Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 2

A suggested compromise (or two)

After consulting with both parties, I'd like to suggest a compromise.

First, this is a very dramatic event and deserves good, dramatic prose - this is what SlimVirgin has provided, with a fantastic article on a very important event. Thank goodness we have editors like her!

Second, I see the audience for this article primarily being both Americans and Britons. Americans use Imperial exclusively, but Britian uses a strange mix (I'm British, I should add). We use feet and inches, by and large, but pounds and ounces are a foreign language to people under 30 due to Imperial weights being illegal in retail. And Farenheit?! No one really uses that anymore, except for the odd summer-time news paper headline. So it would be good to have the appropiate metric equivalents in the article for a British audience, particular for younger people not old enough to know about Lockerbie first-hand, and are also more conversant with metric than Imperial.

I really am torn on this. On one hand, the metrics definitely don't help the flow of the prose. On the other, when I read the article I start wondering what 200,000lbs actually is, because we don't describe weights like that in Britain, and that interferes with the flow too!

We could add a short section at the foot of the article giving the metric equivalents (as suggested by Grace Note), with a brief note at the top of the article highlighting it's existence (eg For metric values, see foot of article. I don't think that would interfere with the article too much). I will happily write this.

The other alternative is just a few, well-chosen metric equivalents in the text to help the younger British audience - please see the edit history for where I tried that.

I don't think a full metrification (is that a word?!) is justified.

Thoughts? Please try to keep your responses *brief* and constructive. Dan100 (Talk) 18:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I had not noticed that SV had posted above :-) Dan100 (Talk) 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Response from Bobblewik.

Earlier, you (Dan100) asked what I wanted. My public reply on this talk page was:

• Issue 1. I would like it if metric units were permitted to stay in this article.
  • This entire article was effectively a metric 'no-go' zone. That is no longer the case and I am pleased.
  • You say that you don't think a 'full metrication' is justified. That sounds like parts of the article could still be a 'no-go' zone. . In Wikipedia, everything is allowed unless forbidden and metric units are not forbidden. If there are to be prohibitions of metric units in Wikipedia articles, then it is the Wikipedia community that needs to define the prohibitions. I do a lot of metrication and I do it quickly. If I am to apply constraints, I need to know what the constraints of the community are.
  • Having footnotes with conversions (°F <-> °C etc) in partnership with a metric prohibition is still a prohibition. Nice thought but I don't think it will make the problem for metric readers much better.

• Issue 2. I would like it if values taken from respectable sources were not replaced with values taken from sources of unknown quality.
  • This issue is still live.

So here is what I suggest.

• (a) All units that you (Dan100) touched can be touched by anyone else. That includes modifications to the value, the format, the unit, and the unit sequence.
• (b) Any value can be replaced if a better source of data is available.
• (c) Raw data values should be primary. Conversions should be secondary.

For how this might work in practice, see the example conversions that I did in the sections titled Container size, Wind, Debris, McKee, Fragment size, Temperature on this talk page. Please watch the history of this talk page. If the example conversions are deleted again, simply look at the version of the talk page when I wrote this.

• With repect to the units that you (Dan100) did not touch:
  • if they are also permitted to be touched, then I think that is the end of the matter.
  • If they are still not permitted to be touched, then I object on the basis that articles do not have 'editors in chief'. I also reject the idea that the talk page can be censored without consequences. However, if this is a fact of this article today, then I will not touch these units if a Wikipedia community debate on metric prohibitions takes place in an appropriate place (e.g. talk:Manual of style).

Thanks for your efforts Dan100. And thanks to SlimVirgin, Grace Note, Gene etc for your efforts too. Squabble or not, I still believe we all want accessible articles for readers. I hope that sounds reasonable, or if not, I hope it sounds clear anyway. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you refuse to compromise, in other words? Grace Note 01:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, there is no "prohibition" on metric units. But the MoS is clear that there is no requirement to use them if imperial units are in use. You don't like that, Bobblewik, go fight over it there. You were offered two different methods to try to satisfy you. Neither seems to have met your full approval. Okay. I say we'll stick to not having metric units at all, in accordance with our policy.

Second, about the talkpage. It's not "censorship". This is a wiki. Any page can be edited. That includes talkpages. You have harassed another editor on this page, and part of that harassment was to list changes that you didn't like. This is entirely unacceptable. All the changes are viewable in the history. You did not list them in an attempt to improve the article but as part of your attack on another editor.

Third, all articles have an "editor in chief". It's a thing we call "consensus". There is a broad agreement here not to change the units. You oppose that, not because you want to improve the article at all (you do not even meet the argument that your changes deface the article, which is the main reason they are opposed) but because you are on a crusade to make Wikipedia metric. Now, so far as I'm concerned, the units cannot be touched, as you put it, because I'm planning to revert them if you do. You have not bothered to try to persuade others to your view, to get a consensus for it, whereas SlimVirgin did, and any changes you make will be against the will of most editors on this page, and without support. Grace Note 01:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Grace Note, "all the changes are viewable in history." What Bobblewik's nice little list shows is what changes have been in dispute and who made those changes, so that someone just coming into this talk page can easily see them and see what the dispute is about. Then it show people exactly where they can go in the history to find those particular changes. That's something you don't get by going to the "history" special page.

And please, no nonsense about SlimVirgin trying to get consensus. She declared, by her fiat, that there would be no metric units on this page. That was before there was any discussion at all about it here, or anywhere else, and after she had already reverted Bobblewik and all my editing (including many changes which you and Mel Etitis have since redone). She did that on my talk page, telling it to me in what I took here to start the discussion here. I'm pretty sure she did it on Bobblewik's talk page as well.

SlimVirgin's fiat was on this talk page, and apparently was taken out in part of the censorship you had she have been doing. Here it is in the history: [1]

Yes, any page can be edited, including talk pages. But Wikipedia etiquette requires that you not edit out comments which disagree with you. Gene Nygaard 11:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose this change, and more importantly

Strongly oppose Grace Note's implementation of what Dan100 has suggested. Gene Nygaard 11:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see that both Gene and Bobblewick have not attempted to come to any compromise. Yes, this is a wiki and anyone can edit almost everything, but it also a community of people. You have to work with people - you will not succeed working against them. SV and I have mooted compromises that we will accept. You can either accept that, or there will be no changes to the article. Dan100 (Talk) 18:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is odd. I intended my response to indicate acceptance on the basis that residual prohibition is discussed by the community. Did you not read it that way? Bobblewik  (talk) 19:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note's test implementation of Dan100 suggestion

Grace Note added this to the article, giving us an idea of how she would implement Dan100's suggestion:

This article uses imperial units of measurement. Readers who use metric units are directed to the conversions at the end of the article

[body of article]

Conversion of imperial to metric units of measurement
Each metric value rounded to two decimal points

• Weights: 1 oz = 23.45 g; 1 lb = 453.59 g; 1 (short) ton = 907.18 kg
• Distances: 1 in = 2.54 cm; 1 ft = 30.48 cm; 1 mile = 1.61 km
• Speed: 1 knot = 1.85 km/h
• Temperature: –50°F = –45.56°C

Discussion of test implementation

Less useful than link to conversion of units

This is totally unacceptable. It is less useful than a link to Conversion of units. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is also less useful than a link to the Google converter, or many other online converters (but many of the other ones are also pretty much garbage, so it would have to be a good one). Gene Nygaard 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interrupting the flow of the reading

This suggestion shows how little concern some editors have for interrupting the flow of the reading, despite their claims to the contrary.

A big part of the reason for including conversions in the first place is to make it so that readers don't have to interrupt their reading to go do the calculations themselves.

But furthermore, let's assume that we instead changed it to give conversions of the actual measurements used in this article, something that would at least be more useful than a link to conversion of units. It still severely interrupts the flow of the reading for many people

Even having to scroll down several screens to find the particular conversion that you want, then having to go back and find you place where you were reading would severely interrupt the flow of the reading. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Precision of the conversions

One of the biggest advantages of doing the actual conversions here is that the converted values can be made to correspond roughly in precision to the original values.

The one conversion which Grace Note did specifically illustrates that problem quite well. The temperature of −50 °F has nowhere near enough precision to get the value in degrees Celsius accurately to the nearest hundredth of a degree Celsius. The exact conversion from an exact temperature of −50 °F would give you −45 5/9 °C. However, that is only half of the conversion process; Grace Note has omitted the most important part, rounding it off appropriately. If −50 °F were an actual reading from a thermometer aboard the plane, it might be reasonable to assume accuracy to the nearest degree Fahrenheit (even though we probably don't quite have that in fact), and round it to −46 °C, and that is the most precision that would ever be possible in this case. But it is more likely that -50 °F is an even rougher figure than that, and the only precision we can really assume from the number as stated is that it is to the nearest 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Since −50±5 °F is −(−45 5/9)±(2 7/9) °C, that leaves us somewhere in the range of −42 7/9 °C to −48 1/3 °C. The most appropriate conversion would be to −45 °C.

Note also that "to two decimal places" is a very poor way to choose to express conversion factors like that, something fairly common among innumerate people. A better indicator of an appropriate size would be the number of significant digits in the conversion factors given here. Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What has this to do with anything? -45F is cold. That's the point. If you want to argue about the technicalities of after-casting and precision of digits, fine, take it to my talk page, otherwise please refrain from hurtling off-topic! Dan100 (Talk) 18:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Missing conversion factors

The list of conversion factors here does not include all the units used in the article. For one example of a missing conversion, see my discussion elsewhere on this talk page of Air Traffic Controller Alan Topp. Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate identification of units as "imperial"

Grace Note originally used "Imperial", and then quickly changed it to "imperial". Either way it is contrary to SlimVirgin's claim that this article is written in American English (a change for which she has not received consensus, nor even attempted to, but that is de facto how the article is written at the present time, using American English).

In American English, the adjective "imperial" with respect to units is limited in use to the new gallon introduced in the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, and its multiples (including the bushel) and subdivisions (such as pints and fluid ounces). The only other time "imperial" is used in this context in American English is to refer to a particular artifact which served as a standard for the yard as the "Imperial Yard".

Note also that, as Imperial unit tells us, even in the British English the adjective "imperial" only applies to units used in Britain and its colonies which remained in use after that Weights and Measures Act of 1824. I know that this act outlawed all gallons other than the newly invented imperial gallon. I'm less certain of the fact that this was the act which threw out the short ton in British usage as well. But nobody in Britain today calls the short ton by the name "imperial ton", do they? Even though this unit has remained in use in some parts of the British Commonwealth, Google only has 22 hits for "imperial short ton" and 10 hits for "imperial short tons". Gene Nygaard 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The international nautical mile, by definition exactly 1852 meters, and the unit of speed derived from it, are also by no stretch of the imagination an "Imperial units". As a matter of fact, U.K. law still defines the nautical mile as the "Admiralty mile" of 6080 feet exactly. See [2]. Gene Nygaard 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For ton definitions go to Ton. The phrase "Imperial" is a bit loose, better to use avoirdupois when meant or just "non-metric" or "customary". GraemeLeggett 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again - this has nothing to do with the article. If you want to discuss the intracies of different systems of measurement, please feel free to raise it on my talk page. Please try and stay on topic here. Dan100 (Talk) 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Conversion tables and calculators don't disambiguate for you

No list of conversion factors or calculator is going to be much help in identifying ambiguous units so that you can apply the appropriate conversion factor, if those ambiguous units are not identified in the text.

Note that inclusion of actual conversions can often serve as that disambiguation, making it less necessarily to "interrupt the flow" by having to otherwise specifically identify the amgibuous units. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amount of Semtex sold to Libya

Gene, as a matter of interest, why don't you do some decent research, instead of just repeatedly reverting to metric tons, when you don't know it was metric tons? A mark of single-issue edit warriors is that all they do is revert. They add nothing of substance. I can assure you that I'd be very happy to find a source for a more precise figure than 1,000 tons, and in fact, I'm looking for one myself. But I'm also trying to add other content. If that single issue matters to you so much, you could probably hunt down a better source by visiting your local library. Anything that looks at Libya's alleged involvement in terrorism is likely to have a figure, as the Semtex issue became a major part of Libya's relationship with certain groups, like the IRA, because Gadaffi became a supplier of Semtex to groups he favored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Now all you've done is found a source that spells it "tonnes," and you're assuming they knew how much was actually sent. You'd be better off looking for a specialist source on Gadaffi on terrorism (though that would involve some real work), as the correct figure is unlikely to be either 1,000 tons or metric tons. I'm not going to revert you again, but I'm noting here for the record that your behavior on this page is nothing you should be proud of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is nothing to be proud of; there are any number of news reports that refer to it as "tons", not "tonnes";: [3] [4]. Here's a source that carefully distinguishes between tons and metric tons: [5] Considering that some sources say 900 tons, there's no way they could be referring to 1000 metric tons, which is either 984 long tons (which is usually used for sea water or ships), or more likely over 1100 short tons. In any event relying on a dodgy Hansard transcript is extremely questionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, "tons" is ambiguous, no matter who uses it; in the English language, there is only a slight ambiguity in "tonnes". Note also that Grace Note and a couple of others have already agreed that the number which Havel used was 1000, in whatever tons he used. After all, the Washington Post does present this as a direct quote from his London press conference, does it not? You can see it where I quoted it below. Had he used the number 900, it would be possible that some sources reported that as such and others converted an apparent 900 metric tons to 1000 short tons. Were the Washington Post and Grace Note and others wrong about the actual number Havel used? How reliable are those "900 tons" sources? Do any of them offer it as a direct quote?

Are you in cahoots with the author of that Globalvision News Network story dated 16 June 2005 (i.e., today), the one you cite as one "that carefully distinguishes between tons and metric tons"? Gene Nygaard 00:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In going back and looking more closely at your cited Globalvision page, I see that they do not "carefully distinguish" between tons and metric tons. It identifies tons in one measurement as "metric tons" and it leaves tons in another, separate measurement ambiguously stated as "tons". Whenever any source disambiguates a unit in one instance and not in others, it is more reasonable for a first guess to assume that the first one was identified as being the typical usage, and the assumption is that all other uses of the word have the same meaning. Sometimes, of course, it will be identified because it is an exception, but less often than because it is typical, in these circumstances. Here, where it deals with two unrelated measurements, likely coming from different sources, there is also another possibility: the one which was known for sure was identified; the ones about which the author of this article remained uncertain were left ambiguous.

I also see that the source dated today which you cited appears to be unattributed plagiarism of http://www.tol.cz/look/TOLrus/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=28&NrSection=2&NrArticle=2585 dated 8 Nov 2001 by Brian Whitmore, a Prague-based correspondent for The Boston Globe. So I therefore retract any implication that this might be something which you had a hand in. Gene Nygaard 01:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My source is more reliable than your source, SlimVirgin. You have a timeline by some anonymous Washington Post web editor. My source gave that answer in the House of Commons, in direct response to:

• "Mr. Key : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the cessation of exports of Semtex from Czechoslovakia."

My source is not in conflict with your source. Your source is ambiguous. Mine identifies them as "tonnes", a particlar kind of ton.

A page linked to in your source, the actual Washington Post article about it, quotes Vaclav Havel putting forth his answer to a math problem in a London press conference,

• "The past regime exported 1,000 tons to Libya," Havel said at a press conference during his first official visit here. "If you consider that 200 grams is enough to blow up an aircraft, this means world terrorism has enough Semtex to last 150 years."

If he's going to divide 1000 tons by 200 grams, just take a wild guess which tons a reasonable intelligent person would use. Can you figure that out?

How many airplanes a year does that amount to? 1,000,000,000 grams divided by 200 grams gives us 5,000,000 aircraft. Divide that by 150 years, and you get 33,000 aircraft to blow up each year for 150 years. Oh, well, there goes my theory that Vaclav Havel is a reasonably intelligent man.

My source is less ambiguous than your source. The word tonne is less ambiguous in English than it is in French, and much less ambiguous than the ton spelling in English. Gene Nygaard 00:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)