Talk:Metrication opposition/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Absolutely not neutral and sometimes ridiculous

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

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

FWIW, the paragraph about high modernism is more about state-imposed standards than the French ruling the world. Traditional societies use locally useful units because they were defined with reference to what would be most useful to them. Government bureaucrats, by contrast, seek to impose uniform measurements on all because of the need for central administration. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be noted that such units as you find in the imperial and U.S. customary systems are not examples of "home-grown" measures and were no less government-imposed than any metric ones. Yes, I agree that the current title Anti-metrication invites bias. Jimp 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, until he mentioned the concentration camps and the Gulag, he actually had some really good points. Apparently, you want customary units banned and anyone who even thinks about using them tortured and killed. --Kahran042 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Eddyholland

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

Currently, the page is named Metrication controversy. Therefore, it should detail the controversy from both angles, otherwise it would violate WP:NPOV.Annihilatron (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wine bottling information wrong

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

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

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

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

SI units in everyday life

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

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

Examples of informal definitions of SI-units.

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

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

To illustrate my point, I like the following example:

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

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

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

Your definitions are also untrue as they are defined relative to absolute things (the equator is not absolute, nor is the mass of water), like the speed of light in a vacuum. The litre is not an SI unit; it is dependent on fluid type within a cubic meter-type. A kg is more complex because it is still related to an artifact that can be created in extreme lab conditions, and Newtons and Watts are derived units.Annihilatron (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

English phonology

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

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

The dictionary of Smerdis of Tlön would seem to claim that

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

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

Yes, you are hard to please. :) And no: at least some of the metric units do not conform to the ordinary rules of written English. The graphemes litre or liter look like they ought to rhyme with mitre and nitre, and ought to be pronounced the same as lighter. The representation of [iː] obviously is following an alien convention. English typically borrows foreign spellings along with foreign words that use the Latin alphabet, yielding a raft of irregularities: pizza, czar, lingerie and so forth. The unusual writing convention of the metric word likewise marks it as a foreignism. I have tried to reword that section to make it clearer that what happens is that the spelling is irregular and marks the word as being not native English. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done on the rewrite. It is a whole lot clearer ... more correct that way. After all what we really are talking about is not conforming to regular English phonology but conforming to regular English orthography. However, as far as I can make out, we're talking about the word litre/liter, which, yes, looks like it should be pronounced like lighter. I don't think the same can be said for other names of units ... Henry, Newton, Gray these look fine to me. As for the ~re endings as spelt outside of the U.S., this is pretty regular in Commonwealth English (albeit a Frenchification for the most part); then we've got acre which isn't aker in the U.S. So we have one word with its i plus magic e giving /iː/ like police ("borrowed" from Middle French in about 1530[1]) and machine (from Middle French 1549[2]). Jimp 00:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

US law regarding metric-only and customary-only labels

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

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

Article is in not neutral

Agreed, not a neutral entry. Bordering on nonsense in some parts:

"One major obstacle to metrication in the United States is its established system of title registration for real property. The metes and bounds descriptions of land in deeds and other title documents typically use English measures such as feet, rods, and furlongs. All of these systems of land measurement were in place well before there was any thought of converting any measurements in the United States to metric measurements."

Customary units are defined clearly in relation metric units. If X feet (or rods or furlongs) does not equal Y metres across all measurements in which the terms are used, then Z feet (or other customary unit) does not equal Z feet (or identical customary unit).skyskraper 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

no human scale?

the article states:

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

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

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

I'm not sure human scale is even relevant here. Yes, Imperial units were based on human scale of the ruler (yard = a stride, foot = length of his foot, etc), but metric is based off of scientific constants, for the most part. Perhaps instead of saying 'not based on humans', it should say 'based on scientific constants'.Annihilatron (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What a piece of junk!

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

I should delete you. Please read WP:BOLD,WP:PRESERVE,WP:AGF. Annihilatron (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unit confusion?

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

I agree, but, could somebody on the anti-metrication field give their opinion? Luiscolorado 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really in either camp, but deci- and deca- are definitely confusable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing, then, that they're hardly ever used. There's the decibel. Jɪmp 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is deci and deca more confusing than say inch and ounce?Remkos (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true metric user. *sighs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.150.52 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Move back to Metrication arguments and counter-arguments

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

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

Liberia & Burma

The article had stated as follows.

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

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

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

Jɪmp 08:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added reference to CIA World Fact Book - Appendix G - Weights and Measures where they officially declare (as of Sept. 6, 2007) that

“ At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry. ”

--Bluewind (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Boy oh boy

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

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

Cans

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

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

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

Best example?

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

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

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

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

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

is this article in dispute anymore?

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

This article is still disputed. One reason for the dispute is the reliance on an anti-metric activist group (the British Weights and Measures Association) and an anti-metric author (Warwick Cairns) as sources. An additional reason for dispute is the paragraph that begins "One major obstacle to metrication in the United States is its established system of title registration for real property." This paragraph is false and unsourced.

I could go on, but I won't. I consider this article broken beyond repair and not worth improving. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Lklundin (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly still needs a lot of work, both tidying the layout and correcting false information, but I agree that it is probably not worth the effort. Anyone volunteering? Dbfirs 09:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to be completely rewritten, maybe as "Metrication Controversy". This article is full of POV and factually unfounded or wrong statements.Remkos (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly POV and naive

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

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

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

Disputed Neutrality and Accurancy!

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

The complete opposite: this article is using flawed "arguments" trying to promote Imperial units over metric ones. Actually, now after looking through your contributions I see that most of them fall into the same category I've criticized on this talk page (above). Your writing on the modular system was a mess as imho it fails to tell how the common EU module is inferior to your Imperial module system: it only suggests that the euromodule was crudely derived from the imperial version and thus is a "cheap copy". So, why don't you stop sobbing, register and contribute something meaningful to Wikipedia instead of making POV contributions and then complaining when they don't get accepted right away? --piksi (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this argument, but the title of the article is Anti-metrication, so surely it is fair to represent the view of the many people who oppose metrication, provided that the view is balanced and does not make false claims. We have an article on Metrication which can fairly put forward the advantages of metric units (though, of course, both articles must be balanced and referenced). Perhaps we can work to improve both. Should we have links between the two? Dbfirs 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in my other post, I feel it's imperative that both sides of the issue are represented. This article should be a part of Wikipedia, but not in its current form. Its problem is not that opposing views are represented, but 'how the views are represented: as facts while most of them currently are highly subjective viewpoints based on "gut-feelings" instead of arguments. I suggest you read my first comment on the current anti-metrication arguments.

If the only arguments against metrication are the ones now presented in the article, it should simply state "People seem to oppose metrication because they are against a change in the status quo, loss of familiar ways and the trouble they would have to go through in learning a completely new measuring system. Most of the criticism is sentimental and tied to nationalistic feelings opposing the forced introduction of a 'foreign' system". I sure as heck understand where those feelings come from, I would have similar strong feelings if someone tried to force Imperial system in Finland. Measuring is a part of the national psyche and identity, especially because it's tied closely to language and the way of perceiving things. So, summa summarum, the thing that bothers me is that there seems to be no real facts supporting the evidence that some system would be superior to SI - still this article claims there are. Thus, the article should represent the subject from a different perspective. --piksi (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Metrication is about the the process itself. That article should mention the pros and cons of metrication in breif. This is the article in which to focus on them. The links between them are in order. The article used to have a more neutral title. I've proposed moving it back. A more balanced title could be a step towards a more balanced article. The article as it stands is very unbalanced and lacking in support or substance. JIMp _talk·cont 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know where to start correcting this article, I wish there would be someone knowing more about the anti-metric "movement" and it's arguments who could write a balanced article. I think it's important for this article to mention properly the social, political, cultural and economical reasons behind the opposition to metrication and not try to argue over the superiority of anti-metrication. That way the article could still make its point and still be a balanced and interesting view on the reasons behind the subject. --piksi (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Piksi's last comment. I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to re-write it, but if a few of us work at it, perhaps we can turn it into a valid article? Dbfirs 08:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree too. That way we can have citable statements like "The anti-metrication movement argues...", because it is a matter of record that they've said X, and we don't have to get bogged down in debates as to whether or not X is objectively true. Look at Health freedom movement as a for example. --Red King (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the first thing to do is to rename the article. If we are presenting both sides of the issue, it is weird to have the article named "anti-metrication". It should be "metrication controversy", or something similar. Ratfox (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Metrication controversy sounds ok. If Dbfirs, Jimp and Red King agree too, I'll move this page under that title after which we can start cleaning the mess up. --piksi (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! Go ahead! Dbfirs 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Piksi, Dbfirs, Ratfox, and others on the talk page. It seems that there are a fair amount of sensibly thinking people out here on the talk page that do know the SI as well as the imperial units, and seem to know also a fair amount about the debate. Presenting the debate under the name "Metric Controversy" in a neutral fashion, would be useful to Wikipedia. I've already tried some edits, but it usually resulted in me converting a anti-metric argument into a pro-metric argument. This was not by design, but merely because most of the arguments presented here are unfounded or POV, like the "unit confusion" that would exist between "mm" and "cm". When written by an metric opponent with no sound knowledge of the metric system, this article is getting nowhere, nor when it would be written by a metric proponent with no US background knowledge. There are many arguments against metrication in the US, and they should be represented. Yet they should be founded, or even disputed in a fair manner. The current article just breathes POV and invites editing wars. Remkos (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Metrication controversy is a fine name for this piece. JIMp _talk·cont 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit "citation needed", "dubious"

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

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

Re-Organisation

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

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

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

I agree, but first we need to clean up the article from completely irrelevant stuff (see my last entry from today) like the factors and general features of the non-metric system. They simply aren't arguments or claims but general information and features of the system that belong into the imperial units article. --piksi (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A "halfway there" -comment

I haven't contributed lately a lot to this article aside from watching its progress but I'd love to thank all who contributed in clearing and rearranging the structure and converting dubious claims into the right "opponents of metrication say..." -form. Great work! piksi (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is still a complete mess. Especially the chapter "Multiplication factors". Fighting over whether it¨s easier to divide 12 or 10, claiming you can´t accurately convert inches to millimeters (and especially using so ridiculous example, I work in company that manufactures much more high tech products than plywood and our acceptable variances are often larger than 0.3 millimeters), etc. I would personally just remove the whole chapter. Too bad though I feel this article will be just added the long list of articles that are never ending "battlefields". Though I must say I never realized that people were so passionate about measuring systems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.7.139 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was *finished*, i merely said we have been making a lot of progress. In case you don't believe, check out the version before my rant-post was posted on this talk page. --piksi (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC) *EDIT* now that I read the multiplication factor chapter, I couldn't make ANY SENSE of the current version, so you got a GREAT point there for improvement. Currently I'm also proposing deleting the chapter unless the opponents of metrification come up with arguments that can be understood by others. Some points of idiocy include:

• "Twelve can be divided evenly by three whilst ten cannot. Ten, on the other hand, can be divided evenly by five whilst twelve cannot. Three being a smaller number than five, it might be fair to assume that the need to divide a unit by three would be more a common than that of five." -- And both 12 and 10 can be divided by 2 which is even smaller than 3... is it "fair to assume" that the need to divide by 2 is even more common than by 3 and thus base10 and base12 are equally good? These arguments are retarded. "It could be argued from this that a factor of twelve is of more practical use than that of ten." -- Yep, we all have the unfortunate right to argue without any real arguments based on any kind of research.
• "Powers of two are more common, especially in volume measures, along with other factors including five, seven and eleven. Furthermore, with the invention of digital computers and calculators, the advantages of using non-decimal factors is greatly reduced." -- I'm getting confused.... Where actually was said that anyone used decimal factors? Does he refer to $\mathbb {N} ,\mathbb {Z} ,\mathbb {Q}$ groups as non-decimal and $\mathbb {R}$ as decimal? Or what? I don't get it.
• "Since the metric system uses the same base of the decimal system, calculations and conversions between metric units it is much easier using an electronic calculator or computer." --- Ehm... Is he saying that people can only convert between metric units and do calculations with them with computers???
• "Metric practitioners counter to such arguments that they have a much better solution. Although the SI standard itself defines no preferred sizes, they indicated there exist several widely used guidelines tailored to the needs of particular fields." -- I don't understand what the writer is referring to with "preferred sizes" and besides he doesn't even give any examples (which I could understand).
• "An example often given is that of the modular coordination system used in the construction industry. This example is erroneous and fails to acknowledge that modular construction existed prior to metrication." -- Sooo.... The fact that e.g. architects prefer to use mm in room measurements while some hillbillie might use meters means that SI system is somehow flawed? And SI users counter this flaw by saying that they use a modular system in construction but it is a bad example because it was first invented in US where Imperial system was used? God damn this is confusing.

The rest of the article goes on and on about the dividers that can be used with certain numbers even though it doesn't have anything to do with ANYTHING. It seems that all text I've read in this "factors" chapter from the beginning has been just babbling about the "superiority" of Imperial system as they don't have to deal with "ugly decimal numbers". It reveals that the person who actually wrote the damn thing doesn't understand anything about Real numbers, Rational numbers or even numbers. I'm getting pissed off again, so I'll get some sleep before looking at the article again. --piksi (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole paragraph was vague and confusing. There is, of course, a valid argument about factors (in $\mathbb {N}$ because that is how the term factor was originally defined in mathematics) but the perceived advantage is much reduced by an understanding of decimals and use of a calculator. Dbfirs 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Still disputed neutrality?

The article is so different from what we started with that I'm wondering if the neutrality dispute-tag is even needed anymore. Haven't we already cleaned up the biggest controversial issues? --piksi (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, there are still rather obscure sentences in some paragraphs. --piksi (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed "unit confusion" chapter, because the main topic of the whole section is "Anti-metrication arguments" and the subsection itself described how imperial units are illogical (a good point but it isn't an anti-metrication argument). We need to clear up such text from the section and move them into the metrication article or some similar article which explains the real benefits of SI -units or into some "Imperial unit controversy" -article containing those arguments that people use to bash imperial units ;-) --piksi (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose neither side would like this comment but...

Should some mention of the arbitrary nature of systems of measurement be made? Suggestions follow, off the cuff...

The SI system is an International System, in a time of globalization and international trade. The use of a single, well defined system of measurement has a profound enabling effect on international commerce.

The fact that different people in different areas developed distinct ways of measuring things proves that no system has a clear comprehensibility advantage. Systems of measurement all perform the task of measurement. People have used different systems over time, all with success, because the system is arbitrary until chosen and defined.

Any comprehensibility gained by basing a measurement system on the human body is gained at the expense of the precision of the measurement. Units that claim to be people-based create confusion as to which person is the standard, and that confusion undermines the system's usefulness as a store and medium of communication of quantity. If we base the measurement system on something external to any one of us, we avoid this trap. Even if people use themselves as the measure of all things, they will figure out how to do so in whatever system of units they are given to use. In short, people will function in any arbitrary system of units they learn, because the system is arbitrary, even if it claims to be based on "people-sized" units.

A person may not like that the SI system has gained traction. A person may dislike the French and thus the France-originated SI system. The Metric system is a weak reason for harbouring an anti-French sentiment. All the gas about human-sized units, French Revolution cultural annihilation goals, Gallic world domination etc. is not germane to the topic. The SI system is used everywhere, even in the US where its use is unofficial but widespread. If you want to trade broadly in this world, you'll do so in meters, kilos and litres. Or, you and your friends may isolate yourselves in a remote wooded area, transgressively measuring things in feet and inches, stockpiling pint glasses, and living in fear that the Bureau of Weights and Measures will come to kill you all someday. The world won't miss a few hermits, and the guvmint won't hunt you down.

In summary: units are arbitrary. Units widely used and understood are more useful. Don't be paranoid. If you hate the French, the feeling is probably mutual and so what?

Can somebody explain to me how on earth this entire anti-Metric thing got so much traction? Is it a fever shared by the One World Government paranoiacs?

66.11.76.145 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting topic. 2¢: Some pieces of the puzzle are the basic human torch-mob instinct ("I don't trust them city folk, let's chase 'em off"), laziness ("I don't need to bother learning anything new"), and rationalizing financial conflict of interest ("Do I have to invest in new physical plant or tooling in order to comply with a revised standard? Well then, metrication is stupid and evil anyway"). Cultural inertia. It takes the sands of time and effort, a grain or two here and a mini-avalanche there, to gradually erode it. To switch metaphors midstream: regarding adoption rate over time: in some cases the majority standard eventually becomes the minority standard, and then the uphill climb reaches a crest and starts coasting downhill. — ¾-10 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument to Americans seems to be, "Why won't you conform?" and our answer is, "Because we don't do that!" I'm sure metrics will eventually take over in the USA. Just, hopefully, not in my lifetime. We like our feet, yards, and miles. They are on a human scale and they make sense. Also, just try dividing a meter by 3. With the old English system, it's no problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I would turn it around: The argument that we should do it because everyone else does it, is what we call the "lemming mentality". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument: Convert 235235 cubic inches to gallons (do it in your head). The answer is 1018.333 gallons. And I bet it takes any human significantly more than one second. Now convert 235235 cubic centimeters into cubic decimeters (=litres). The answer is 235.235 l, and all I needed to do is shift the decimal point 3 positions to the left. It took me less than a second, and the conversion is a LOT less likely to be erroneous. It is also easier to understand physics if you do not have to deal with conversion constants. - gustl, 06 Sep 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.211.152 (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall any circumstances in which I've needed to convert cubic inches to gallons. The thing is that I have a sense of what a gallon is, whereas I don't have a practical grasp of what a liter looks like, so being able to multiply and divide it by 10 is really of no help. The metric system is fine for pure science work - such as physics. We used it in all our science classes in school. It's just overrated otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's more because of existing inertia than anything else. I, a lifelong metric user, have no idea how big a gallon is but have a good idea how big a litre is. --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the inertia is on both sides, i.e. "what we're used to." And it will stay that way until or if there's a compelling reason to change. And "because everyone else does it" is insufficiently compelling. I think of the metric system as like soccer. The rest of the world thinks it's wonderful, and the to U.S. it's mostly an overrated curiosity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're both correct... from your own points of view. lol

That's the thing, it's all about where you live and what you've grown up with. Personally, I've recently been making an effort to acclimate to the metric system for distances. I'm finding that it's fairly easy to get used to, and it does actually make more sense for distance measurements at least. Other measures just aren't important enough for me to have any desire to adjust though, and of course the obvious issue is that most things are primarily given in Imperial units which adds an extra layer of inertia to converting. We do normally have volume measures on foodstuff given in both systems, but that actually highlights a bit of an issue with converting, here in the US. Most of the sizes of things here are nice round units in Imperial, but they're fractions in metric, so that makes using metric volume measurements fairly cumbersome. Distance doesn't really suffer this issue, since most distances include fractions no matter what system you use. Until manufacturers begin making products along even numbered volume measures here in the US, we're just not going to change anytime soon. There's a subtle marketing pressure against changing, as a result of a side effect of manufacturing to even Imperial sizes, involved with this as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And until there's more acceptance by the public they'll keep making their containers in imperial units! --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure but, that's part of the issue here. Why should "we" (the general public) really want a change? What does it bring us? For that matter, since conversion would cost companies tons of money, why should they be interested regardless? (It always comes down to money, in the end)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's it. There are more compelling reasons to leave it the same, than to change it. "What's in it for me?" is the question begging an answer. And "conforming to the rest of the world", is the wrong answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(12 colons later) Well the whole point of having units is to be interoperable between people from different areas, so "conforming" (if you really want to give it a negative twist) is not necessarily a wrong answer. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

International shipments can convert metrics. As far as "interoperable between people from different areas", all 50 states use the old English system, and that works fine. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The name has moved but it is clearly still Anti-metrication. Proposal for article to move back

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

At some time in the past, the name of this article has changed from being called Anti-metrication (which redirects here). This is dishonest. The article is about the anti-metrication viewpoint. Now there is certainly an anti-metrication position in some (well, two) countries and it is valid that Wikipedia should have an article about it. But the article should not pretend to be neutral by giving it a weasel worded name. I propose that the article be moved back to "Anti-metrication". Accordingly, I invite support or opposition in a wp:straw poll. --Red King (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Metrication controversy → Anti-metrication — Because the article is in fact about the anti-metrication viewpoint and the present title is a weasel worded name. Red King (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "Metrication opposition" or "Metrication resistance", as those terms are more likely to be found in the search box. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly be content with "Metrication opposition". I don't like "Metrication resistance" as it is a little melodramatic. We already have Metric Martyrs! --Red King (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Metrication opposition", then. Assuming there really is such a word as "metrication". Sounds like "medication". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of metrication?
— V = I * R (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "Metrication resistance". It's basically resistance to change. There may be criticism along with it, but the bottom line is that Americans won't change because they like the old system and there's no compelling reason to change it. That's not "criticism", and it's only subliminal "opposition"; it's actually "resistance". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The main reason that I'm offering the "Criticism of" alternative is because that has become a de facto, neutral, pattern to follow here on Wikipedia. It may not fit completely, but at least it tends to reduce editorial conflict somewhat. Regardless, I guess that I should state that I Oppose the actual proposal of this movereq ("Anti-metrication"), primarily due to the reasoning that Jimp offered below. I don't see a real issue with "Metrication opposition" or "Metrication resistance", primarily because of the reasons which you've outlined, but breaking form the "Criticism of" pattern anywhere seems to turn the article into a lightning rod for controversy and movereqs.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, your argument is based more on an informal standard that has evolved here. I could see that. I'm not hung up on any particular title. We'll see if others are. 03:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution is not to return to the biased title but to make the article more balanced. JIMp _talk·cont 05:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the article to try to explain why the USA and others don't want to convert to metrics? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't agree that it is honest to say that "the USA [what, everyone?] don't want to convert", I do think that it is valid to have an article that describes the opposition to metrication - and that is what this article achieves. I'm not sure how the article can be made "more balanced", since it describes a particular world view. I suppose some of the more far-fetched assertions can be challenged as non-factual, but that's about it. Although I don't for one moment agree with its sentiments, I don't believe that the article is 'biased': it is a fair and well-cited reflection of the anti-metrication view-point. To my mind, the only problem is the weasel-worded title that makes it pretend to be something that it isn't. Could JIMp explain what he has in mind? --Red King (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he could list his top 3 or 5 specific complaints about the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to metrication would have seemed a better choice of wording to me, but it's an improvement. It's only "controversial" in certain places in certain fields. That some in the UK are "mode-locked" and others may have some difficulty at first doesn't in and of itself create a controversy. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to find if it starts with "Metr..." And the metric system is not really controversial in the USA. It's used in science classes and such, but otherwise in the real world it's not controversial, it's ignored. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've closed this, since it was in the backlog at WP:RM. I said "no consensus" above, because I couldn't see any clear consensus to do anything, although it seems clear that there's no consensus to keep it at the current title either. I did participate in the discussion, and I personally still feel that using the "Criticism of" pattern would be the most neutral course to take, but overall my sense is that this discussion is simply not completed. In that light, I think that anyone who feels that they would like to continue the discussion should feel free to open another movereq on this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

The metric system originated in the ideology of "Pure Reason" that was a feature of the more radical element of the French Revolution.[11] The metric system was devised in France as part of a proposal that attempted to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered."[12] It was intended as part of a conscious plan to transform French culture. "As mathematics was the language of science, so would the metric system be the language of commerce and industry," meant to unify and transform French society.[13]

There's a contradiction with other Wikipedia articles that state it was designed by an Englishman (John Wilkins). Arronax50 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

About people asking why America doesn't go metric

Don't we already trade enough? Jesus, we are just cutting you some slack!72.199.100.223 (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and cleanup still up to date?

The neutrality and cleanup banners are up on this article for two and three years respectively. The article has been through great changes, thanks to all the contributors, and I plan on removing both banners on the 1st of February 2011, if no one can defend these banners in this talk page within the next two weeks. Xionbox (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As there still seems to have no opposition to the removal of these banners, I will remove them now. Please respond here if opposed, thanks! Xionbox (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Metrics and Religion

Metric itself is a decimalised overlay over Casinni's geographic system (n,mile of 6000 feet etc), using Bessel's size of the earth.

The whole thing was in motion before the revolution, but had got nowhere. By the time the act got to Parliament, the revolution was in full swing, and the system was lumbered with things like a new calendar, legal threats etc. The whole process, like the revolution's attack on christianity and the old establishment, became a bad taste for many years to come.

Even the mention of decimalised units in the UK (see R Zupko 'Revolution in Measurement'), caused the revile that is associated with the revolution [it's much the same as in USA, like saying it's a communist plot]. The Latin Monetary Union likewise drew little attention from the main industrial powers because it was a matter of tying one's sovereignty to a foreign (and somewhat detested) power.

Of course, because the metric calendar was seen as an attack on the pre-existing culture, the whole thing was lumbered down as the work of the devil. Times change, but the feelings still lingers.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating insight regarding one national culture resisting a technical standard from another because of tainted associations with political revolution (UK resisting metric because those damn French regicidal rebels invented it [or at least popularized it among the unwashed mobs]). That thought had never occurred to me, but now that you point it out, it makes perfect sense, just like, as you mentioned, people in the USA not quite thinking objectively when there's any guilt by association of a valid technocratic idea being tainted with the spectre of communism. Thank you—you just made my day in the new-insights department. Probably the whole week in fact. — ¾-10 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting theory. The US has gone metric - where it's advantageous to do so. The one thing metric-maniacs have failed to do is to convince Americans that there's any advantage to switching. The typical answer has to do with European-style "conformism", which the typical American sees as all the more reason not to change... except, as noted, where there's some clear-cut advantage to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

True. But I'm thinking not just about metrication itself but about the abstracted theme (an idea being considered not on its merits alone but on a guilt-by-association basis). I look at the recent health care reform debate in the USA, and I see an analog. Many people fear options such as single-payer (conventional nationalized service) and even "one public payer among many for-profit payers" with a kind of fear that seems much more overblown than would seem rational. And it's because they see it as the foot in the door for Soviet-style evils—liberty erosion, free-market destruction. I think that example compares interestingly to UK people contemplating metric units in the 19th century. Just a foot in the door for the kind of thinking that comes from those vile, debased anti-monarchy forces. Interesting to ponder. — ¾-10 20:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a medium for promoting OR or Fringe Theories. If you have sound refernces, publ;ish them, if not, this is not the place to discuss these issues. Biblical referneces that I have seen do not promote any particular form of measurement - only that the measures used are just. It is arguable that Christians should take into account the words "Render unto God that which is God's and unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's". Martinvl (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What it comes down to is the simple fact that European conformists can't understand why the USA doesn't want to join the metric lemmings. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with practicality. Why change when the current system works just fine? Farmers measure their fields in acres. What is the benefit to them, of switching to hectares? NONE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What has any of this got to do with religion? Zilch! Michael Glass (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Metrics appeared as part of a package that involved a fairly bloody revolution in a major european power. The new government pretty much attacked the King, the Church, and pretty much anything tainted with the old regime. No one distangles what is good or bad in this, as they did with the Nazis or the Communists. For many years after the revolution, metrics were not evaluated in the stripped down form that we use today, but with time, calendar and circle, with the heads of church and king.

In modern terms, one would expect as much reaction, say in the Arab world, if the christian calendar were imposed, or vice versa.

One might hardly consider the metric system to be practical. A search on google for "39.382 inches" and "39?382 inches" with the quotes and question mark, will bring up some rather interesting quotes regarding metric. It's what a brass metre becomes on expanding from 32°F to 62°F, the measurement appears in quite respectable texts (smithsonian tables, Latimer Clark's dictionary, Encyclopedia Brittania), one of the several references is a NZ newspaper clipping being rather dismissive of the practicality of metrics.

Turning to R Zupko "Revolution in Measurement", we find that while there were a few voices in the British empire for metrics, even as early as 1819, the general concensus was that it was not going to work, unless there was a repressive or authoratian government in place. Still.

On a more recent note, there is lingering resistance to metrics here (Australia), even when the government did the whole thing right. The metric sizes just don't seem to fit. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that there is lingering resistance to metrics in Australia? Michael Glass (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wendy.Krieger, I encourage you to read Meter#Timeline_of_definition before criticizing the definition of the meter based on a fully biased source such as Sithmonian. Xionbox (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure the Smithsonian Institution is biased? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Smithsonian is a highly reputed organisation in the USA. The quote in that text says that 39.382 inches is a conversion factor, not a definition. Specifically, it appears as a footnote in some report, to the extent that a brass metre, of perfect legal exactitude, will expand to 39.382 when compared with the imperial standard at the same temperature. The same figure and meaning appears in both the Encyclopedia Britanica of 1910, and in a footnote in Latimer Clark's dictionary, ultimately pointing to a review at 1890 by the British standards office. The quotes in question gives some unease of defining a standard at 32°F, rather than 62°F, and the general unpractability of the size.

I suppose you should not take this lightly, since in my list of conversions, the next entry in the metre-in-inches is 39.383 503, which is the Enfield inch. This and the previous suggest that thermal expansions was the cause of the enfield inch being at variance with the general inch.

The quote at 'timeline of definition' is woefully incomplete, since nowhere does it mentions in size or name, Casini's geographic foot, (of which the metre is exactly 3.24 ft), or Bessel's ellipsoid (which provide the 'astronomical' definition of 443.44 lines), or the later triangulation of giving 443.296 lines on the same toise. This reduction by 0.03% in length causes a reduction of 0.1% in mass and in volume, which is one of the reasons that the kilogram does not fit in the litre.

I suppose that one has never listened to parliament during the eighties and nineties, where there were endless partitions to restore the imperial standards in Australia. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Baseball_Bugs, I affirmed the Smithsonian is biased because I have bought some of these magazines and have been extremely annoyed by the use on non metric. In fact, it is even mentioned here: [[3]].

Wendy.krieger, to my knowledge, the timeline of definition of the metre is not incomplete. My knowledge is especially based on the reading of Mesurer le monde (1792 - 1799): l'incroyable histoire de l'invention du mètre by Ken Alder and Martine Devillers-Argouarc'h. This 654-page book retraces in depth the invention of the metre, from all the technical details to small anecdotes. And, in fact, the very first definition of the metre was echeloned as a brass metre. But as the timeline aforementioned confirms, the metre is no longer based on the brass metre. Hence, in my opinion, your rage against the metre was valid at its first definition in 1799, but no longer is. In addition, I understand your discontentment is based on the slight imprecision of the metre at its first definition. However, the metre still remains as the most Earth-based and rational measurement system, not to mention its extraordinary easing of unit manipulation (from distances to surfaces and volumes): what current system should replace it? Finally, if I may ask, what would you like to add the Metrication opposition article based on our current discussion? If it may reassure you, I haven't listening to the parliament debates in the eighties and nineties to restore the irrational arbitrary imperial units, mostly because I have never lived in Australia. Xionbox (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not using metrics makes them "biased"? How do you figure that? Maybe their target audience is American. In general, Americans have no use for metrics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned here [4], Smithsonian (which publishes Air & Space Magazine) not only does not use metric units but is an advocate of the Imperial units requiring their authors to use imperial units exclusively because, I quote, It’s the American Way. However, as explained in the US Customary Units article, the metric system is [...] commonly used [in the US] in both the US Armed Forces and in fields relating to science, and increasingly in medicine, aviation, government as well as various sectors of industry. This proves, once more, that Smithsonian is biased and an opponent of the metric system. Xionbox (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It demonstrate they're opposed. It doesn't demonstrate "bias", any more than advocating metrics is "biased". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, metric is not the most earth-based system. A more earth-based system would have used arcs of a sphere whose surface (and volume) matches that of the earth, and measured the arcs in an angle system that is likely to succeed. Putting in the current value of 6371.008 km for the radius of such a sphere (it's pretty easy to find), we find that a minute of arc is 6080.22 feet, which is very close to the US and Admiralty nautical mile. This can be divided into 1000 fathoms, of 6 feet, of 12 inches, of 12 lines, or the fathom can be subdivided decimally too. You can easily set a weight-system for this too.

A more rational metric system is that proposed by Moon, based on the decimetre, kilogram and decisecond. One couples this with the name-system of Wilberforce-Mann (LinnBased system), and you have a much more coherent and rational system than the metrics, even though the units are the same decade ones.

Using decimals does not imply rationality. I mean, when the US use fps units in science, they use coherent fps units, and it's as every bit as rational as the metrics. You could make a more rational system by setting eg (1 inch = 1/40.8 m, 1 loth = 0.014688 kg, 1 facc = 1/20 s, and 1 thremm = 1/17424 K). Such a system is more rational, since the size of the gravitional and thermal units are the same size as the absolute ones, since g = 9.80665 becomes 1, and J=4186.8 becomes 1 also. It's really quite rational and easy to calculate in.

Another system could use 1/15 second (ie a second, where 3600 is a degree of time), 1/7 foot, and 2/11 pounds. It's also perfectly rational.

Secondly, whether the Smithsonian wants to use Imperial or Metrics, is an editorial policy, not a matter of bias. Your article would have been as equally rejected should ye have used the foot and pound of paris or berlin. When they say 'it's the American Way', it's no different to the sentiment in the first comment in this section. Americans use the pre-Imperial units, not the metrics. In my copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, there's a reference to a unit that we would write today as a slug-mole, but written as (lbf s²/ft)-mole.

Thirdly, the metric standards have always been Platimun-based. The first metre was constructed to a length of 443.44 lines, this was used in the survey. The later one was 443.296 lines. People in possession of a copy of a 'toise de perou' were authorised to use these conversions to mark the metre: it is evident that the initial equities were defined as '1 metre = 443.xxx lines' rather than a prototype. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree: decimal units do not imply rationality. However, the metre being based on the length of a meridian, I consider it very rational, earth-wise at least. Universe-wise rational units would be the Plank units, which I prefer to your proposal of 1/15 second, 1/7 foot and 2/11 pound. In addition, one of the major strengths of the metric is the usage of prefixes: instead of remembering multiple different units whose name has no correlation, all one must do is remember the basis unit and the prefixes. Plus, the prefixes work for everything. I have even seen several times the use of kiloeuros (k€) on legal documents.

Concerning your comment about the initial equities of the meter, it seems normal that the first definitions of its industrial use were not as precise as today's. But, in your opinion, was the inch more precise? It was not; actually it was even less precise. The proof is the homogenization of the Imperial units some years ago (around 1959 if I'm not mistaken) where the inch, foot and mile were redefined one the basis of a metre. The need for this measure was the usage, world wide, of these obsolete homonym units, which did not represent the same value. For example, the English inch and the US inch differed a bit, and the Indian inch and English inch differed by a lot (around 1 cm if my memory isn't tricking me).

So until the Plank units ought to be widespread and are decimalized, the metric system shall continue it's expansion and, hopefully one day, reach Burma, Liberia and the US. Xionbox^₪ 11:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The nautical miles are also based on arcs spheres representing the earth. Those of the british and US are based on the sphere with the same surface as the clarke ellipsoid: that is, if you calculate the surface area based on the nautical mile of 6080 feet, you would be more accurate than any other figure.

You also see units like 'kip' (thousand imperial pound), and 'klick' (1000 yards). It's no magic to use metrics for this. You see also microinch. Words are words. If you take A and make AX, then B gives BX. You see also words like ouncedal and tondal from poundal, from gram-calorie, kg-calorie, there's pound-calorie. That's what coherence is all about.

It's hard to tell what the inch is 'supposed to be'. In any case, the US system is a fork on the british, and the value in the imperial yard represents the 'true' inch. Still, i have a fairly extensive pdf (of my research), on different metre-inch ratios, which has all of the historically significant equities (legal and otherwise).

The metre of 443.44 french lines is a more accurate representation of what the metre is meant to be, compared to the one we got of 443.296. Later does not necessarily mean better.

Of the inches, these are the historical british and american values, with french ones as well. The letter-code is of my own device, but the rest are values you will meet in reading books of various eras. The British are all conversion factors based on legal experiments, the values being giving the exact references. The French values are the provisional (astronomic) and final (triangulation) of the metre in french lines.

   			metre in inches		gram in grains
 PA	France	443.44 / 12			18.841		1793
 PR	France	443.294 / 12  		        18.827 15	final

 	UK	US	metre/inch		gram / grain
 UV	1864	-	39.370 79		15.432 487 4
 UC	1878	-	1.09362311 × 36		15.432 356 39
 US	-	1898	39.370 000		7/0.453 592 427 7
 UB	1900	-	36/0.914 399 2		15.432 356 39
 UK	1922		36/0.914 398 41		7/0.453 592 338
 UI	1963	1959	1/0.0254		1/0.064 798 91
 UL	(fpsc)		c = 983574900 ft/s 	7/0.453 592 339 2

The UL scale is the one i use for constructing my own measurement systems on. UI is united international (ie SI based).

The indian inch is 39.370142, which is well less than the clarke foot (39.370432 = australian survey foot, based on clarke's foot/metre conversion (UC), and the clarke ellipsoid. There's also a gold-coast foot too, of 39.370116 inches (not to be confused with UB here, which is ..0113).

On the same token there's a german legal metre, of 1.000013597 metres, which is used in namabia surveys. I suppose it's to do with the measurements that one uses on the ellipsoids. It's just that metrics want you to think there's only one metre, and all of these anomalies ought be ignored.

I use a system where 376.730313462 ohms = 1, c = 1,000,000,000 ft/s, and Gc = 1. One gets a foot of 299.792458 mms, and a pound of 403.699 grams. The volt-unit comes out as 1.043040 V (metric). --Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This page is incredibly one-sided. For example, there is not even a section for arguments in favour of the metric system (some of which include such things as the ability to recreate the units to a scientific precision given only their definitions and the single unit for any type of measurement). I move that this article be merged with Metrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengau (talk • contribs) 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A page whose subject is "Opposition to..." is one-sided??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there should be the metrication article, and then one other article that covers both pro-metrication and anti-metrication arguments. It could be called something like "pro- and anti-metrication advocacy". This existing "metrication opposition" content would be folded into that article. That's my suggestion, hope it's helpful. — ¾-10 21:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this message in hidden text in the article: "CAUTION TO EDITORS: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. This article is not a place for you to make pro- or anti-metrication arguments. Nobody is interested in your personal opinion. The ONLY material that can be included in the article is faithful reporting of statements made by notable sources or news events." Sound advice, but unfortunately not much attention seems to have been paid to it. I propose merging the small amount of material that can reasonably be salvaged from this mess into Metrication. Any comments? Please make them at Talk:Metrication/Archive 1#Merge discussion, Metrication opposition. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "resistance to..." would be a better title. Just be sure to include the UK in any such discussions, as the British citizens also use older conventions such as "miles per hour". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

I've removed some material from the lead section as irrelevant to the question of support for or opposition to metrication:

In the case of Liberia, the African Development Bank stated in 2008 that it used the metric system. Cities of the World in 2008 stated that Monrovia, the capital, used the metric system, and a 2008 report from the University of Tennessee stated that the changeover from English to Metric measures was confusing to coffee and cocoa farmers, that the weighing machines were owned by the buyers and there was no system of weights and measures certification.

On the other hand, according to Warwick Cairns, Guyana has officially adopted the metric system every three to five years, on average, since 1981, each time with little success.

In the United Kingdom, certain measurements such as the retail sales of draught beer and cider remain exclusively imperial while most road signs are required by law to give distances in miles and yards, widths and heights must be in imperial units but may have supplementary metric units while in England driver location signs are exclusively metric.

It may have a place in some other article.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of stonecutters

The disambiguation page Stonecutters was recently added to the see-also section. Can someone explain the relevance and link to the relevant page, if there is one?--Boson (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I too am puzzled. Martinvl (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Puzzle no longer. Listen to the words of the Stonecutters' song from The Simpsons. Enjoy the irrelevance (and irreverence)! Michael Glass (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Costs not mentioned?

Surely the cost of conversion is an argument against changing. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any information on the cost? The Red WikiBaron (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is information from the Australian metric conversion. It can be found in Metricatiion in Australia, which has been published on the internet at the following address: http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Metrication-in-Australia-built-2013-06-24.pdf If you look on page 25 and following you will find a whole chapter on the costs of conversion. However, it should also be borne in mind that there were advantages of conversiion. Here is one:

Metrication itself was not seen as a source of profit and the possibility of cost benefit was not seen as a reason for conversion. Even so, the disruption that the change required and the need to rethink many industrial processes and redesign products into metric created a rare opportunity in modern industry to totally revise products and adopt newer and more effective procedures.

The best way of taking advantage of this opportunity was to standardise or re- standardise products and the rationalisation or variety reduction of product ranges to eliminate less popular or non-standard lines. Examples of such processes gainfully applied were: the standardisation of the location of screw holes on hinges, thus reducing the number of standard hinge sizes from 153 to 11 to suit the same applications as before; and by reducing the number of steel sections, to rationalise the sizes of oil drums from 55 to 11.

The change was used as the opportunity to reduce the number of fasteners in use, and in time a single ISO metric coarse thread series replaced the multitude of systems in use before metrication.

The concluding remarks in this chapter are worth repeating:

It is clear that while the actual costs of metrication were indeterminate, even ignoring the positive, but equally indeterminate, cost benefits, the costs of going metric did not appear to have been exceptionally high. Real costs were in additions to the company’s capital stock and these were distributed over several years of production. Very few companies gave cost as a reason for not converting although many justified “soft" conversion on this basis.

Significantly, the Prices Justification Tribunal reported that metrication was not used to justify price increases.

Opponents of metrication sometimes claimed that its cost in Australia was $2 500 000 000. This amount was first suggested in 1973 and had not been amended by 1982. It was clearly an estimate not based on facts, and in view of the difficulty the Board had in obtaining reliable figures, it seemed highly unlikely that a less well equipped organisation could have been more successful in this regard.

Even assuming, for a moment, this cost to be accurate, it represented $179 per person or $18 per person per year for ten years which was a small enough cost compared with the benefits which resulted from metric conversion.

I think that this is pretty authoritative answer to your question. Michael Glass (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 100 of the Final report of the UK Metrication Board states that many engineering firms recouped their costs within a year due to reduced inventories and having a single production run, not a "domestic" production run and an "export" production run. The most costly outstanding item in the UK is the metrication of road signs - costs vary from £80 million to £600 million depending on whether there is a "big-bang" change-over or "big-bang" changeover for speed limits and all other signs changed on a "end of useful life" basis. The former works out at a one-off cost of about £3 per vehicle and the latter at £20 per vehicle. Martinvl (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Evolution Argument

Am I the only one who thinks the evolution argument makes no coherent sense 143.195.109.105 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A weird debate

As a Frenchman, accustomed to the metric system since my childhood, and my country for almost two hundred years, your debate between Anglo-Saxon seems both strange and prehistoric, as I suppose it must seem alien to 90 % of the world population using the SI system. It is clear that the opposition to metrication has ideologic and historical basis : for some Anglo-Saxons, the original sin of this system is to be born in France, the Anglo-Saxon beeing much more francophobes than the French are anglophobes. Anyway, since a century, the system is international and this is it's major argument. A measure system has two main purposes : trade and science.

• Against change:
  • passing to meter requires an effort of the populace. Here in France, I experienced two currency changes: from the "old franc" to the "new franc", in the 1960's (1 new franc = 100 old francs), from the "new franc" to the "euro" in 2000 (1 euro = 6.55957 new francs). This happened with some difficulty coping with but without revolution. The main argument against change is the resistance of the population who do not see the point. But when euro was established here the population had no choice and everyone had to cope with.
  • the cost of the change: I've no precise idea of the problem, but the experience of change in India or Australia can give some idea.
• Why change:
  • The main advandage of the SI system is that it is international. For countries with large international trade, it's compulsory to comply on terms of exchanges (the UE is the first importer and first exporter in the world, so european regulations have become mandatory in international trade, and the SI system along).
  • The second advantage is that it is coherent and that it's a univoque language. Lead counsel for metrication are manufacturers and traders. The woes of NASA with the probe "Mars climate orbiter" is a striking example.
  • In science, the SI system is the only coherent system. One example in physics : one formula linking magnetism and electricity is:
    c²ε₀μ₀=1
    Where "c" is the speed of light in the vacuum; ε₀ the "permittivity" of the vacuum and μ₀ the "electromagnetic permeability" of the vacuum. All these terms are "natural properties" of the universe. In the SI system, which is coherent, the formula is very simple. In any other system, it would require bizarre conversion factors. De facto, SI is the only system of units used worlwide in science. I suppose that American science students must master both traditional units in dayly life and SI units in their studies, which is not so easy.

So, I would say that any system is only a matter of habits in dayly life and that if you want to, change takes only months. The simplicity, universality and coherence of the SI system, both for relations with others and in the various fields of knowledge, simplifies life much. Opponents of metrication are those that revel in their isolation and advocate isolationism in their national values.
Gilles MAIRET (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. Since the article does not actually explain where in the world there is opposition to (nor support for) metrication, I have gone ahead and added a '' template to the introductory assertion regarding this. Lklundin (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Australian experience

The section Price inflation says "The Australian experience of metric conversion showed no evidence of price inflation caused by metrication.". This follows a paragraph giving an example of price inflation whereby sneaky deceptive producers move packaging sizes up and down. I'd say that there are manufactures guilty of this in Australia. For example, in the nineties, Australian beer came in the standard 375 ml bottle whereas now there is a proliferation of non-standard sizes such as 330, 345 and 355 ml. Likewise spirits came in standard 750 ml bottles but these are rare today with the usual size you find being 700 ml (this may be a global phenomenon). Jimp 21:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Metrication opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elevenmyanmar.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3684:myanmar-to-adopt-metric-system&catid=44:national&Itemid=384
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091016133941/http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Trade+Measurement-Educational+Material+and+Links-Metrication+-+information+for+students?OpenDocument&1=930-Trade+Measurement~&2=930-Educational+Material+and+Links~&3=0-Metrication+-+information+for+students~ to http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Trade+Measurement-Educational+Material+and+Links-Metrication+-+information+for+students?OpenDocument&1=930-Trade+Measurement~&2=930-Educational+Material+and+Links~&3=0-Metrication+-+information+for+students~

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Metrication opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elevenmyanmar.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3684:myanmar-to-adopt-metric-system&catid=44:national&Itemid=384
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100819092607/http://ukma.org.uk:80/Press/metrictimeline.aspx to http://ukma.org.uk/press/metrictimeline.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metrication opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elevenmyanmar.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3684:myanmar-to-adopt-metric-system&catid=44:national&Itemid=384

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Paper sizes?

The article mentions "Some industries, even in metric countries, have adopted industry standards which are not convenient multiples of metric units. One example of this is paper size<snip>". Hm. The last time I checked, an A0 sheet was exactly one square meter. Very convenient, as it easily allows to calculate the "weight" (the mass, actually) of a number of sheets of paper. For example, at 80g/m², four sheets of A4 paper have a "weight" of 20g. Easy to calculate postage. 2500 sheets of this paper have 12.5kg. Easy to calculate freight cost, or loading figures for a storage shelf. Or is there other reason why ISO paper sizes are consider inconvenient enough to serve as a prime example against Metrication? --217.91.139.106 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metrication opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elevenmyanmar.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3684%3Amyanmar-to-adopt-metric-system&catid=44%3Anational&Itemid=384
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004023803/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/faq.html to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/faq.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Trade%2BMeasurement-Educational%2BMaterial%2Band%2BLinks-Metrication%2B-%2Binformation%2Bfor%2Bstudents?OpenDocument&1=930-Trade%20Measurement~&2=930-Educational%20Material%20and%20Links~&3=0-Metrication%20-%20information%20for%20students~
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202140018/http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/glos/metric.htm to http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/glos/metric.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metrication opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606154737/http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html to http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)