removal of the survey information from the lede was something I saw through in the mess of Martinvl's day of edit warring precisely because it was misleading in such a prominent place). We include it under retail because Asda's statements and actions received coverage in reliable sources, and it's clearly related to the article. I am trying to think of an analogous situation where we would suppress such information.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HiLo48, those are opinions and assertions for which, unlike the details of the survey so far included, we don't have reliable sources - hence the reason that we must not include them. I think it must be your memory that's failed - that has been explained over and over here already. -- de Facto (talk). 08:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That you two and an outsider also without a proper understanding of this stuff think differently from me does not change my view. Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you summarise your view, succinctly and in one objective sentence, and with no emotive language, so we can try and understand exactly where the impasse is? -- de Facto (talk). 09:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, the survey took place and Which? reported it and the consequences. Your photos can't change history. However, if you can turn up a reliable source stating that the experiment finished and Asda decided not to pursue the idea of round imperial measures then add that information too. -- de Facto (talk). 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with original research, especially when done by campaigning editors. HiLo's careful checking of Asda's website missed this by Asda about their pricing experiment. Several times on this page, HiLo and Martinvl have tried to alter content based on such OR, making statements that are subsequently shown to be inaccurate. This is why it's essential we actually stick to Wikipedia sourcing policies. Openly scorning them is quite worrying. Wikipedia is not the place to carry on real life political campaigns. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But what is the point of including the material about the survey? Surely it's to imply that ASDA uses imperial measurements, which is clearly untrue. Yes, they allow customers to buy that way if they insist, but none of their marketing uses imperial. So, why include that material? HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not to imply anything other than that Asda stated it was going to start a limited pricing experiment based on a survey of its customers. This article should not be a battleground about which system is winning. The Asda pricing experiment was noted by the leading consumer magazine, leading trade journals and three national newspapers, as well as one of the leading producer organisations. It's verifiable, and it's due. On the other hand, editors with open POVs going down the shops with cameras or data fishing on the internet is not the basis on which we should be building an encyclopedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But the truth is now OBVIOUSLY that the experiment didn't last very long (if it ever really began). To include is therefore very obviously giving it undue weight. One would only include it if one was pushing an anti-metrication POV. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Verify is the policy here. While we have sourcing that the experiment started, we don't have any sourcing for the results or even if it's finished. An editor's assertion based on personal experience about what is true or not true is fundamentally irrelevant to Wikipedia content. Regarding your attempts to check primary sources: did Asda include online shopping in this experiment? We don't know. All the sources refer to instore pricing where they specify, and as De Facto pointed out, their website allows users to use either system anyway.

As for making accusations of anti-metric sensibilities against me, you appear to ignore that I've found and added material specifically criticising one supermarket for their use of imperial measures. I base my suggestions of POV editing on the way you and Martinvl consistently hold content supporting a picture of general acceptance of metrication to vastly weaker sourcing standards (original research a lot of the time) than that which mentions support for continued use of imperial units - even trying to edit policy to take out sourcing already advised as reliable by uninvolved editors, or as in your case, stating we should ignore sourcing policy altogether. You both have also not been shy about your positive views of metrication.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the kind. Misrepresenting my position weakens your case. I argue that it is patently obvious to all that ASDA virtually exclusively uses metric measures in its advertising. Wikipedia doesn't require sources for obvious, common knowledge. To argue otherwise, with use of a weak secondary source as your goal, is really playing the system. You're not interested in Wikipedia containing the best and most balanced content, but only the content that appeals to you. That approach (of ignoring the bleeding obvious) will only lead to this encyclopaedia looking silly. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold on - no one is denying that Asda uses metric. (De Facto and I have both stated quite clearly that this material is not about implying that Asda uses imperial in any general sense.) Asda's metric use instore is actually one of the things commented on in the reliable sourcing we have for this - I imagine it's why commentators took note. From the Grocer, with emphasis added:

"Asda is to sell 1lb punnets of strawberries for the first time in more than 10 years to gauge shopper demand ahead of a potential roll-out of imperial measurements to other fruit & veg. Asda will trial the punnets ­ which will display both imperial and metric ­from Monday."

This content is not being included to stick one up the metrication lobby, for Pete's sake. It's because several reliable secondary sources contain it, whereas you have not produced a single reliable secondary source (or appropriate primary source, such as a statement by Asda) that would support its removal or qualification. It would be great if we could have reliable secondary sourcing about the outcome of this trial (maybe Asda has abandoned a roll-out - who knows what the future holds?), but as it stands we don't have it. As I've had to stress several times on this talkpage, where there is no reliable secondary sourcing, we have to stay silent. Policy is quite categorical: we do not cobble together content solely from primary sources (a fortiori not sampling them as data sources) in its place. We also do not edit according to an editor's convictions of being right (even if he starts writing in bold or capital letters ;-) ).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, you have ignored much of what I wrote. I shall again retire from this ridiculous discussion knowing that my point is clear, but not acknowledged by more stubborn editors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov: this is part of an anti-metric campaign by DeFacto. Please look at his "contributns" to the following articles:Metric_system

• Metrication in the United Kingdom,
• Imperial_units,
• Stone_(imperial_mass),
• Foot_(unit),
• Metric_system,
• Measurement,
• International_System_of_Units,
• Driver_location_signs,
• Kilometre,
• Metrication,
• Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom,
• Metrication_in_Ireland,
• Milestone.

An examination will reveal a blatant and more importantly disruptive anti-metrication campaign. The only real difference between the partcular argument in progress and all the earlier ones is that you [VsevolodKrolikov] decided to support him in this one. Yes, there has been a lot of POV-pushing - by DeFacto, not by me. Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you reveal the motive behind your irrational behaviour and unjust accusations with the sentence: "The only real difference between the partcular argument in progress and all the earlier ones is that you [VsevolodKrolikov] decided to support him in this one". Please retract the rest of the diatribe. -- de Facto (talk). 10:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I've no interest in getting involved in spats between the two of you on other pages. The issue is this page. You are willing to use as sourcing self-published advocacy material, your own photographs, your own private analysis of a single issue of a supermarket magazine your wife brought home for you, usage on single pages of single websites to represent whole sports and organisations and so on and so forth, all to support content emphasising how much metric is used. You aggressively defend (to the point of claiming serious affront) the lack of secondary sourcing (and the problems of OR and UNDUE this lack creates) when challenged on it. Yet you reject reliable secondary sources and advice regarding their use sought from third parties whenever those sources mention support for the use of imperial measures. The end result (what you believe to be true) seems to be your criterion for inclusion, not the quality of sourcing as reflected in wikipedia policy and practice. Quite apart from POV, a big problem with this approach is that it does not work when there is a dispute. It offers no common principles for disputants to work from. Alpha Quadrant's job here is to find some kind of resolution based on policy. If we could all agree on how sourcing policy applies here and be prepared to apply it consistently, we'd make some progress. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov:

• You wrote "Alphaquadrant, what are we supposed to do when an editor pushes blatant original research like the section above this one, particularly in consistent pursuit of a POV". You have accused me of POV pushing - Please prove it, but before you do that, look carefully at Defacto's changes in other artciles, work out his agenda and that you ask yourself whether or are associated, albeit unwittingly, with that agenda. If you associate yourself with his agenda, then you have no scope to criticise, if you wish to dissassociate yourself from his agenda, then please step back ansd ask why you are suppoprting him with this particular article?

• The criticism about OR is totally misguided. The conclusion to which I came was "I doubt therefore that any other quotable material will be found relating to this story ..." If you were looking for material to support what went followed the expermient, you should welcome this bit of research - it will save you (or anybody else) a lot of unneccessary searching as people seldom publish results of experiments that went wrong. I would like an apology for making unneccessary insinuations about my character?

Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any POV pushing issues here. This discussion needs to stay on the content issue. Right now, the core issue is whether or not information covered only in original research can, or cannot be used. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be used. We're a tertiary, not a secondary source. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR are core policies we cannot contravene. We do not write our articles as if we are researchers writing for journals or newspapers, free to analyse primary sources and draw conclusions. We absolutely do not have that freedom, and rightly so. I would have thought that the repeated cases on this page of OR being shown incorrect would have made that clear. On here we're anonymous editors with no credentials, even if we have credentials in real life. We're not to be trusted to get it right.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. One of the important sentences there is "Those outside readers will also read your words in the context of generally understood meanings, not Wikipedia definitions. Appeal to Wikipedia rules and process will not save you from misunderstandings". As regards any OR that I might have done, Wikipedia's rules state "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". At no stage have I attempted to include this OR in Wikipedia - I have used it to put some other sources into context and they show that in the realm of the real world, the Asda experiment, if it ever took place, appears to have failed. If we have a record of how the outcome of the experiment from a reliable source, then that should be published alongside, or better still, instead of the original statement. If no such record is available, why do we keep a reference to an experiment for which we have no evidence of having taken place and which, if it did take place, only produced negative results. As a result of my OR, we cannot even plead ignorance. Are we trying to compomise Wikipedia in the eyes of the outside world in order to score a few ego points? Martinvl (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'evidence' (verifiability) that the survey and experiment took place is in the RS. The reader can verify what is written from there. As I (and I believe VsevolodKrolikov) have said all along, if a reliable source can be found to support criticism, or whatever, of the survey, then, of course, the pertinent data from it should be added. None of that alters the legitimacy of what we currently have in the article though. Your OR, the result of a visit to 1 (of 500, or more) Asda stores, is not reliable (in the WP:RS sense) so cannot be used to add (or remove) article content. -- de Facto (talk). 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That essay doesn't seem to have any relevance here at all, at least not to anything I myself have said or done. We do actually have reliable sourcing that the experiment happened. The Which? article, for example states "If you’ve been shopping in Asda in the past week you may have noticed something strange – the supermarket giant has started selling its strawberries in 1lb punnets." It would be great if we had more sourcing on the outcome, but as it stands we don't. We certainly do have several sources for Asda's statements. Secondary sources took note of it. That's what makes material due. I have no idea what you mean by scoring ego points. I genuinely don't care whether or not Asda's experiment was a success. I may never ever set foot in an Asda again. I long ago lost any sense of imperial measures for shopping. Even shoe sizes where I live are in centimetres. I'm just interested in having this page reflect reliable sourcing, and be free of original research.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to DeFacto - Nowhere does policy prevent the use of OR to justify the removal of material from Wikipedia. The underlying reason for the WP:NOR rule was to prevent Wikipedia from being a medium to promote fringe theories.

Although I only visited one store, my findings there are sufficient to disprove that the proposition that imperial packaging was rolled out to all stores. The immediate question is "Was it rolled out to any stores, if so, which ones?". In view of the fact that you now know that this policy was discontinued in at least one store, should you not identify how far this experiment went - the indications are that it wnet nowhere and that Asda quitetly wrapped it up. As such, it is a non-event. I suggest i tbe removed frothis article and if Asda choose to mention it in their annual report, add it to the Asda article, otherwise leave it where it belongs - the dustbin.

Finally, if you insist on keeping it, then it should be moved to the education section - after all why do so many people not understand the metric system - everybody under the age of 55 was taught it at school? Martinvl (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, countering well-sourced content with original research is not done. If another editor went to his local Asda and said "I saw some imperial labelling", what would we do? How would we know if one of you is lying or not? How do we know you didn't in good faith simply miss the imperial labelling on certain goods? What if Asda had actually sold out of the 1lb strawberries because they were so popular with swarms of imperial-starved shoppers? Your interpretation of policy where we can eliminate content on the OR say-so of an editor would lead to all kinds of shenanigans on Wikipedia were it accepted practice. It isn't accepted practice.

This is about the fifth or sixth different argument you've rehearsed against this content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, if you can find a reliable source stating how many stores it was done in, and for how long, then we can supplement what we already have with the pertinent details from those sources. What we currently know is: that their survey showed 70% of their shoppers preferred imperial and that they started an experiment with imperial weights. Both notable, due and reliably sourced facts - even if the experiment was only conducted in one shop, and on one batch of strawberries. -- de Facto (talk). 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto, the onus is actually on you to prove the continued reliability of your addition. I have provided a counterexample which shows that what you wrote is subject to at least some limits. It is up to you to find the reliable sources that show the limitations of what you wrote, not me - after all you wrote it. Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, yes, "my" additon is still verifiable from the reliable sources, I just checked. Counterexample? There are no propositions made, just the assertion of a couple of facts - what are the "counterexamples" to those? What limitations - it's all already supported by reliable sources? -- de Facto (talk). 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Grocer magazine wrote "Asda is to sell 1lb punnets of strawberries for the first time in more than 10 years to gauge shopper demand ahead of a potential roll-out of imperial measurements to other fruit & veg. ... The move follows consumer research that indicated 70% of its shoppers were confused by metric and would prefer products to be labelled in pounds".

• What proportion of Asda's shoppers were confused by metric [units] and what proportion preferred products to be labelled in pounds? The article was not saying.
• How was the research done - any reputable research organisation gives an overview of how they gathered their data. Again the article does not say how Asda did their research.
• Reputable research organisations often quote the margin of error on their research, or at the very least give sufficient information for the reader to calculate the standard deviation of the results. Again the article did not give the reader the opportunity to calculate this. The use of standard deviations is an integral part of statistics, a subject that a standard part of most number-intensive university courses (including all sciences - physics, chemistry, geology, psychology, geography etc, engineering, medicine and related subjects). The way in which this was reported gave much to be desired - the information that gives the statistically-aware reader comfort that the survey was done properly is missing - in short, this survey is not encyclopedic and should therefore not be included in Wikipedia.

Lets us assume that all of the above has been satisfactorily answered - what useful information does this source contribute to Wikipedia? It tells me that 70% of Asda customers are confused by metric units. Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts, but an encyclopedia, so any facts mentioned should be in context. The survey only covered Asda's customers, not the UK as a whole, so can we extrapolate these results to the UK? A very loud No!!!! If one examines the Asda customer base, which was done on page 16 of this Government report on supermarket oligopoly we see that of the four big supermarkets, Asda is the most heavily biased towards socio-economic groups C2 (Skilled manual workers) and D (Semi and unskilled manual workers). The C2 and D socio-economic groups are usually the least educated members of society and therefore the most likely to be confused by anything numeric. Therefore it is obvious that we cannot infer anything from these figures other than the way in which they affect Asda. In isolation therefore this source is of no relevance to Wikipedia, other than possibly the article on Asda.

It is not up to Wikipedia to interpret information, but to present it to readers in a neutral manner so that they can interpret it. Given that we do not have comparable information for Tesco, Sainsbury and Morrison, we need to turn to reliable sources for interpretation. The Grocer magazine did not try to interpret it, but Which? did. The Which? website policy is given here. In it they write Which? Conversation is a new community site from the people at Which? It’s a place for Which? experts to give the insider view of the burning consumer issues of the day and tell you why you need to know about it. Note the word "expert" - writers are not just any old journalist, but journalists who have experience in the subject. If Which? magazine is to be taken seriously, (ie if it is a reliable source), then the views of its paid journalists must be taken seriously which is why we should take Hannah Jolliffe's comments seriously. To remind readers, she wrote "I’d even take it a step further and say there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping. Most fruit and veg is pre-packed in supermarkets nowadays so we don’t have a clue what it weights", in other words she questioned the rationale of Asda moving over to pounds. Since the purpose of secondary sources is to give commentary on primary sources, a failure to quote Joliffe is a failure to promote a NPOV.

Finally, my own research (photos will be taken if requested) and the references quoted by HiLo48 show that the "potential roll-out of imperial measurements" never happened, making this a non-event

In summary then, the original source was poorly presented, crucial information was missing and the way in which DeFacto presented it missed sufficient comment in a reliable source as to make is a Cherrypicking exercise, thereby undermining the very purpose of using reliable sources. So what point are you trying to make - this is an isolated event of little consequence and Wikipedia is not a list of isolated events. This particular addition must therefore go.

Martinvl (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you seem to have missed the point: the current content is supported by the cited reliable source. It doesn't matter what you might be able to conjure up in your imagination by "reading between the lines", or as a result of your original research.

BTW, I was in a large Tesco store today, and their loose fruit & veg is priced per lb and per kg on the shelves - both with equal prominence. Perhaps they took the results of Asda's survey seriously, even if Asda didn't! (I won't be adding any assertions to the article supported only by that "research" though ). -- de Facto (talk). 22:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, this is from the FAQs at both WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources.

I personally know that this information is true (or false). Isn't that good enough to include it (or remove it)?

No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or beliefs is not enough.

It does not get much clearer than this.

You cite WP:Coatrack to suggest we are WP:Cherrypicking. This is to claim that the article is not about the use of metric and imperial measurements in the UK, and that a single item constitutes a list. Neither is tenable as an argument. Coatracking would be, for example, using the article to insert criticism about supermarkets that is not connected with metrication.

Suggesting that the material would possibly be acceptable in an education section, when no reliable sourcing has been presented connecting Asda's statements to education in the UK is original research. It's also inconsistent with your position that the content would be quite unacceptable in the retail section on grounds of it being poor stats. Your original position at the beginning of this mediation was that the content was OK to go in the retail section so long as we included material from Hannah Jolliffe too. This is the problem with WP:Policy shopping to remove content. One often ends up contradicting oneself.

You suggest that Asda shoppers are on average too poor and therefore stupid for us to use them to represent British popular opinion. The content currently states In May 2011 the Asda supermarket chain stated that consumer research had shown that 70% of their customers found metric confusing and would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units. We're not representing them as anything other than Asda shoppers. You'd need a secondary reliable source to state that Asda shoppers represent a demographic that particularly struggles with metric. As always, it would be great to have that kind of material, but we don't.

Is it undue to mention Asda here? You might have a point if Asda were a niche, small-scale operation attracting little attention. But it's the second biggest supermarket by market share in a very concentrated national market. That's why its actions and statements are noted in reliable sources. I have to refer here to previous editing in the retail section. You previously tried to add material about Waitrose Weekend free instore magazine based on zero secondary coverage (you flicked through a copy of the magazine looking at usage). Why was that material due but this multiply sourced material about a supermarket four times bigger is not? As I said previously, it's difficult to get a handle on what your sourcing-based criteria for inclusion are when they appear to vary so wildly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We still do not know what questions were asked, who was asked, and in what context. No real conclusion can be drawn from the survey results. We also don't know if ASDA really changed it's packaging policy, nor, if they really did, why, and for how long. This is all counter-intuitive to the way tabloid news outlets report this sort of shallow content, and may therefore be hard to for some editors to accept, but the whole story is too uncertain and meaningless to even deserve mention here. (Unless, of course, one is pushing an anti-metric POV.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the things that we don't know we can't comment upon. However, thanks to the reliable sources cited in this case, the reader can verify what is currently in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about the ASDA story should be in the article. Because there is so much doubt about what actually happened, there is nothing of significant, reliable note to record. The only reason to have such doubtful material in the article is to push an anti-metric POV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any RS expressing such doubts - if you find any, please add them. I see no evidence of anti-metric POV-pushing either, and I consider the suggestion to be deeply offensive. -- de Facto (talk). 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have explained why the material is so doubtful as to be non-notable. That you choose to ignore people who know more about this stuff than you, and refuse to learn anything about what is truly meaningful in the world of statistics, your motivations must be in question. (Since this discussion began, have you actually taken the trouble to try to learn how statistical claims can be misused?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You've explained, and we've replied, not ignored. The content clearly attributes all claims to Asda, rather than stating any survey findings as fact. We're not using the material as a statement of anything more than what a supermarket believes of its customers. As such, your constant reference to how statistics can be abused is moot. The material itself is not "doubtful" - we have both primary and secondary confirmation for Asda's claims, and none contradicting them. Perhaps you are not happy with the form of attribution we've used. Can you think of a better one?

Due weight is determined by coverage in reliable sources. To be fair, you've not addressed the issue that we have several reliable sources for the content. This is what makes content "due" (what you refer to as "notable"). What part of policy are you relying on to say that these sources do not carry weight?

As for whether or not Asda is lying: It may be that Asda has made everything up, duped both its customers, its own staff, and several news organisations. You need to be able to demonstrate this with reliable sources that talk about Asda. (If you could, it would make for a very interesting bit of content.) One could exercise the same degree of scepticism about a great deal of information on Wikipedia, were one to ignore the principle of using reliable sources. We stand or fall by their quality, rather than our own private attempts to establish the truth™. This is a fundamental principle of editing this encyclopedia, as far as I can see.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Being well sourced does not make material notable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." In that light, how does being well-sourced not make material due? (btw, "notability" on WP refers to article topics, not content. I know what you mean by notability, but some people get shirty about mixing the terms up). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I could find lots of very good sources from over the years for various conservative politicians (and I don't just mean Conservative Party) telling us how evil metrication is. We don't include them all. In fact, we include very few. Sometimes common sense applies. If a matter is of no great significance, we don't include it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you determine "significance" if not first and foremost by the existence of reliable sources taking note? Policy is quite clear that due weight isn't based upon an editor's personal beliefs. "Common sense" does not mean the same as "I strongly believe".

By the way, if you have multiple secondary sources for notable British politicians commenting on metrication, it's quite probably due, and it would help if you could tell us the sources. We have a very meagre section on advocacy at the moment. It's certainly not all about politicians saying how evil metrication is. Geoffrey Howe's statements about regretting his own government's undermining of metrication are, I would argue, entirely due, as he's authored articles in quality press about it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Convenience break

VsevolodKrolikov wrote: "As for whether or not Asda is lying: It may be that Asda has made everything up, duped both its customers, its own staff, and several news organisations. You need to be able to demonstrate this with reliable sources that talk about Asda." In order to locate a suitable RS, we need to understand how the sources get their information. The answer is simple - via press releases - that is probably how The Grocer got its information. If Asda was lying, then it is hardly likely that they issued a press release "We conned our customers". They will just keep quiet and hope that it goes away, so looking for press releases is a pointless exercise. In exactly the same, my simple investigation of the current situation at Asda showed that they had discontinued their experiment. It is possible that if they were being too brazen about it that they had a visit from the Trading Standards Office who threatened to "take them to the cleaners". They woudl not publicise such a visit, but if, several month later, we are going to report on phase 1, we need to ensire that phase 2 also happened (or is going to happen). Obviously Phase 2 did not happen, so if we report Phase 1, knowing that Phase 2 was cancelled we are no better than a tabloid jourbnalist. Martinvl (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - we are doing what always happens on Wikipedia. We are relying on the oversight of reliable sources. That's what makes them reliable, not whether an editor individually disagrees - without similarly reliable backing - with how they report events. While it would be great to know what happened, we do not need to know in order for Asda's announcement and commencement of the trial to be due material. I cited policy above:

I personally know that this information is true (or false). Isn't that good enough to include it (or remove it)?

No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or beliefs is not enough.

Do you not see how that covers what you're trying to do here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You are using carefully selected Wikipedia policies to justify including of content that pushes an anti-metrication POV. I don't simply believe that using statistics reported in the way the ASDA survey was reported is meaningless. I KNOW it is. I know that because (it seems) I have more professional and academic experience in this area than those who want to include it. I have given my reasons several times. They are valid. They are correct. They make sense. The only reason I've had to do that is because the anti-metrication POV pushers here are refusing to learn and to acknowledge reality. And I won't go through my reasons again. The ASDA story adds nothing to this article, apart from showing that ASDA wanted to make some of its conservative customers think it was looking after them. ASDA's goal is selling stuff, not truth. Why we would even dream of using such poor quality content from such a source is beyond me, unless those wanting it think it supports their POV. Your position is "It's sourced. I don't care whether it's true". You are making a mockery of aiming to make Wikipedia a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly didn't say I don't care if it isn't true. I think our content about Asda is true, and I think it's due. I'm merely pointing out that radical skepticism about ordinarily reliable sources doesn't wash. You have to provide evidence that something this well-sourced is wrong or undue. If you really do have all these qualifications and professional experience in marketing and social research, rather than tantalising us with repeated declarations while ultimately keeping your specialist knowledge really very secret, why don't you bring it to bear? Explain to us mere mortals, please. By the way, I'm citing core policy. It's not cherry picking. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have found a number of topics in Wikipeida that put HiLo48's and my objections into perspective. The first is Misuse of statistics which is pretty well standard textbook stuff. The other section that is, in my opinion, worth a read is Survey methodology#How to write good survey questions - again not very much new in that either, but both ask the questions that HiLo48 and I have been asking.

On to your specific questions - is it valid to extrapolate the Asda results to the country as a whole? The article Extrapolation give a short overview of what is needed when one extrapolates. However, since there is only one figure in the Asda survey, we are not justified in extrapolating unless we can demonstrate that the Asda customer base is typical of the country as a whole in respect of people's understanding of metrication. We know that the Asda customer base is biased towards socio-economic group D and that understanding of the metric system is dependent on mathematical ability. [This OECD reference] states "As previous analyses of data from PISA have shown, socio-economic background accounts for a sizeable proportion of variance in mathematics performance.". Putting these two together gives us very good reason to question extrapolation.

I trust that these references will help you to see where HiLo48 and I were coming from and why we:

• Distrusted the quality of the data in the first place
• Distrusted using Asda data as being typical of the country.

The only argument that you and DeFacto have put up is that the data is reliably sourced, but being reliably sourced does not automatically make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Taking the RS argument to its logical conclusion I read in one of our local newspapers (delivered today) that Sarah Epworth (not her real name) was fined for drunk and disorderly behviour. If I read the same report but written by a different journalist in our other local newspaper tomorrow, it is probably reliable, but hardly Wikipedia material. On this basis I assert that even if the Asda story is reliably sourced, it is not neccessarily relevant unless if can be tied into the bigger picture. So far I have not seen any attempt to do so.

BTW, I have not had anything to do with any of the articles quoted, nor, as far as I could see, has HiLo48.

Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martinvl,

1. I don't think that either VsevolodKrolikov or myself have ever disagreed with your or HiLo48's assertions about what it takes to make a good survey, or about how statistics work. That is probably because it is irrelevant to this discussion.
2. Who was asking about extrapolation? Your post is indented as if a reply to HiLo48's post, but I don't see the question there. I don't recall any suggestion or attempt to imply that the result applied to any group other than the Asda customers surveyd. In fact the comment in the article is carefully phrased and attributed to avoid that unsupported implication.
3. Neither your nor HiLo48's OR into, or opinion of, the survey has any place here.
4. To say the only argument for inclusion has been that it is reliably sourced is to misrepresent the argument. I (and I believe VsevolodKrolikov ) have consistently argued that its inclusion is justified because it is notable, due, reliably sourced and relevant to the article. Given your false premise, the rest of that argument of yours is invalid.

-- de Facto (talk). 23:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with de Facto. The argument that we can't extrapolate when we're not trying to, so we shouldn't include the material is creative though. In and of itself, the material relates directly to the topic, it received RS coverage, it relates to one of the largest retailers in the country and so on and so forth. We can raise all kinds of existential doubts, but without any evidence to support those doubts that actually relates to the content, those doubts are immaterial.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a question I asked several times much earlier in this discussion, with no response. It goes to the core of this matter. Every day in my part of the world tabloid media, TV and the press, conduct surveys of their viewers and readers. I suspect similar things happen n the UK. One can phone in a vote or vote on the Internet on "important" matters. These vary from "Who should be the next Prime Minister?" to "Should Player X be selected to play for Team Y this week?" The survey results are obviously well sourced, but I don't believe we ever use them in Wikipedia, because we suspect (believe?, know?) that the sample is biased. We don't have sources to tell us they're biased, but we still ignore them. Why cannot the fans of the ASDA survey see the problem with it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In your fulsome experience of market research, have you ever come across a company using phone-ins to gather quantitative data on customer preference? I don't recall ever seeing it as a recommended technique, nor as a case study. The sampling biases (and inability to control for them) would be horrendous. I think the fact that you've seen these things on TV and in cheap journalism should have made you realise that they're not research at all, but a form of entertainment. The point is the taking part in the survey, not the results. TV programmes and newspapers may make a bit of money out of the phone lines into the bargain.

You mentioned earlier that "ASDA's goal is selling stuff". I agree. It would be very odd for a large company to engage in patently silly forms of market research if they had a goal of improving their ability to meet demand. There's a snobbism amongst some academics and lay people about market research. But market researchers are not idiots or amateurs, despite what you and Martinvl want to imply (are you sure you have professional experience in marketing research? Was it a big company?). They're handling survey data day in day out. They're trained in it just as much as academic researchers into social phenomena ever are, outside fields like demography and epidemiology. If you're convinced that Asda's desire to make money overhelms everything else, you can't then spin stories about them doing patently bad research. It wouldn't be in their interest, would it? Doing poor quality research for one's own benefit would be things like push-polling (the polling, not the result is the technique) or doctoring results that claim an advantage over one's competitors. This does not seem to be what could have happened here.

Note that I am not here saying that Asda's research is thereby a reliable source for survey data. We don't know about oversight of the research at all, so we can't treat it like that. That's why we say we attribute clearly as a claim that Asda has made. Several reliable sources (including specialist publications) have taken Asda's statement at face value, so we do have the usual degree of quality assurance that nothing strange is going on.

Let me give you some pointers as to what you need to do to discredit the content. You could establish with reliable sources that Asda have done these kind of announcements a few times before and have been criticised for the quality of their research or their (ab)use of data, and that ordinarily reliable sources - including specialist ones, failed to exercise due diligence. You could produce reliable sources that state Asda didn't even do the survey - and that ordinarily reliable sources, including specialist publications, were duped. You could produce evidence that these publications receieved money for publicising Asda, probably breaking the law in the process for not disclosing this. What you can't do is spin long stories about all the ways in the world statistics can be misused without actually connecting it to this case.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You've written a lot, but sadly ignored some important things I said, and distorted my points as well. I have absolutely no doubt that ASDA said they conducted a survey, and that ASDA said they were changing packaging policy because of it. But that's it. That's ALL we know. Because we know no more, we cannot assume any more. It's no more justified to include the ASDA claim than it is to include any of the tabloid surveys I mentioned in Wikipedia. It adds no substantive, verified information to the article apart from the fact that ASDA panders to its customers by telling those that still want imperial that they will deliver goods that way. It doesn't even tell us that they actually did that. Note that I am not saying that they didn't. We just don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We have Which? saying it had already started, and as I noted above, specialist media such as Which? and trade publications, as well as producer organisations all reporting on the matter. Due weight is decided by coverage in reliable sources. If the second biggest UK supermarket chain, as mentioned in several reliable sources, talking about the level of acceptance of metric is not relevant in an article about metrication in the UK, heaven knows what is.

By the way, I find it curious for a (former?) professional that you refer to TV phone-ins you've seen from time to time for examples of opinion research. These are, in my experience, clearly far off from what goes on in market research departments and companies, on the grounds that they produce unusuable data. Why don't you talk about your experience in market research? It might illuminate the discussion. How long did you work in the area for?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not the topic here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, HiLo48 and Martinvl, you need to present reliable third party sources to back up your statements. VsevolodKrolikov and deFacto have provided reliable third party sources to back up theirs. Until such sources are provided, your statements are considered original research. If there are no such sources, then I am afraid nothing can be done from a policy standpoint. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That ignores everything I have said in my last few posts (and MANY times earlier on the page) about other survey results we don't use in Wikipedia, WITHOUT sources to say that we shouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In its statement, Asda said that 70% of its shoppers were confused by metric and would prefer products to be labelled in pounds. When they were doing the poll, was this the result of two questions or of one.

1. If it was the result of a single question, then this violates Rule 5 of Survey methodology#How to write good survey questions - "confused by metric" and "prefer products to be labelled in pounds" are two questions, not one.
2. If two separate questions were asked, then for the Asda statement to be true, at least 70% would have stated that they were confused by metric [units] and independently of that, at least 70% would have had to state tha tthey perfrerreed imperial units. Did respondents have the option of saying "I don't care" in response to a choice of metric or imperial? I find it hard to believe that 70% or more of the population would have ticked the "Imperial" box if a "Don't care" box was available. The fact that Asda are now using all-metric pricing suggests that there was no "don't care" box because in the event they discontinued the exercise. I have personal experience of being interviewed regarding a partcular product and even though I told the interviewer quite emphatically that my response to some of the questions was "Don't care", that was an unacceptable answer in the survey. Given my own experience and the absence of a record of the actual questions asked by Asda, I must again state that unless I actually see what questions that were asked and what options were asailable, I view this survey as being unsound and not worthy of inclusion in Wikiepida.

If one states that because the statement is true for 18% of the population, then it hold for the entire population is an extrapolation based on the assumption that the 18%for whom it is true are representative of the population as a whole. As I think I have identified time and time again, the Asda customer base is not representative of the population as a whole and merely becomes a record of a failed experiment by one supermarket.

Martinvl (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Eh? I'm not making you the topic, I'm following up on what you said. You quite clearly said you had professional and academic expertise in this area, and it seemed to you this expertise was more than those you disagreed with, and that this was a reason that we should go along with you (Both you and Martinvl has stated much the same thing on repeated occasions). As someone who has a certain amount of experience working in market research (not a great deal - it was an earner when I was a research student, although I have friends who've made careers out of it) I'm interested to know how your greater experience can inform my understanding of the area. I'm sure you can furnish us with interesting case studies of market research gone horribly wrong, things like that, rather than these generalities. I think I know enough about the subject for you not to need to bring in rather obvious off-the-wall examples like TV phone ins. I'm certainly open to persuasion if you can illustrate your case with concrete examples. I'm trying to help you here. As I said above, you need to demonstrate that our "reliable sources" have missed a trick. I certainly don't want to add bad information to wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@Martinvl. Quite apart from your last posting being original research: Have you ever actually been involved in survey research in any meaningful way? Those survey principles you mention are for wet-behind-the-ears undergraduates, or postgraduates converting to social science. No market research department of such a large company is going to be ignorant of these principles, all the more so market research companies. It's like assuming a maths graduate can't do long division. It's nothing special to know about them. If there's a problem with Asda's survey you're trying to uncover, it's not going to be in Social Statistics for Kids.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, yes I know wht extrapolation means, but who do you imagine is trying to extrapolate anything from the survey, and where exactly? -- de Facto (talk). 18:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Alpha Quadrant (6 November 2011)

The section Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples #Use of statistical data states: "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care."

I have found a reference on questionnaire design.

• Section 3 examines types of questions - in particular it draws to attention that where a dichotomous (two options) question is asked appropriate a "Don't know" option should be provided. If a multi-choice question is asked, the question should offer a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of answer options (that is, the items in the list should not overlap and should cover every possibility).

• Section 4 advises that

• [Questions should] avoid ambiguous terms or phrasing
• [Questions should] not ask more than one question at a time

Asda stated that "70% of its shoppers were confused by metric and would prefer products to be labeled in pounds". Given the above references it is incumbent on DeFacto to demonstrate that either the survey followed the guidelines above or that any deviation from those guidelines was inconsequential. In particular I challenge him to demonstrate that:

• that the question "Confused by metric" was clearly defined (See Section 4 above). In particular, would an inability to answer the question "Since the dimensions of both becquerels and hertz is s^-1, what is the difference between them" constitute "confused by metric" or does the inability to answer the question "How many millimetres in a centimetre?" constitute "confused by metric"? (The answer to both can be found by studying the [SI Brochure).
• that respondents were given the opportunity to answer "don't care" in respect of whether they preferred metric or imperial units (See Section 3 above).
• that respondents were able to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question "Are you confused by metric [units]" and to separately answer "Yes", "No" or "don't care" to the question "Do you prefer metric or imperial units". Alternatively he should demonstrate that respondents had all six options in a multi-choice question.

Since Asda claimed that 70% answered "Yes" to both of the questions (however they were framed), then it follows that at least 70% answered "Yes" to each of the questions separately (See explanation on Page 86 of AS-Level Mathematics: The Revision Guide: Coordination Group Publications Ltd, isbn 978 1 84146 988 1). If the respondents were given the choice between metric and imperial, it is quite possible that a large number would have chosen imperial, but it they were given the choice between "metric", "imperial" or "don't care" I am dubious as to whether the "imperial" camp would have got as high as 70% - I venture to suggest that the "don’t care" camp would have scored more than 50%. In either respect it is up to DeFacto, not me, to substantiate the credibility of the article.

Conclusion: WP:RSEX cautions against including results of surveys as and states "secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care". The need for caution in this case is fully justified.

The section Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business and commerce starts with the sentence “Material published by a trading organisation is a view of how that organisation looks on itself however it will also have a marketing component and may lack neutrality. If this material is used it should carry a caveat to indicate this risk and should be corroborated with independent reporting if possible."

The article in the Grocer is appears to be one-sided, otherwise why is the director of the British Weights and Measures Association (anti-metric) quoted, but not his opposite number in the UK Metric Association? On the basis of this, one cannot rule out the possibility is that the article was written as a result of a press release by Asda in conjunction with the BWMA. Given the one-sided approach to the article, one cannot rule either out which places it in breach of WP:GNG. The Which? column was written within a month of the article in ‘’The Grocer’’, possibly as a reaction to that article. If that was the case, they did not have time to mount a full survey of the whole story, so they could not belittle it – they did however question it through one of their specialist writers who, by writing in the first person, avoided the possibility of legal action being taken against Which?

Conclusion: The article in The Grocer appears to be one-sided so the opinions that it expresses should not be taken in isolation, but should be balanced by those of a third party such as those of the Which? expert Hannah Jollife – see WP:NPOV, or better still, this source be discarded.

The quotes from WP:RSEX show that one should proceed with caution even when quoting statistics from secondary sources. The onus of proof therefor falls on DeFacto to justify his additions in lighht of these cautions. Whatever he writes should also take into account areas of concern that I have highlighted. I do not propose at this stage to comment (with citations) on whether or not the Asda resutls are indicative of the UK as a whole, but I have some reliabel citations to do so.

Martinvl (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read and absorbed all of that yet, but I spotted a serious factual error. According to the article on them, the mention of them in this article and their website, The British Weights and Measures Association are not anti-metric - they appear to be pro-choice. -- de Facto (talk). 18:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I also need to read the above in more detail before making a detailed comment. However, I do note that WP:RSEX is an essay, not a policy. Essays do not necessarily reflect policy correctly, and are often personal opinion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that an essay is not policy - some essays carry more weight than others, depending. Indicators of weight include, in my view, the stability of the essay, the number of different editors who have contributed to it and the frequency with which users read it. In the last two years WP:RSEX has had fourteen different editors make contributions, has had little or no edit-warring and has had one new section added and attracts about 80 hits a day. The section on Statistics has been there for at least two years. In my view therefore this essay carries considerable weight. Martinvl (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All that Martinvl's comments amount to is that we should carefully attribute the content, with corroboration from independent reports. Which is what we are doing now.

I think WP:RSEX isn't a bad essay, but it is very underdeveloped - as evidenced by the lack of activity on the page itself. The section on statistics has received just about no attention at all since the page was first written. (Ironically, Martinvl's reference to 80 hits a day is a statistic being quite badly misused to imply that 80 Wikipedians a day are going to the section on statistics. Just about all of the editing has been to other areas, and talkpage activity reflects that.) Still, I agree with the principle that we should be careful with the reporting of statistics, and I note that we are following the principles in the business and commerce section in corroborating with independent sources.

It's a logical fallacy to imply, as Martinvl tries to, that because one source that reports the survey in the same way as the other sources, didn't talk to UKMA but did to the BWMA, that both it and by extension all of the sources are operating against metrication and are going along with some sort of scam. Which? did fine without the BWMA. We need sources that criticise what Asda did, not wikipedian editorialising.

Trying to work backwards from a news report into what the survey questions were is quite clearly original research. Asking two questions in one single question is clearly a bad thing to do, of course - such a bad thing that it's something of a claim to make, and needs positive RS evidence rather than OR. Asda, after all, is a largely metric-only retailer, at least in its shops. (Effectively Martinvl is arguing that Asda commissioned bad research in order to criticise itself.). One can, of course, ask follow up questions (eg "If you answered A to question 2, please go to question 3; if not, please proceed to question 5") in order to explore people who gave a particular answer, or you can cross-reference answers. Either of these two latter cases are equally plausible for being able to make two statements about the same group of people.

We're back to the same point - content attributes the material through secondary sources to what Asda said, and we're clear they're only talking about Asda shoppers, not the population in general. Among the sources are the leading consumer magazine and the leading retail magazine in the UK. No RS has been brought to bear against this material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that working backwards to find the original questions is original research. Had the report in The Grocer been written properly, that would not have been neccessary, unless of course Asda presented their shoppers with a single question with an option of a "yes/no" answer. If it was the former, then The Grocer is not a partcularly reliable source, if the latter, the survey was not reliable. Take your pick.

Had "Asda commissioned bad research in order to criticise itself"? An alternative is that Asda were trying to get some market advantage by tweaking the way in which they present their pricing. For the record, British law regulates the way in which prices of product weights are presented - metric units must be present, imperial units are optional, and if imperial units are present, they are supplementary units.

Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have now made a case that the Asda survey was probably unreliable and as such does not merit disucssion. Does anybody have anything further to add to that assertion?

If it is agreed that the Asda survey was probably unreliable, then references to it can be removed from the article and the matter closed. If on the other hand the mediator still believes it to be worthy of consideration, I shall have to present my case that the Asda data is unrepresentative of the UK as a whole. That will take up everybody's time which I am sure we do not want to do unless absolutely neccessary. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just that your last point was clearly self-defeating (it began with "I acknowledge that working backwards to find the original questions is original research"), and I felt that if I didn't say anything, we'd get a break from this merry-go-round for a few days. This proved to be true. Given that over the course of this mediation you've put forward one argument after the other, some of them simply not compatible with each other, I feel you've only established for us that you just don't like the content. These arguments all fail because they form your original research (and not small leaps either), rather than rely on RS - something you yourself seem to admit. I'm puzzled, when policy is clear, how you don't see that performing such original research to determine content on Wikipedia is against policy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinv1, there is no moderator. Our principle is 'verifiability, not truth' (meaning it is not for us to say what is true). The text largely relies on consensus (which can be a problem in articles such as this where strong opinions are held and some may lobby hard to ensure that the consensus matches their own view). But it must be supported by reliable citation (meaning that the source must be notable and if at all possible is dispassionate).

Nevertheless if (as it seems) there is no convincing counterargument to your thesis, and given that you have been through due preocess in raising it on this talk page, in my opinion you are justified in changing the article. --Red King (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Red King, the problem Martinvl faces is this:

I personally know that this information is true (or false). Isn't that good enough to include it (or remove it)?

No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or beliefs is not enough.

One does not bring "convincing counterarguments" based on original research to Wikipedia. This is one of the cornerstones of the entire project. We have several reliable sources for current content, and no reliable sources showing anything wrong with content as it stands. The rest is just Martinvl trying to do his own research - as he admits himself. His attempts to work back from RS to survey questions are not only OR, but just a little tortured.

By the way, we do have a mediator, rather than a moderator. This is a MedCab discussion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, whether the Asda survey is reliable, or not, is irrelevant - unless you have a reliable source to support that discussion. Don't waste your time trying to convince us that the Asda survey is unrepresentative of the UK as a whole either, we don't say or even suggest anywhere that it is - we don't need to as that isn't relevant either. The content is just fine as it is. It is relevant to the subject of the article, notable, due and reliably sourced. -- de Facto (talk). 22:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a note, properly referenced, that ASDA are no longer selling strawberries by the pound. I have also amended the original text to bring it into line with the sources. I am quite happy for ALL the Asda comments to be removed under the policy of WP:UNDUE. Martinvl (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your changes pending the outcome of this discussion. Incidentally, even if that section wasn't the subject of this discussion your changes were still problematic. I disagree with your spin on The Grocer and Which? reports and a search result, especially one which requires user interaction to select the appropriate store, isn't a reliable source. -- de Facto (talk). 17:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why the mySupermarket source was unreliable. They have the ultimate form of reliablilty - "You pay us £x and we will deliver article y". If they were not reliable in delivering their product, they would be done by Advertising Standards - why is that not reliable enough for you? Martinvl (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, that edit of yours was rather troubling. We're currently in mediation over precisely that section, and it doesn't seem particularly respectful of the process to do make that change. I would never do something like that in the middle of such a dispute myself, as it could come across as provocative.

I'm also worried by this statement:

I have added a note, properly referenced, that ASDA are no longer selling strawberries by the pound. I have also amended the original text to bring it into line with the sources. I am quite happy for ALL the Asda comments to be removed under the policy of WP:UNDUE.

This suggests that you added material you do not believe appropriate to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, it looks like you added the material in an attempt to spike the disputed content. This is not good practice. One of the principles of assuming the good faith of others is not making it difficult to reciprocate.

As for the edit itself, you're using a primary source to imply some original research. You don't appear to understand what's not suitable about such a source for what you wish to imply, so let me explain: mysupermarket.co.uk is a price aggregation website that searches the sites of the individual supermarkets for you, and as such, the information is no less primary than the information you'd find on those supermarkets' websites. It's important not to see the difference between primary and secondary sourcing as a mere technical nuisance. The difference is key to the way we build this encyclopedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen: I've just wandered in here due to VsevolodKrolikov reverting my recent edit about Asda strawberries (which got attributed to my IP address 213.120.252.3 for some reason - my login must have timed-out). I was unaware that a massive bunfight had broken out on the talk page, I was just attempting to update an article to reflect an observable fact. I suspect that the three main combatants here have been fighting their battles for so long that they've forgotten what's going on outside! And every passer-by who (like me) happens to edit anywhere near the disputed zone gets sucked in too. Look - guys - some facts:

• Currently (Nov 2011) at least some Asda stores are selling strawberries in 300 g packs.Observable fact
• Back in May 2011, Asda claimed to be experimenting with strawberries packed in rounded imperial amounts.Documented in press release, was an observable fact at the time (I noticed, others will have too).
• Some newspapers ran the story like it was a "snub to the EU" (which Asda never claimed).Documented in newspaper archives online.
• It is (and always has been) legal in the UK to sell things in rounded imperial amounts as long as the metric quantity is stated as primary.Fact - go read the Weights and Measures Act 1995 (or newer).

Now, as a newcomer it seems that Martinvl is getting beat up by VsevolodKrolikov and de Facto over the alleged crime of walking into a store and reporting what he sees! The point seems to me that reporting what you see (as long as you're careful to state how you saw it) is not "original research" as claimed. Now, if Martinvl had obtained an interview with his local Asda store manager and obtained comments from him or her, then *that* might be original research because repeating it would be difficult. But walking into a high street store and noticing X,Y or Z is easily verified (or not) by anyone else in the country! As indeed was done by me, unaware of the fact that Martinvl had done pretty much the same thing independently. Surely Wikipedia needs to keep up to date? If it states that Asda are selling strawberries by the pound when anyone can see that such a statement is untrue (just by walking into an Asda store), then it doesn't say much for Wikipedia's editorial policy. Especially when at least two separate people have now tried to fix the glaring error, and have been stopped from doing so just because you guys are having an argument. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, you've been on Wikipedia for a while now. Are you not familiar with the core policies on no original research, and on sourcing (such as WP:verifiability and WP:RS)? What Martinvl is trying to do is original research based on the use of primary sources. "An anonymous editor of no formal standing or reputation went down the shops and did a check in one branch on a single day, or so he claims" isn't appropriate sourcing. There are several examples on this page in the past month or so of certain editors testifying to what they see in primary sources only to be shown to be wrong. Alas (sigh) this hasn't led to a breakout of belief in our policy of no original research and fundamental reliance on reliable secondary sourcing.

VsevolodKrolikov: of course I know about no original research, and I actually read not original research before I even posted on here. To quote from there: "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source". This was from a section talking about Works of Fiction, but I consider that it supports my original complaint. To paraphrase WP:NOTOR a bit: "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by [observation], without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source". And that's what Martinvl did, and (independently) it's what I did. Anyone could do it. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at it like this, if you want to go with Martinvl's testimony as an accurate representation of the pricing in one single branch on one day: It might be the case that Asda have abandoned the experiment. It might be the case that they're busy assessing the outcome of the experiment and haven't made a decision yet. It might be that they're trying out further experiments only in certain stores (modern day supermarkets regionalise and localise a lot these days). It might be a preference of the branch manager. The issue might have become a political football within Asda itself. We just don't know. As Wikipedia, we shouldn't speculate. It is far better that we are silent and not wrong, than speculative with no guarantee at all of accuracy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov: you make a fair point. Both Martinvl's and my comments about what we saw in actual Asda shops should not be taken to represent any policy decision of Asda's as a whole, but at the very least we should strive to keep Wikipedia up to date. Maybe what should be said is words to the effect of "Despite Asda's publicity campaign of May 2011 highlighting strawberries packed in rounded imperial amounts, strawberries were back to being sold in 300 g packs in at least some Asda stores and on Asda's online store by Nov 2011". Now personally, I'd say the fact that the online store only sells 300 g packs is as close as you can get to judging Asda's actual company policy. But I accept that Wikipedia can't claim such a thing. I disagree with your comment above: "It is far better that we are silent and not wrong..". No. We can't be silent or Wikipedia loses its relevance, we must reflect observable facts, but (as I've tried to do above) carefully put them into a context that reflects their relevance. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're not taking it to have any meaning in the context of Asda's policies, then it's UNDUE as well as quite clearly implied original research (its positioning in the text would be quite clear). If no reliable secondary source has drawn attention to the current pricing, then we shouldn't include it.

Your own edit in particular contravened our sourcing policies, referencing as it did the views of people who commented on an open comment thread as if that were representative of national opinion. (Martinvl would take you severely to task on that kind of thing, or so I am led to believe). You should also be careful of using words like "claimed" - these are what are known as "weasel words" (see WP:claim).

Sorry to disagree, but I didn't reference "the views of people who commented on an open comment thread as if that were representative of national opinion" - assuming you mean the views of any people on this talk page! I hadn't known that there was a fight going on over this issue when I made my edit (maybe I should have read the Talk page first, but I didn't). If I happened to mirror the views of any people commenting on here, it was just by chance. And as for my use of "claimed", well - tough, I used the word deliberately, and I know all about "weasel words". The point was that Asda stated the business about 7 out of 10 customers saying that they find metric measures confusing, but they never produced any proof of this, never stated how they surveyed these "7 out of 10" or anything else. So under the circumstances, with so many question marks over the statement, the word "claimed" didn't seem (to me) to be a bad choice. They claimed it. They didn't provide evidence. So it's just a claim. Nothing more. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to the part of your edit that stated that the Express and Sun used Asda's actions as a platform for their anti-EU campaign. It seems obvious to me. However, the problem is that we don't have a reliable secondary source that makes this connection. As such, we shouldn't include it, as it constitutes original research. Wikipedia isn't in the business of saying things that no one else has said before in reliable sources - no matter how strongly any of us as (anonymous, intrinsically unreliable) editors believe it is true. This principle is key to making Wikipedia both possible and successful.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede on that point. However, it can be seen from the Sun's and Express's headlines how they were seeing the story. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, I agree with most of what VsevolodKrolikov wrote. Have you read WP:VER? Article content needs to be verifiable from reliable sources - which doesn't include personal observations. You don't know whether the experiment has finished or not; just that at the store you visited at the time that you visited it there were no pound punnets (or so you say). -- de Facto (talk). 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

de Facto: See above. I assert that article contents *can* include personal observations. It's not original research so it seems. I challenge you to go into your nearest Asda and report back here what *you* see! But you're right in that Martinvl's and my observations can't be taken to reflect Asda's policy. So we report the observations carefully (as I suggest above). We never will see a statement from Asda on the subject - they stated when they started the experiment in May that they would roll out rounded imperial measures on more produce if the strawberry experiment worked. What we can observe is that they've done the reverse. They're not going to issue a press release to say "Sorry, we were wrong. No-one wanted rounded imperial measures after all" now are they? :-) Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, if you don't mind, I'll answer all your points here. I don't want to have several branches going at once, as it would be horrible for readability.

If you're not taking what you saw in Asda to have any meaning in the context of Asda's policies, then it's UNDUE as well as quite clearly implied original research (its positioning in the text does that). If no reliable secondary source has drawn attention to the current pricing, then we shouldn't include it. Policy is pretty clear on this.

As for challenging Asda's claims, you cannot simply object as an editor. You have to bring reliable secondary sources that contradict the ones we use at the moment. We don't say anything more than Asda made the statement. Their claims are clearly attributed.

Regarding the use of thread comments, I was referring to the "Have your say" section on the Which? article, on which you based the comment "The "have your say" comments at the end of these online articles show that opinions are both for and against imperial measures in retail." These comments are not representative of anything except the individuals who wrote them. They're quite clearly not RS.

In general, I would stress the principle of "verifiability, not truth", which I'm sure you're familiar with. "Truth" here means what an editor believes is true but cannot provide verification for in a published reliable source. If we can't get at Asda's current pricing policy through reliable sourcing, then we just don't say anything about it. That's how Wikipedia works, and has to work, and works pretty successfully. I would be delighted if we had a source that exposed Asda as doing the whole thing as a marketing ploy, or abandoned the experiment, as it would end this discussion. The thing is, we don't.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, VsevolodKrolikov, here's my final comment on the subject. You (and to some extent de Facto) have been banging on about this subject for so long, and reverting the edits of anyone who dares to try and fix it for so long that you've totally lost sight of what I (and others) are trying to do here. Wikipedia is currently reporting about Asda's experiment, but failing to achieve any sort of closure on the subject.

• Fact: - Asda announced an experiment in May 2011.
• Fact: - Strawberries were indeed on sale in 454 g packs in my nearest Asda back in the summer.
• Fact: - By Nov 2011 they're no longer observing the terms of their own experiment universally.

I'll agree that we can't draw conclusions on what this means, but if Wikipedia is going to report the first of these facts, then it needs to report the last one too. Otherwise, someone might use the statements in Wikipedia to drive all the way to Asda to buy 454 g of strawberries and be disappointed to discover that they were only available in 300 g packs (silly, but you see the point I'm sure). Wikipedia currently leaves readers with the impression that the strawberry experiment is still running. Clearly this is wrong (and to state that fact is NOT original research as I've pointed out). But you don't seem to be able to see that. You've written pages and pages of argument on this talk page on the "Asda Strawberries" subject and you somehow reckon that you (or de Facto) have got the right to revert anyone who disagrees! The result of your petty war is that Wikipedia is currently reporting a situation that is observably no longer true and you won't tolerate anyone fixing it. Meanwhile, the rest of the article has plenty of wild assertions, out of date stuff, and patently untrue statements (like the bit about cosmetics and toiletries being packed in metric and US quantities two paragraphs down - I went through my bathroom shelf yesterday and found not a single item labelled in anything other than millilitres). If you're so passionate about nit-picking with good-faith editors over the strawberries debacle, you could at least investigate the uncited claims about cosmetics. Please just allow Wikipedia to be up to date. Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, we have a reliable source to support the assertion that Asda started the experiment - and that's what the article reflects. However, we don't know the scope or extent of the experiment. It may have been at just one store and for just one batch of strawberries or it may have been at all stores for one month for all we know. We cannot (and should not) speculate - that is OR. Article content is subject to the Wiki policies, and content which does not comply with the policies can be remomoved at any time.

As for the cosmetics section - add 'fact' tags or re-word it, or whatever. Don't use your own OR in your own bathroom cabinet as the source of your information though. . -- de Facto (talk). 12:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no argument with the fact that Asda ran an experiment, I'm just having trouble trying to point out that something needs to be done to say that at least in some shops and online, the game is apparently over. Certainly from the evidence of just the online shop, the game is over - no-one starts a well-publicised campaign in May and allows its online shop to contradict that campaign in November if the campaign was still active! But see below.... Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that we simply do not know whether it is still running or whether it has finished or been abandoned. And we don't know if it ever included online shopping or how many shops were involved.

On the subject of the contents of bathroom cabinets, I looked in mine and found that international brands did indeed have dual labelling - grams and fluid ounces appeared on several items. Although local or supermarket own brand items seemed to be marked in metric only. -- de Facto (talk). 08:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't cast unsubstantiated aspersions about other editors, including myself, as behaving badly. We've been to a few fora, and the advice has been consistent with the position that De Facto and I have taken on how sourcing and attribution should be. We're hardly two lone editors with a wild interpretation of policy. (By the way, given that it was Martinvl who called this mediation, I don't think it's fair to suggest that it's myself or De Facto who wished to spend a whole month discussing this content at the cost of editing time. Indeed, I warned Martinvl a medcab would go on for quite a while.) I respectfully disagree with your view of what counts as original research, for the reasons I stated above. (You mustn't confuse an editor disagreeing with you with an editor being disruptive. Wikipedia would break down if we all took that view.) And if you see unsourced material on this page, please take action to source it, and if that fails, remove it. I had been doing the same before this medcab started taking up my time, and I and a couple of others met quite some stiff resistance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to bow out of this discussion as quite frankly I've not got the time to try any more to help sort out "The Great Asda Strawberry Fiasco of 2011" especially when everything I try to say is slapped down with a cry of "No Original Research". However, I appear to have accidentally upset you, VsevolodKrolikov, and I won't just walk away under those circumstances. So - please accept my apologies for my (unintended) aspersions about you. Sadly it seems that megabytes have been written on this accursed Asda topic over the last few months, but nothing is actually happening. However I do notice a glimmer of hope at the end of this Talk article where you seem to have identified that really the entire article is a train-wreck of a job, full of unsubstantiated allegations, conjecture and opinions. (I'd already mentioned the bit about cosmetics, but that's only the start.) Please note though that for any encyclopaedia to be credible, its authors do have to keep their eyes open, and make sure that what is written doesn't contradict what any lay observer would see around them. Excessive use of the "No Original Research" rule will not make for a good article (especially in this case). Here you're trying to come up with a summary of the state of a given situation in a given country. A lot of what needs to be said in such an article will in this case not come from referenced sources. Chunks of it will have to be from the observations of the inhabitants. Care will have to be taken, but a good article can come from it. Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries Steve - we simply disagree on what needs to be done on this page; I just wanted to be clear that I'm not trying to be difficult (this discussion is tedious for me, but attrition should not determine content). My view (and it's a commonly held one, and part of policy) is that no wikipedia article should rely for facts on the direct personal observation by editors of the world around them, all the more so when the topic involves people's political and personal beliefs. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Another convenience break

I have still not had a satisfiactory answer as to why mySupermarket is an unreliable source. In teh overview to WP:RS I read " Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". Does mySupermarket have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have no reason to doubt it - the information that I drew is regulated the Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom). Moreover, there is nothing novel about what I wrote - I was merely repeating what appeared on the adveritising site - if I logged onto the relevant page, I could ask a reasonably bright ten-year old "How much does a punnet of strawberries cost in Asda and how much does a punnet weigh". Where does the original rresearch come in? Teh bottom line as I see iot is that a marketing manager though that they coudl get an advnatage by selling strawberries in imperial rather than metric units, Which? told him "don't be stupid, the public aren't that bothered by the imperial/metric argument; he went ahead and burnt his fingers". We should either publish the whole story (in the manner that I wrote in the article) or skip the whole story. Anything else is WP:POV. Martinvl (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"I have still not had a satisfiactory answer as to why mySupermarket is an unreliable source." The problem is that it's a primary source, and as such is not a reliable secondary source. It would really help this mediation if you could state your own views on what the difference between a primary and secondary source is, and why we prefer the latter to the former. As it is, I'm deeply sceptical that you appreciate why wikipedians generally (and rightly) make such a big thing of the difference. A paraphrase of policy would restore confidence.

As for you putative marketing manager, I don't see how your imagined version of events constitutes NPOV, given that it's not found in any reliable sources. POV isn't a casual insult, it actually has a meaning, and is largely defined in terms of fair representation of sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, real-time search results aren't reliable. By their very nature they are subject to change - so clearly cannot be relied upon to verify assertions in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 18:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This report gives WP:UNDUE weight to a particular report. The report onl;y cited that Asda were experimenting with strawberries. Will you please demonstrate by means of a reliable reference that they did in fact extend their experiment to other products. One proudct line out of the hundereds that they carry is hardly earth-shattering. Likewise it is only one store. If you cannot demonstrate this, then your addition is so insignificant that it is not worthy of addition to Wikipedia.

Finally, if you continue fillibustering in this way, I will withdraw from the mediation and take my argument elsewhere. Martinvl (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any RS stating that they have extended (or ceased) their experiment. Why do you ask for one? That the survey and experiment were by Asda, the UK's second largest supermarket by market share, and that it was reported in various national publications, including Which? magazine, certainly means that it has due weight for inclusion in an article concerned with the UK's metric/imperial issues. Can you clarify please what you mean when you say "it is only one store"?

As for the "fillibustering" [sic] accusation - that's rich coming from one who, as each one of their "arguments" to get this piece of information banished from the article has been nullified, they have dreamt up another one to prolong the process of agreeing a position on this (see WP:Policy shopping).

Martinvl, can you please remind us - in a nutshell - what your current problem is with this interesting little piece of information from Asda being included? -- de Facto (talk). 13:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you're confusing undue with UNDUE. The former is your opinion, the latter refers to Wikipedia policy. It's not possible for a secondary source to make something UNDUE. Quite the opposite. Coverage in secondary sources are precisely what makes something DUE.

As for "filibustering", that refers to the exploitation of procedural rules to avoid a decision being taken. I don't see what we've done wrong here, except discuss content policies and state our position, and wait for the closing. It is of course your right to withdraw from mediation at any time and seek another forum, although it may have a bearing on how you will be heard at that subsequent forum.

If you are interested in making this mediation work, then I would like to restate my suggestion that you explain in your own words what you believe the key difference between primary and secondary sources is, and why the difference matters on Wikipedia. It's clear that this is one of the main points of contention between us. I've stated my own view on the matter several times, and it would be helpful if we could pinpoint the exact points of disagreement we have on policy. The focus on specific content is perhaps harming our ability to reflect on principles of editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto wrote "The point is that we simply do not know whether it is still running or whether it has finished or been abandoned. And we don't know if it ever included online shopping or how many shops were involved." Unless we know sufficient of this information to put the initial comment into perspective the initial comment carries so little weigth as to be worthless. This is made all the more important by observations suggesting an abandonment - the reliablilty of this stateemtn is just about as reliable as the reliably sourced statement by Bill Clinton "I did not have a sexual relationshipt with that woman". Regarding the status of the experiment, may I quote a particular lady prime minister "Put up or shut up" - I want justification that this experiment is significant. Martinvl (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears in reliable secondary sources. That's what determines due weight. When you tried to include information about Waitrose Weekend magazine based on a personal reading, you didn't seem concerned about significance then. Nor about a whole variety of sports which had no reliable secondary sources reporting on their use of metric. Your position seems directly at odds with how policy views the determination of due weight. I really, sincerely, would like you to go over how you yourself understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, and what the importance of that difference is for Wikipedia. We keep coming up against this issue, and it needs to be resolved.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you are irrationally conflating the two issues into one again. We do know that the experiment was started, and why - so that is good information for the article. That it is due is clear from the significance of the organisation involved and the coverage it received. What we don't currently have RS support for is whether it has finished, and if it has, what the results were - so we cannot currently put anything about that in the article. I would suggest that it is those who insist upon including unsupported content about the currently unknown status of the experiment who need to start reassessing their options. -- de Facto (talk). 08:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment we know that one supermarket chain announced that they would be experimenting with one product prior to rolling it out across all products. That is all we know about the experiment. May I refer you to WP:FUTURE – it is quite clear that as we know nothing more about the experiment, we should remove all references to it (unless of course you can come up with something that we have missed). This leaves the assertion that a significant proportion of Asda's customers are confused by the metric system. As I have demonstrated earlier, the details of the survey are so vague as to render them useless. Thus these detaisl have no place in Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin, the content says nothing about the future per se, so unsurprisingly WP:FUTURE doesn't apply. (Your policy shopping is verging on tendentious, but I'd really rather this was not settled by you being penalised). You appear to be reluctant to respond to my request that you describe your view of primary and secondary sources and why the difference is important to Wikipedia. It is currently tempting to think that your reluctance stems from a straightforward cognitive awareness that to do so would expose fatal weaknesses and incoherences in your position. Such concerns would be allayed by your fulfilling my request. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion for the past several days now. The discussion has clearly established that the information is due. The only remaining concern on this issue is whether or not to include the possibility that the experiment ended. While it currently requires original research to confirm that the survey has ended offline, Martinvl found a primary (mySupermarket) source confirming that the experiment is not currently active online. Primary sources should be used with care. In this case, it may be sufficient to simply confirm that at least the online experiment is discontinued (or never took place). Perhaps a sentence could be added on this. Such a sentence would need to be carefully worded in order to avoid original research. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the only outstanding argument is whether or not the experiemnt has ended. If you go back to my posting of 18:12, 6 November 2011 you will see

Conclusion: WP:RSEX cautions against including results of surveys as and states "secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care". The need for caution in this case is fully justified.

The only concrete objection that I have to these conclusions is that WP:RSEX is an essay, not policy. In my posting I justified the need for caution independently of WP:RSEX and came to the same conclusion as WP:RSEX. Therefore nmy analysis should be viewed carefuly which nobody appears to have done yet.

The second conclusion that I came to was

Conclusion: The article in The Grocer appears to be one-sided so the opinions that it expresses should not be taken in isolation, but should be balanced by those of a third party such as those of the Which? expert Hannah Jollife – see WP:NPOV, or better still, this source be discarded. Nobody has commented on this either.

Would people please do me the courtesy of reading my arguments?

The next arguemnt that I have is that it is incumbent on DeFacto to either show that the Asda customer base is representative of the UK as a whole, and if not, why the comments about Asda are justified. In a reference that is somewhere in one of the long threads that we have had on this subject, it states quite clearly that the Asda customer base is more sharply skewed to socio-economic group D that any other supermarket chain (for non-UK readers, this means manual and unskilled workers). There is nothing startling about that statement - everybody in the UK knows it. It is self-evident that this group is more likely to have problems with numbers that the population at large. This reduces the importance of the statement even more.

There we have it:

• Asda did a survey whose quality cannot be proved and whic hwas question by Which?. This on its own is sufficient to have the Asda discussion discarded.
• The Asda customer base is not representative of the UK as a whole. This makes commet sabotu Asda not relevant to the UK as a whole unless suitable qualifiers are added. This on its own is sufficient to have the Asda discussion discarded.
• Asda stated that they woudl be trying their experiment on strawberries. No evidence has emerged of this experiment actually having been carried out. I took a screenshot of an Asda advertisement for 400g punnets of strawberries. If I put that screenshot into Wikicommons, its publication will become permanent and therefore admissible. This alone is sufficient to have the ASda discussion discarded.

If these arguments do not convince readers that this is a non-event and carries no signficance whatsover other than possibly confuse the reader, what will? Martinvl (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, the original reasons for keeping it as it is are still valid. Nothing you have come up with, down the various avenues that you have resorted to, has changed that. Let's just remind ourselves of those reasons:

• This is an article on metrication in the UK
• Asda is the second largest supermarket (by market share) in the UK
• Asda are reported, in multiple reliable sources, to have carried out a survey which showed that their customers had a preference for the use of imperial units
• Asda are reported, in multiple reliable sources, to have started an experiment into using round imperial units again

Now let's see how your "there we have it" points impact those reasons:

1. "Asda did a survey whose quality cannot be proved and whic hwas question by Which?"
   • No, we cannot guarantee the quality because we haven't found reliable sources commenting on it, that doesn't impact any of the reasons for including it though.
   • Even if it was questioned by Which? (which has been disputed here anyway) that wouldn't impact the reasons for inclusion.
2. "The Asda customer base is not representative of the UK as a whole. This makes commet sabotu Asda not relevant to the UK as a whole unless suitable qualifiers are added."
   • No-one is claiming that the Asda customers are representative of the UK as a whole. That they are the customers of the UK's second largest supermarket (which is clearly attributed in the article) gives the findings adequate weight. So this doesn't impact the reasons for inclusion.
3. "Asda stated that they woudl be trying their experiment on strawberries. No evidence has emerged of this experiment actually having been carried out. I took a screenshot of an Asda advertisement for 400g punnets of strawberries. If I put that screenshot into Wikicommons, its publication will become permanent and therefore admissible."
   • The evidence that it took place are the reliable sources reporting it. Your "screenshot" is worthless as a reliable source for claims related to the experiment, even if you put it into WikiCommons. This therefore doesn't impact the reasons for inclusion.

So there indeed we do have it. You have so far failed to provide any valid (in the Wiki policy context) reason to suppress the present Asda content.

-- de Facto (talk). 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto clearly does not understand (or does not want to understand) the basic fact of data analysis: although Asda have 18% of the market, their 18% is so heavily skewed towards the bottom end of the socio-econiomic group -that they are unrepresentative of the country as a whole.

DeFacto wrote "No, we cannot guarantee the quality because we haven't found reliable sources commenting on it, that doesn't impact any of the reasons for including it though." It is a princiapl of Wikipedia that he must find reliable sources commenting on it - and his continuing failure to find such a reference means that the it cannot be included.

Martinvl (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl,

1. You do not appear to understand (or want to understand) the basic fact that because the info is attributed as applying to "Asda customers" only, that we don't need to worry about the "data analysis" that you allude to. We are not suggesting or implying that the survey results apply to any wider population.
2. Wiki only insists on reliable sources for information that is written in articles - as we have already provided for this information. It most certainly does not require any source for information that is not written in the article. Even if it did, why do you believe that it is my personal duty to provide it?

-- de Facto (talk). 11:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@ AlphaQuadrant: The problem is, the RS we have don't mention the online shopping service being part of the experiment. It's far from implausible that they didn't extend it to the online service. Asda internet shopping already converts freely between imperial and metric, and we don't know if Asda ran the experiment in all stores (did they keep some out of it as a control?). I'm trying to think of a form of words to accommodate something, but I'm finding it very difficult with the valid sources we have. Do you have any suggestion yourself? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Martinvl - it's a bit rich to claim we haven't dealt with all your questions when not only have we gone over this matter before, but you've not even acknowledged my repeated request that you explain your understanding of sourcing policy, let alone attempted an answer. The last time I stated this baldly, you were so infuriated you demanded an apology, but I'll state it again. You do not appear to understand sufficiently the difference between primary and secondary sourcing, nor what is meant by "reliable" secondary sourcing, and as such you keep contravening Wikipedia policy on original research. This seems to be the reason why you keep trying to put forward your own (I'm afraid far from infallible) original research. I'm openly asking to be proved wrong on your understanding of policy, but you're studiously ignoring my invitation. As to points not covered by this:

• You claim that no one has RS stating that the experiment took place, but it's in the Which? article, which refers to it having started - as was pointed out to you before.
• You take the opportunity to patronise DeFacto for "not understanding data analysis", when we've told you time and time again: we're not making any statements beyond the population of Asda shoppers. By the by, you're making a rudimentary data analysis error in ignoring time effects. Asda's socio-economic profile has varied over the past few years, notably making important gains during the initial recession (some of which were lost) at certain points in the AB sector over the period when the survey may have been taken. I'm not going to patronise you for that though. The whole matter is irrelevant.
• Hannah Jolliffe does not question the survey results. She reflects on her own views and experiences, which are those of someone who does not shop at supermarkets, and explicitly does not base her views on anything other than her personal impression. She's not an expert on retail surveys in the supermarket sector, she's a journalist covering a story in a publication with a reputation for fact-checking (explicitly personal views are not part of the check). Again, this has been explained to you several times.

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

hmm, yes, that is a good point. The survey doesn't mention anything about online distribution. Nor do we know how many stores were involved in the experiment, or the current status of the experiment. The article currently says

“ In May 2011 the Asda supermarket chain stated that consumer research had shown that 70% of their customers found metric confusing and would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units. As a result, they were beginning to experiment with selling certain produce in round imperial measures again. ”

Perhaps this could be added directly after the current text:

“ The experiment's time duration, as well as the number of stores that took part in the experiment, was not specified. ”

The exact wording might need some work, but it pretty much sums up the sources. None of the information in reliable sources can verify that the survey was discontinued, or verify the number of stores that took part in the survey. @Martinvl, we have established that the information is due. Multiple reliable sources have been presented in this discussion. We really need to move on and discus how to best present the information. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My earlier question was never answered, so I am repeating it, stripped of all references to Wikipedia essays:

I have found a reference on questionnaire design.

• Section 3 examines types of questions - in particular it draws to attention that where a dichotomous (two options) question is asked appropriate a "Don't know" option should be provided. If a multi-choice question is asked, the question should offer a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of answer options (that is, the items in the list should not overlap and should cover every possibility).

• Section 4 advises that

• [Questions should] avoid ambiguous terms or phrasing
• [Questions should] not ask more than one question at a time

Asda stated that "70% of its shoppers were confused by metric and [my emphasis] would prefer products to be labeled in pounds". Given the above references it is incumbent on DeFacto to demonstrate that either the survey followed the guidelines above or that any deviation from those guidelines was inconsequential. In particular I challenge him to demonstrate that:

• that the question "Confused by metric" was clearly defined (See Section 4 above). In particular, would an inability to answer the question "Since the dimensions of both becquerels and hertz is s^-1, what is the difference between them" constitute "confused by metric" or does the inability to answer the question "How many millimetres in a centimetre?" constitute "confused by metric"? (The answer to both can be found by studying the [SI Brochure).

• that respondents were given the opportunity to answer "don't care" in respect of whether they preferred metric or imperial units (See Section 3 above).
• that respondents were able to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question "Are you confused by metric [units]" and to separately answer "Yes", "No" or "don't care" to the question "Do you prefer metric or imperial units". Alternatively he should demonstrate that respondents had all six options in a multi-choice question.

Since Asda claimed that 70% answered "Yes" to both of the questions (however they were framed), then it follows that at least 70% answered "Yes" to each of the questions separately (See explanation on Page 86 of AS-Level Mathematics: The Revision Guide: Coordination Group Publications Ltd, isbn 978 1 84146 988 1). If the respondents were given the choice between metric and imperial, it is quite possible that a large number would have chosen imperial, but it they were given the choice between "metric", "imperial" or "don't care" I am dubious as to whether the "imperial" camp would have got as high as 70% - I venture to suggest that the "don’t care" camp would have scored more than 50%. In either respect it is up to DeFacto, not me, to substantiate the credibility of the article.

Conclusion: The need for caution in this case is fully justified - unless DeFacto can justify the basis of the survey, everything that follow is suspect and therefore has no place in Wikipedia.Furthermore, I am not goinf to discuss any other aspect of this entruy until the questions given above havce been answered - if they can't be answered, everything else is of no consequence, certainly not in an article on metrication. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, please help me to understand your demands, because as I understand the Wiki policies, we only need to provide referenced support for what we actually put in the article. To justify the requests for references that you seem to be making, you need to point out where in the article you think that I've claimed:

1. That the Asda survey was designed in compliance with the Welsh Local Government Data Unit's guide to questionnaire design (WLGDUGtQD).
2. That there was a "Confused by metric" question and that it complied with the WLGDUGtQD Section 4.
3. That respondents were given the opportunity to answer "don't care" in compliance with WLGDUGtQD Section 3.
4. That respondents were able to answer all the stated alternatives of "Yes", "No" and "don't care".

Oh, and why are you directing your bizarre demands towards me, personally?

-- de Facto (talk). 22:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, why does there need to be proof that the survey complies with United Kingdom law. In order to establish this one way or another, we would need to use original research. Wikipedia articles should be verifiable in reliable sources. That means that Wikipedia articles may contain information that is not "true". Unless there are reliable sources arguing this, there is nothing we can do. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It may need pointing out to Martinvl that by "true", policy refers to something that an editor, without appropriate sourcing to support their viewpoint, personally believes is "true" or "not true". It's not the same as true without the scare quotes. We get at non-scare-quoted truth through the use and fair representation of reliable secondary sources - which absolutely does not include an editor's syntheses from these sources. Failure to grasp this fundamental principle of Wikipedia can cause all kinds of problems, both for the user, and more importantly, for the encyclopedia.

Even Martinvl himself acknowledges "that working backwards to find the original questions is original research." (By the by, it's not even particularly sound research.) He's been directed many, many times to specific sentences in policy pages stating that original research is not acceptable. It's very difficult to find common ground when one editor intentionally goes against policy. Perhaps instead of explaining his view of policy, he could simply let us know which policies he thinks apply to him and which don't.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@AlphaQuadrant: Regarding your suggested sentence. If we highlight what we as editors didn't find, it's original research bordering on POV. We need something that will not be quite reasonably challenged by subsequent editors. How about this:

“ As a result, they were beginning limited trials selling certain produce in round imperial measures again to test consumer response. ”

Would that do? We can get that from the sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Alpha_Quadrant

Where did you get the idea of compliance with UK law? The only area where UK law enters the matter of surveys is the safeguarding of personal data. What I did was to reproduce sections from a guidance note on market survey "good practice" - it appears to me that Asda's practice was so far removed from good practice that is is best consigned to the rubbish bin. This of course makes your ongoing discussion with VsevolodKrolikov on how to word things rather meaningless.

@DeFacto

I never said that you should follow Welsh Local Government Data Unit's guidance to the letter. May I suggest that you look at the Research Society Questionnaire Design Guidelines and also here for an American view. Once you have read these two documents, you will realise that there is nothing special about sections I quoted from the Welsh Local Government Data Unit other than that they represent good practice - I could have quoted alternative sections from the other documents which would have said the same thing.

Once you have read these other documents, would you please answer my questions posed at 19:51, 23 November 2011.

Martinvl (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl

1. You stated: "it appears to me that Asda's practice was so far removed from good practice...". Have you now found an RS describing the "practice" that they used, or is that simply your personal opinion? If the former, please supply it. If the latter then it is irrelevant to the current article content, and you are not justified in expecting us to jump to that tune.
2. You stated: "I never said that you should follow Welsh Local Government Data Unit's guidance to the letter", no, but you asked for an RS to prove that the survey did. Why do you need such an RS as that claim has NEVER been added to the article, by me, or by anyone else?
3. When you ask: "would you please answer my questions posed at..." - I thought I already had, I've pointed out that we don't need RS support for stuff that we haven't added to the article. Did I miss something else that I should have answered?

With all due respect Martinvl, this discussion seems to me to be becoming more farcical with each post that you make.

-- de Facto (talk). 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is becoming farcial - mainly because of your inablilty to see common sense. Why should I suggest that the Asda survey failed to follow good practice? Simple, lets do a few sums (not maths, simple sums):

• Britain 's metrication program was ammounced in 1965
• Assume that by 1972 schools were teaching metric units in preference to imperial (I beleive that this is the correct date.
• Assume that all children who were 12 in 1972 had at least three years instruction in using metric units, ie childrne who would be 51 this year.
• Assume that Asda's customer base is evenly spread between people aged 18 and 78 (ie over 50 years).
• With these assumptions, it follows that 66% of Asda's customers recevied a metric education at school in their last four years at school and 34% did not.
• Why then do 79% of Asda's customers get confused with metric units when only 34% were not taught metric unit at school? Is it due to poor schooling? Is it due to a botched metrication program? Is it because the Asda customer base represent the least-educated sector of the population? Is is becasue Asda got the figures wrong? I suspect the latter.
• Moreover, why do 20% of the custoemrs take longer to do their shopping when metric units are used? Longer than what? They have not used imperial units for a long time, so it can't be 20% longer than when they were using imperial units.

You don't get it do you - the Asda survey numbers do not add up. The article in the Grocer is as reliable as the Washington Post's article where they reported Bill Clinton as saying "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman [Monica Lewinsky]". The report was reliable, Bill clinto did say it, but what he said was not reliable - in exactly the same way the ASda reprot does not appear to be reliable. Martinvl (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OR then, as per the latter case in my first point. So we can dismiss it. Even if OR was allowed, your bunch of false, incorrect and wayward assumptions renders your "conclusions" completely meaningless anyway. -- de Facto (talk). 17:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The rationale behind WP:OR is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a vehicle for promoting novel research, NOT, I repeat NOT to stop rubbish being filtered out. Don't you get that? Martinvl (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OR can't be used to suppress reliably sourced information - why would anyone imagine otherwise? What are your motives here Martinvl - you seem to be going the the most extraordinary lengths to get this piece of information suppressed? -- de Facto (talk). 18:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's claim about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was well sourced - the problem is that the statement istself was a lie. Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it "was a lie"? -- de Facto (talk). 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DeFacto, I know nothing about you - if you are a sixteen-year old script-kiddie, the Clinton incident happened before your time. To give you some background, I suggest that you read Impeachment of Bill Clinton: you might learn something. Anyway, back to the topic in question, even though The Grocer might have faithfully reported Asda's statement about their findings, Asda's findings, as explained above, looked unrealistic to me and also to many other Wikipedia editors who have given their opinion and then walked away. In addition the editors who wrote WP:RSEX warned about misuse of "market surveys". Martinvl (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you failed to answer the question (How do we know it "was a lie"?). Was it because another Wiki editor had made their mind up that it "looked unrealistic to me", and asserted it entirely unsupported? Well of course it wasn't was it. Additionally even if it was a lie, it's still include in the article, and it can be because it is reliably sourced - not because it's necessarily true.

Now explain why you think this article is any different. Why do you believe that your personal opinion alone is enough to exclude reliably sourced information from the article - please. -- de Facto (talk). 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, we know that the Clinton statement was a lie because we have reliable sources directly stating that it was. We don't need to do any original research, and we certainly don't need to go on flights of fancy to find out it was a false statement. I'll remind you yet again of policy:

I personally know that this information is true (or false). Isn't that good enough to include it (or remove it)?

No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or beliefs is not enough.}}

You don't have a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that directly addresses Asda's survey in the manner you want it to. This has been repeated over and over again. Your "research" (for want of a better word) consists of building speculation upon odd speculation (people asked about shopping are not going to think "Ooh, come to think of it, I'm a bit thrown by becquerels" when asked about metric - the suggestion is really quite idiotic), and most importantly, it doesn't address the content one bit, which is about what Asda said and did. If you could find a reliable secondary source challenging the Asda findings like this, it would mean inclusion of further content, not the removal of the content as it is. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The onus of proof is on DeFacto, not me - he added references to this event, not me. If we look at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, we see the sentence "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability [my emphasis] of persons and events".

How notable was the Asda promotion? It wasn't, otherwise Defacto would have been able to find further references to the event. I, and other editors have tried to save DeFacto the bother of looking for such references by informing him that Asda appears to have abandoned its policy (and probably don't want the failure made public). Not only was DeFacto was too pig-headed to take our advice but he was ungrateful for the legwork that was put in. Does he have any references to this campaign that post-date the Which? report? If not, would he please spell out exactly why this campaign is sufficiently notable to be included in this article. The only answer that he has been able to give is that Asda has 18% of the market (my figure, not his), but beyond that he has failed to explain why is has added the article. I think that the real reason is that he is WP:POV pushing and that he is trying to "prove" that over 70% of the country's population are "confused by metric and would prefer imperial units". Other than that, I cannot see any "enduring notability" of this event. Martinvl (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, what's the point of trying to get a rise out of DeFacto by calling him pig-headed? Is it appropriate behaviour for someone who frequently emphasises his age and experience to start calling other people names in the middle of a discussion?

As for your repetition ad nauseam that the content as it is refers to the general public, this has been dealt with several times. Your insistence on bringing it up over and over again is a good case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your "legwork" was your own choice, undertaken on the basis of what is quite clearly a faulty understanding of sourcing policy; no one has to be grateful for anything. It would be much appreciated if you would actually interact with our objections and arguments (taking proper notice of both behaviour and content policy) rather than pretending they were never made.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

You don't get it. DeFacto indulged in a shoddy bit of POV pushing and refuses to acknowledge it. That is all there is to it. You and he have ignored the advice of several other editors regarding the reliablilty of the Asda survey, you and he have ignored the advice given in a frequently read Wikipeida essay on the use of statistical surveys, you and he have ignored sound documentation that I have produced that backs the essay up, you and he have ignored the analysis that I made which shows that the data is probably unsound. Shoudl I request the the mediation be halted and that this be taken to arbitration? Martinvl (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, firstly let's clarify that It wasn't I who introduced the Asda information to this article, I believe that was you - in this edit on 14 September 2011. Look at the wording you used originally too; oh how hypocritical you are to accuse another editor of having "indulged in a shoddy bit of POV pushing"! I did restore it to the article, with attributed and more neutral wording (and with the correct year) - after other editors had reverted it in and out a couple of times - in this edit on 27 September.

And who are these "several other editors" whose advice we have ignored - and where is that advice, and where are they now? We don't know (in the Wiki policy sense) how reliable the survey is, so we don't comment upon that in the article.

And yes, we most certainly have ignored your so-called "analysis" of the situation. Apart from being original research, it is riddled with false assumptions, inconsistencies, bias and bad faith. It is a travesty of an "analysis".

-- de Facto (talk). 11:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, first of all, no, I certainly do not recommend that you take this matter to arbitration. ARBCOM does not deal with content disputes; it only looks at editor behaviour, and would almost certainly refuse to take the case. If it did, then frankly, given your edit warring and determined lack of repentance over it, policy shopping, canvassing, deafness and forum shopping (and continual low-level incivility against De Facto), you'd get it in the neck before anyone else.

Secondly, you say we have ignored the advice of other editors - but actually you did, when we went for outside advice (rather than those who publicly share your passion for metrication). We went to RSN, and were told "properly attribute, the material is due". You went to IRS (to try and change policy on the quiet) and were quite clearly rebuffed and told "properly attributed, the material is due". We are now in mediation, and our mediator has said "properly attributed, the material is due". Were you ever going to accept an outcome of mediation that was not precisely what you wanted?

Lastly, your justifications for incivility (and you've made them before) don't wash. "I'm RIGHT", "I'm OLDER than him" and "HE started it" are not good enough for a ten year old, let alone a man in his sixties. If you're not able to apologise, at the very least rein it in in future. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

New "evidence"?

I just reverted the addition of a claim, added by Martinvl, that Asda "had reverted to using 400 g punnets." This claim was based on the content of an article in the November 2011 Which? magazine investigating special offers in supermarkets, that included mention of an Asda offer on 400g packs of strawberries. There was no mention in the article of Asda's experiment with 1 pound punnets of strawberries, or any suggestion that they had now "reverted" to selling in grams again. We still don't know the scope of that experiment, or whether it is ongoing, or finished. So we certainly can't make the assumption that it has finished because they've had a gram-based offer reported. -- de Facto (talk). 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated it. I have also replaced the word "produce" with the word "strawberries" - this aligns it with the original article. I must also warn Defacto that I considered his last revocation as blatant POV-pushing. Martinvl (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, we are in mediation about this section. Your change (which you should have brought to the talkpage first) was reverted - putting it back in without even making a pretence of seeking agreement is simply edit-warring. The points that de Facto raises are perfectly valid - although grasping that does actually require understanding how Wikipedia content policy operates. Please stop acting like a spoilt child who cannot understand why they can't get everything they demand.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, the removal of an unsupported assertion from an article, particularly when the section into which it was inserted is currently the subject of mediation action, is not "POV-pushing". Your incivility (see WP:POVPUSH) and the way you arrogantly pronounced it as a "warning" certainly does nothing to help your case or to enhance your reputation in this process. Please cut out the bad bahaviour and concentrate on the content issue. -- de Facto (talk). 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My final position in this saga is that either the whole of the Asda discussion goes or it get put into perspective by the addition that I posted and that both VsevolodKrolikov and DeFacto reverted. If you cannot accept my position, then the mediation is over. Martinvl (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, Wiki policy rejects the inclusion of unsupported assertions such as that one you added. Your stance is therefore unsustainable. I categorically and unequivocally DO NOT accept your "position" on this. -- de Facto (talk). 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Given Defacto's refusal to see common sense, I am withdrawing from this mediation effort. Martinvl (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't refuse to see common sense - but I most certainly refuse to accept your inaccurate additions. -- de Facto (talk). 20:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, this intense focus on DeFacto appears to be someone focussing on another user rather than on the content in hand (you have several disputes across several pages). If you do follow through on lodging a formal complaint, (I presume this means a WP:ANI case) I hope you'll remember to inform us, as it's part of the rules of that kind of reporting. And before you do, read WP:Boomerang. The surreal aspect of having to coach you through how to have a dispute with me at least appeals to my sense of humour.

It's all a bit of a shame. Alpha Quadrant had identified an area for negotiation, which I had tried to explore, in the hope that Martinvl would too, but it's clear that unless we accept a more extreme position that the one on which Martinvl entered mediation, we're all apparently going to be reported for POV editing. Go figure.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am spending far too much time arguing with DeFacto in too many articles when quite clearly he is not as well informed about the topic he is "correcting" as he could be. My real life is suffering. Martinvl (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, Wiki is a collaborative enterprise and part of its success is due to its willingness to accept the contributions from all-comers. The assumption of good faith and a willingness to accept the NPOV in place of your own personal prejudices are essential ingredient. Please review some of your own weaknesses and incompatibilities with these ideals before casting aspersions on others. -- de Facto (talk). 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but there are a few ground rules. May I remind you of the following from Wikipedia policy:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Just because you read the Asda report does not mean that it has to be included in the article.

WP:CRYSTALL - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: in particular item 5:"Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Under this heading, the Asda statement being nothing more than a product announcement, does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

WPNOT#NEWS - Wikipedia is not a newspaper: in particular item 2: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". The Asda experiment in using imperial units appears to have sunk without a trace - ie, it fails to mmeet the "enduring notabilty" criteria, again this means that it does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Let us now revisit VsevolodKrolikov's posting of 05:13 on 7 October 2011 diffs are here I have reproduced one of the tables here (I corrected what I beleive to be and error and have added a line myself):

Question	result in %
Strongly support switching to metric	11
Tend to support switching to metric	8
Neither support nor oppose	22
Tend to oppose switching to metric	14
Strongly oppose switching to metric	42
Don't know	3
Total support oppose	56
Total Oppose	19
Total indifferent (added by Martinvl)	25

The SUN reported that 56% preferred imperial units and 25% had no view on the matter but the ASDA report said that 70% of its shoppers prefered imperial units and were confused by metric units. How did the 56% increase to over 70%? And lets remember that the 70% excludes those who understood the metric system, but who would still like to return to the imperial system. Unless you can explain this difference, I must rate the Asda report as being questionable.

Would you please justify the inclusion of the Asda article against each of the above?

Martinvl (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What - justify the inclusion of the details of the Asda survey again? OK. I don't see that any of the results of your latest policy shopping trip, or your latest OR synthesis, offer any reasons not to include details of the Asda survey, so the reasons are much as they were before:

1. This article is about metrication
2. Asda is the second largest supermarket (by market share) in the UK
3. Asda carried out a survey concerning metrication
4. The Asda survey results and their consequent action was reported in several reliable sources

So, the Asda survey appears to tick all the appropriate boxes for inclusion: it is relevent to the article, it is notable and carries enough weight because of the significance of the organisation involved and what is written is appropriately attributed and verifiable from reliable sources.

Are you happy now? -- de Facto (talk). 14:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, that's the kind of survey you tried to get banned from Wikipedia. It's the kind of material that your brief study of stats at a university forty years ago was being proudly invoked to reject. And now you think it's a good survey? What made you change your mind? I'm struggling to see a principle here. Perhaps you could do us a favour by outlining which of the many different arguments you've made about surveys you still believe in, and which you have abandoned, and most importantly, why.

In any case, you're comparing two different populations as if they were the same, and two clearly different sets of survey questions as if they were the same, and two different contexts (Europe and shopping) as if they were the same. These are basic errors for a self-styled statistics expert to make - particularly one who insists that all others who disagree with him are ignorant and ill-informed. It highlights the double-edged nature of your problem with original research. Not only do you not understand the general problem Wikipedia has with original research, but also time after time you make elementary mistakes in attempting such research. This wouldn't happen, and in general you wouldn't feel such stress, if you simply stuck to policies on sourcing. If these policies limit what you want to say, then Wikipedia is not the place for you to be saying it. Full stop. There are lots of real-world publishers; you could go try one of them.

As for the surveys, I'd suggest that both of them are due. The Sun survey was done by NOP (reliable source) and is clearly on topic, and the Asda one was reported in secondary RS. I'm glad at least you now agree that the Sun survey is eligible for inclusion in the article - after all, if you didn't think it was a good survey, you'd hardly be citing it against the Asda material, would you? I've long argued for a section on public opinion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov wrote "In any case, you're comparing two different populations as if they were the same, and two clearly different sets of survey questions as if they were the same, and two different contexts (Europe and shopping) as if they were the same." So which population was used for the Asda survey and why is that population relevant for this article? Martinvl (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For the millionth time, Asda shoppers, and it was in several secondary RS. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for the problem with your last post to this page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And as I have repeated ad nauseum, Asda shoppes are not a representative sample for the UK as a whole - in particlar, the socio-economic makeup of the Asda customer base deviates from the nnorm more than any of the other "big four" supermarkets, making it the least suitable as a representative sample. Martinvl (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No one's using it as a representative sample for the whole population. It's attributed. The specific population is described. You have no RS that links Asda's demographics with this survey. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Seriously. It applies to what you're doing here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is not a representative sample why is it here with no caveats? Either it must go or suitable caveats added. Furthermore, the word "produce" must be replaced by "strawberries" - we have no evidence that the experiment ever got past the strawberry stage. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, asking the same question over and over again expecting a different answer neatly accords with Einstein's definition of insanity. (Perhaps you'll listen to the opinion of a physicist if our policies here don't mean that much.) I agree that we should change the word "produce" to "strawberries", and mention that labelling would be rolled out to other produce if the experiment proved successful. That matches the sources better. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's comments and following Martinvl's partial implementation of this change I have updated the content to reflect better this position. -- de Facto (talk). 09:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that out DeFacto.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)