Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:53, 9 March 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metrication in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metrication in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Measurement (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes need a citation - even if in the lead

Just to point out to the editor who is persistently removing the 'Cite quote' tag from a direct quote in the lead, and without providing the required supporting reference, that WP:CITELEAD specifically states: "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." (my emphasis) -- de Facto (talk). 09:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Revocation of 22 February 2012

I have revoked DeFActo's changes of the last 24 hours.

1. The section on pre-1799 is part of the history of metrication. I will regard removal of this without consensus as vandalism.
2. Decimalisation and Metrication were both in the Hodgson report. In case DeFacto was not aware of it (I have no idea how old he is), decimalisation took place in 1971 and the bulk of the metication program between 1968 and 1978.
3. The BBC weather site is not indicative of the usage in the UK, the existing text is more accurate, but probably does need a source - I suggest that DeFacto looks for a source. He could go to his local library and looks at a selection of newspapers.
4. The banner regarding history between 1799 and 1945 was unneccessary. If one or two citations were missing, DeFacto would be much better employed finding them than whinging about their absence.

Martinvl (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into those changes, so have re-applied them. Please discuss before reverting. I'll open a sub-section for each point below. -- de Facto (talk). 13:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1799 history

How is this relevant to metrication - metircation being the introduction of the metric system, a system that wasn't invented until the end on the 18th century? -- de Facto (talk). 13:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You had obviously not read the section - the first proposal of the metirc system was in 1668 by an Englishman. That is obviously relevant. The link, unvented in 1620 by an Englishman was a useful measuring device that was a forerunner of the metric system in that it use a decimal system. Martinvl (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no metric system in 1668. This article is about the introduction of the metric system, not its development or history. -- de Facto (talk). 13:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the pre-1779 History section. The metric system was first concieved in 1668 by and Englishman (Wilkins), not 1670 by a Frenchman (Mouton) as is often proposed, so in my view it is valid to mention this here. Your interpretation and my interpretation as to the scope of the article are clearly at variance - ie no consensus, so DO NOT REMOVE IT WITHOUT CONSENSUS. Martinvl (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, if you can verifiably explain, in the article, the relationship between the 1668 "system" and "metrication in the UK" (the adoption of the metre-based system) and if you can adjust the amount of space given to it to be proportional to its significance (see WP:DUE), I'll happily accept that section. Until then though, I still think it should be removed. However, given your passion to keep it, I'll leave it there (possibly bannered, if I can find an appropriate one), in good faith, whilst you work on bringing it into scope and within the 'due weight' requirements. -- de Facto (talk). 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1688 decimalisation

How is this sentence "Proposals that the British people should use a decimal system date back to at least the 1668 paper of John Wilkins - the earliest known such proposal in history." that I removed related to metrication - a system that wasn't invented until the end on the 18th century? -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Weather

Cited content, particularly reliablty sourced content, trumps unsupported OR/POV, I believe. -- de Facto (talk). 13:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way Martinvl, further to your suggestion at the start of this discussion, I did read all my usual newspapers again today, and none of them, that I saw, had anything about the metrication of weather forecasting in the UK. -- de Facto (talk). 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WHat units of measure did they use in their weather reports? When I last checked, even the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail used degrees Celsius as their principal unit of measure. Martinvl (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, I hope you are not suggesting that I indulge in a bit of OR and attempt to draw some sort of general conclusion from that observation. -- de Facto (talk). 08:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Banners flagging inadequate referencing

If you believe that just one of the four banners I added was unnecessary, why did you remove them all? -- de Facto (talk). 13:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You made so many changes, I was not going to sift through and reinstate just those that were unneccessary. That is one of the hazards of making a dozen or so changes on the trot. Martinvl (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing 'Legal requirements' section

WP:MOS is very clear: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." This section unnecessarily obfuscates the true legal position in the UK. There are only a few specific circumstances where unit use is regulated; these are mainly to do with trading by weight or measure and for certain public administration purposes. Even where units are regulated, it is generally acceptable to use both metric and imperial units concurrently. General everday use of units is not regulated, and use in the media is not regulated. Public opinion surveys generally return a massive public preference for the use of imperial units over metric units. -- de Facto (talk). 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This section reflects the legislation. If DeFacto finds it confusing, maybe he should check the references himself and also look for other references - both the UKMA and BWMA sites repeat what is here. If he finds it confusing, then maybe he should contact his member of Parliament rathr than whinge here. Martinvl (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that, if we are to have a 'Legal requirements' section, it should be used to explain the practical consequence of the legislation, its scope (who, when, where) and its meaning (what), not just trot out obfuscating phrases and economical representations. We need due and balanced weight given to all the circumstances in which the units are legal and the limited circumstances in which they are not. When that has been achieved we can remove the banner. And please don't forget the advice given to you here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the article does just that. Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the 'Legal requirements' section for then? -- de Facto (talk). 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It creates a starting point which holds the rest of the artcile together. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that the rest of the article is biased against imperial units too? -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the banner - it is unneccessary. Also, I don't understand DeFacto's question - "the rest of the artcile is an attempt to portray things as they are without bias" the rest of teh article is an attempt to portray things as they are. Martinvl (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, you removed the banner despite not addressing the confusion - why?

Let me describe some of the issues as I see it.

1. The second paragraph contradicts the first. The first says: 'Non-metric units, allowed by UK law for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative' use from 1 January 2000, are limited to..." (I question the accuracy of that too) whilst the second says: 'the display of imperial units being permitted as "supplementary indications"'. They can't both be correct - if all but the listed few imperial units are not "allowed by UK law", how can they be 'permitted as "supplementary indications"'? We need to avoid ambiguity and to avoid vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
2. What exactly does '"economic, public health, public safety or administrative" use' mean. Does it really mean that, say, a police constable would be breaking the law if he shouted to a crowd to "step back a yard" - for "public safety" purposes? Does it really mean that it is illegal for a resident to report that "thousands of gallons of raw sewage is welling up through a gully in the street" - for "public health" purposes? We need it put into plain Enlish, with some examples possibly.

How about something along the lines of this for the first bit:

Generally speaking, for most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK. For certain trading activities (the selling of certain loose goods priced by weight or measure for example) and for certain public administration activities (the wording of new laws and regulations for example), units from a specified system are legally required. Where the unit system is specified it is usually the metric system (for selling pre-packaged food sold by weight, for the selling of loose vegetables priced by weight and in the wording of new laws and regulations for example), although in some cases the imperial system is specified (for the dispensing of draught beer for example). Even when the unit system is specified, units from the other system can be used concurrently as so-called "supplementary indications" (pre-packaged sausages, which require metric system units at least to be used, can be marked "454 g (1 lb)" for example).

-- de Facto (talk). 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the section as above, and thus removed the banner. -- de Facto (talk). 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have re-instated the section on the current legal situation, but have updated the references. I am afraid that what you wrote was Misplaced Pages:Complete bollocks. If you don't understand something, don't try to write about it. BTW, the legislation that I have cited has an explanatory note. Please read that note carefully and then maybe you might learn something. Martinvl (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, you rejected my proposal, point-blank, without the courtesy of an expalnation of how you think it's flawed; you restored the previous questionable content, but with no clarification and without replying to the issues I raised with it above; you didn't restore the 'dubious' flag; you didn't restore the 'clarification required' banner. As I doubt that you'll be able to provide a good explanation for that, what is verging on disruptive, behaviour, perhaps you could do some of those things now. -- de Facto (talk). 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

• Generally speaking, for most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK. - Whose view of "generality" should be used? Please be more specific.
• For certain trading activities (the selling of certain loose goods priced by weight or measure for example) and for certain public administration activities (the wording of new laws and regulations for example), units from a specified system are legally required. - The word certain is incorrect - apart from the cases cited in my wording, the word all is the correct word, or are you trying tio hide reality?
• Where the unit system is specified it is usually the metric system (for selling pre-packaged food sold by weight, for the selling of loose vegetables priced by weight and in the wording of new laws and regulations for example), although in some cases the imperial system is specified (for the dispensing of draught beer for example). Wishy-washy non-specific wording. Are you afraid of the truth, especially when it is verifiable?
• Even when the unit system is specified, units from the other system can be used concurrently as so-called "supplementary indications" (pre-packaged sausages, which require metric system units at least to be used, can be marked "454 g (1 lb)" for example) - A very wordy way of saying "Supplemetary indicators are permitted". BTW, when I buy sausages, ther are no supplementary indicators.

Are you happy now? Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, let's look at your criticisms; one by one:

• Generally speaking, for most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK. - Whose view of "generality" should be used? Please be more specific.

• "Generally" is used as a synonym of "usually". It is redundant in the sentence, but does not render the rest of the sentence as incorrect or otherwise invalid. Usually no restriction or requirement applies to an activity. Let's then compromise and change that sentence to:

For most activities and in most situations, there are no legal restrictions on, or legal requirements for, which specific system of units of measurement is used in the UK.

• For certain trading activities (the selling of certain loose goods priced by weight or measure for example) and for certain public administration activities (the wording of new laws and regulations for example), units from a specified system are legally required. - The word certain is incorrect - apart from the cases cited in my wording, the word all is the correct word, or are you trying tio hide reality?

• All? No; just "certain" trading activities. And those activities that are covered all involve selling, so we can rule out all buying activities (one could legally ask for 2lbs of apples for example). Of the selling activities, it is just a few of those, those involving pricing by weight or measure that are implicated, and even then it's only some of them. I can legally sell a 40" television, a pair of 32" waist trousers, a size 15" shirt, a 12-inch ruler, a 2lb lump hammer, a 6-foot fence panel. Am I trying to hide reality? No, just the opposite.

• Where the unit system is specified it is usually the metric system (for selling pre-packaged food sold by weight, for the selling of loose vegetables priced by weight and in the wording of new laws and regulations for example), although in some cases the imperial system is specified (for the dispensing of draught beer for example). Wishy-washy non-specific wording. Are you afraid of the truth, especially when it is verifiable?

• It is absolutely accurate. The truth is that, for some (a very few actually) activities, a certain unit system must be used (usually, but not always, metric). My version is certainly verifiable!

• Even when the unit system is specified, units from the other system can be used concurrently as so-called "supplementary indications" (pre-packaged sausages, which require metric system units at least to be used, can be marked "454 g (1 lb)" for example) - A very wordy way of saying "Supplemetary indicators are permitted". BTW, when I buy sausages, ther are no supplementary indicators.

• My wording makes it clear what it means, yours obfuscates what it means. BTW, thanks for clarifying that last point; I'll remove the text "including those bought by Misplaced Pages editor Martinvl" from my example - oh, hang on...

With all due respect Martinvl, you seem to be on a mission here to exaggerate the scope of this legislation. We need to present it neutrally, accurately and with due weight; even if that means conveying the true case.

And you didn't respond to my charge that you restored the previous questionable content, but with no clarification and without replying to the issues I raised with it above; you didn't restore the 'dubious' flag; you didn't restore the 'clarification required' banner -- de Facto (talk). 13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you seem to be on a mission to show contempt for the law. The unbiased way to summarise legal matters is, whjere possible, to report the law exactly. I removed the banner because no clarifiaction was needed, least of all the bollcks that you wrote. Martinvl (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to the lack of responses to the issues with the content you restored, I removed it and replaced it with the accurate and verifiable account that you removed. -- de Facto (talk). 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What you have quoted regarding the legal position is a total misrepresentation of the truth. At that time the EU Commission were about to launch a consultation regarding the use of units of measure. This is routine operation and happens in many areas about once every ten years - at any one time the EU has a large number of consultations in place. As things stood in 2007, the use of imperial units as supplementary indicators was to have been disallowed from 2010. The Commission's proposal was to remove thgis "sunset clause", but otherwise to allow thing to remain unchanged. Ashley Mote, who was later to be convicted of fraud twisted the commission's proposal to make the removal of the sunset clause look like the Commission was giving carte blanche to the use of imperial units. The newspapers picked that up and misrepresented things further. What you are doing therefore is summarising a third hand-report about a proposal by the EU Commission. What I am doing is using is an authoritative summary as published by the British Government, not something that was knocked out by a fraudster.

I regard your statement "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable" as provocative. I demand an appolgy. Martinvl (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All I quoted was reliably sourced. As for the narrative; it captures the essence - for most situations there is no regulation. Where there is regulation, it remains legal to use imperial units in all cases, in some cases as the main unit, in others as a supplementary measure. Your interpretation was OR from the primary sources, with no secondary source support, and did not describe the true situation, presented a non-neutral POV of the law and contained unsupported assertions. You didn't attempt to explain or defend your interpretation when challenged, and did not respond to my answers to your challenge of my text - you dumped my text and re-inserted your own, minus the banner that was there before!!! For those reasons I stand by my edit summary. -- de Facto (talk). 19:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I reject your stateemnt and I still demand an appolgy for uncivil language. Martinvl (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have deleted my request on your talk page. I do not regard teh matter as closed and I will not discuss any aspects of it with you until you have given a full and unconditional applogy for the use of uncivil language. Martinvl (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As I summarised it on my talkpage, I dealt with your "request" in what I considered to be the most appropriate way. -- de Facto (talk). 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I utterly reject your explanation. I am still waiting for an appology the text "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable". Teh word "bad-faith" is grossly uncivil while the words "poor quality", "inaccurate", "unjustiied" and and "unsupported", in the context of Wikiepdia writing is a slur on my ability and therefore again, unjustified. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to Defact: - I am still waiting for an unconditional appology for uncivil langauge. Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another reminder to DeFacto: When are you going to applogise for your incivility? Martinvl (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, I thought I'd made my position on this very clear. I'd only need reminding if there was soething that I'd planned to do, but forgotten about. Rest assured, I have not forgotten to do anything in this case. -- de Facto (talk). 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I take it that DeFacto is not going to apologise. I have re-instated the version of "Legal Requirements" that was removed by DeFacto. If Defacto wishes me to consider

The text that DeFacto substituted has a number of shortcomings:

• The opening sentence of the paragraph is utter waffle - the words "most activities" and "most situations" are WP:WEASAL words that disguise the reality of the situation. The section gives no indication as to what constitutes "most", so the use of these words is "WP: POV".
• The words "certain trading activities" is another WP:WEASAL word. If DeFacto actually took the time to check the legislation, a more accurate phrasing would have been "Most trading activities .... the exceptions being ...."
• The legislation mentions "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes". Apart from a fleeting reference to public administrative purposes to Defacto's text deals solely with what has been described as "economic purposes". He makes no mention of public safety - swimming pool depths are quoted in metres as are minimum heights of children using funfair rides. The maximum weight of babies and toddlers using shopping trolley seats is given in kilograms as is the capacity of lifts. These all come under "public safety".
• DeFacto's text "for the dispensing of draught beer for example" implies that many loose products may be sold by imperial measure. The only other product that may be sold is cider. His text is therefore incorrectly applied WP:OR.
• DeFacto referenced a report in The Guardian. That report falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Were those regulations ever published? If so, where? The regulations themselves should be checked before trusting a journalist's version of what they said, particularly when a lobbyist such as Neil Herron is given prominent mention. For the record, newspapers often pick up stories from lobbyists and unfortunately such lobbyists are often economic with the truth.

DeFacto’s arguments had a number of shortcomings as well:

• He argued that “I can legally sell a 40" television, a pair of 32" waist trousers, a size 15" shirt …”. Yes, he can, but he is not describing products that are sold by weight – television sets are not priced per inch (or per centimetre) of screen, apples however are often sold by weight (80p/kg). He clearly did not understand the implicationsof what he was writing.
• DeFacto wrote “With all due respect Martinvl, you seem to be on a mission here to exaggerate the scope of this legislation”. The section is called “Legal Requirements”. It should be a summary of the law, and unless one is quoting eminent jurists, adding to it is WP:POV.

Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl: 1) Please take more care - you resurrected a discredited version which had subsequently had sentences rearranged, reworded, replaced and even removed to another section; including changes made by yourself. I have thus restored the most recent sound version. 2) I do not follow your confused argument against my modifications. You seem to be using different definitions of "weasel words", "POV", "OR" and "CRYSTAL" to those given in the "WP:WEASEL", "WP:POV", "WP:OR" and "WP:CRYSTAL" articles to which you referred us. 3) What exactly was your point about the Guardian? -- de Facto (talk). 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale markets

I have removed the Oil Industry citations. This a a case of "Is the sky blue". If DeFActo is unaware that oil is traded by the barrel, he should look at the financial section of his favourite newspaper - he might learn soemthing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Martinvl, why are you trying to personalise this? There was a citation, apparently there to support the oil industry assertion, but which was actually an example of a website showing prices of crude oil in US Dollars per Barrel - so, although it was an example of the assertion, the extrapolation to the generality was OR. So I flagged it. My personal level of knowledge of oil trading is totally irrelevant, and your arrogant and condescending aside was rude and unnecessary. -- de Facto (talk). 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The following text appeared in Apendix A of the cited report

Entries for 1790 to 1969 omitted

1970

• Electric Cable Makers Conference completes change to metric.
• British Aerospace Companies Limited express drawing and documentation in metric.
• London Metal Exchange goes metric.
• Production of flat glass goes metric

Entries for 1971-5 omitted

1976

• Weights and Measure Act empowers Government to phase out imperial units in retail trade.
• Bulk Petroeum sales go metric.
• Metrication Board publishes report "Metrication and Elderly people".
• Agriculture, horticulture and allied industries essentially metric by year-end.

DeFacto - are youi happy now?

Post 1976 entries omitted.

Martinvl (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, my request for a quote was indeed vindicated! As I suspected, the reference does not support the assertion "Many wholesale markets are almost entirely metric". May I suggest either of the following as the action now required:

• Removal of the unsupported assertion
• Provision of a reference that supports the assertion
• Rewording of the assertion to reflect the source provided, my suggestion being: "By 1976 two wholesale markets had metricated: The London Metal Exchange and the petroeum market."

Until we decide which course of action to follow, I've added a 'cn' tag to the dodgy statement.

-- de Facto (talk). 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No comment on, or disagreement with, proposal in more than 2 days, so I updated the content as described. -- de Facto (talk). 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted - what new text is fundxemetnallly unsound - it implies that no other wholesale markets are metric. Moreover, the agricultural wholesale market actually comprises many markets - including but not restriucted to Smithfield, Covent Garden and LIFFE (that is at least three). Martinvl (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, if the reference doesn't support what you want it to say then you cannot just assert what you want to say anyway, you need to find a new reference that does. Also, why did you restore the 'quotation request' tag, you had already supplied the required quote (just a few lines above) and that tag was thus removed as satisfied. You seem to be behaving rather irrationally here. Martinvl, if you can find a reference or references that support the notion (which I agree is quite likely) that many, if not indeed all, wholesale markets have been metricated then I will gladly co-operate with helping you to re-word the saction appropriately, to reflect the information supported by any new references. Currently though, the wording I restored is the best we can say. -- de Facto (talk). 08:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have renamed "Wholesale" to "Commodities" and have provided references for the principal London-based commodity markets. If you want an independent view of the importance of these markets, please consult the Financial Times. Martinvl (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, the assertion "The principal London commodity markets, apart from oil, are metric" needs RS support as does the one about the agricultural markets. The quote you gave from the Metrication Board's report talks about the agricultural industry, but not the agricultural commodity markets. The reference you cite against the ag market statement gives examples, but no support for the assertion - it's a bit like supporting the assertion that all cars are red with a picture of two red cars isn't it. -- de Facto (talk). 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The agricultural commodity market is part and parcel of the agricultural industry. It deals with selling produce, but does not deal with things like supplying fertilizer. The Farmer's Weekly is the premier farming magazine. If you understood the role of the Farmers Weekly in the agricultrural market, you would not be making statements like the red car analogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So cite a page or article from it that says the ag markets are metric. Drawing one's own conclusion from arbitrary examples examples with no clue of sample size in proportion to the whole population size is speculation and OR. Just like with the red car analogy. -- de Facto (talk). 18:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed wrt London commodity markets

I would like to see a reference added the currently unsupported assertion "The principal London commodity markets, apart from oil, are metric". For this reason I added the 'cn' template to the end of the statement. An editor has removed (twice now) that template, insisting that the fact is "common knowledge". Was I really being unreasonable expecting such an asertion to be reliably supported? -- de Facto (talk). 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the tag. We need such assertions to be verifiable by all readers. We cannot assume that everyone even knows what the "London commodity markets" are, let alone what the principle ones are or that they have all metricated. -- de Facto (talk). 10:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Common knowledge is a subjective matter and in DeFacto's case, since he is so secretive abotu his background, onwe does not know what should be accepted as "Common knowlwedge". Ther are artciles in Misplaced Pages, such as Kalman Filter which assume that a knowledge of matirx algebra and first order simulataneous differential equations are common knowledge. If DeFacto ias aschoolboy, then maybe he doesn't know too much about the international markets. If he looks at the prfoces in today's papers, he might well see "Brent Crude $120" - it is assuimed that everybody knows that Brent Crude is sold by the barrel. Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The commodity market tag was in the nature of collateral damage when DeFacto pointedly tagged agricultural markets as well, even though there is a perfectly good reference to Farmers Weekly. This is the sort of thing where WP:PRIMARY permits primary sources for validation. It would be desirable to have a cite for the commodities but it is not something that needs to be an excuse for the tendentious and disruptive editing to which DeFacto is prone.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles, you need to be more careful with your editing then. Also, you should know that citing the market price page in Farmers Weekly to support the assertion that all the agricultural markets have metricated, even though it doesn't explicitly state that fact, and based solely on the fact that it gives metric prices, conflicts with the direction given in WP:NOR. And finally, please be a bit more respectful of my desire to improve this article. It has been an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages for a long time, and in dire need of a radical makeover. Please help me, rather than hinder me, with this objective. -- de Facto (talk). 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, if I understand your comments correctly... You appear to be saying that you cannot judge what level common knowledge is because you do not know what my level of knowledge is. You also appear to be saying that the article is targeted just at the readers of newspaper financial pages. Martinvl, remember today is Leap Year Day and not April Fools' Day. -- de Facto (talk). 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a habit of twisting things. What I am saying is that you are not a farmer, so you are poorly placed to criticse the use of the Farmers Weekly as a reference, especially when the statement is also backed up by the Final repOrt of the Metrication Board. Martinvl (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, you don't know whether I'm a farmer, or not. And whether I am, or not, doesn't affect the need to reliably support assertions of generalities. The FW may give examples, but does not explicitly support the assertion (see WP:NOR). The MB report mentions the agricultural industry, but not the agricultural marketplace in relation to the London Commodity markets. The assertion remains unsupported. Will you provide support please or shall we tag it for the time being, or remove it? -- de Facto (talk). 08:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Majority comparison

There is an editor in our midst who has attempted to characterise the metrication rejection result of the survey documented in the article as a "small" majority.

To understand the size of the opposition to metrication, let's compare the results of the survey documented in the article with those from the recent United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum. To get a like-for-like comparison, I have presented the survey Yes/No percentages as the percentages of those expressing a preference (i.e. treating the abstentions as the results of the referendum treat those who don't turn up).

For AV: Yes = 32.1%, No = 67.9%, Turnout = 42.2%

For Metrication: Yes = 34.1%, No = 65.9%, Turnout (those expressing a view) = 85%

Now as the BBC described the result of the AV referendum as "The UK has voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the way MPs are elected...", I believe it is grossly misleading to describe the result of the survey in terms of a small majority. -- de Facto (talk). 07:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Even within the 56% there were 14% who did not feel strongly about it. Those who did not care hasve an opinion too and they were not against complete metrication. 56% is a small majority in any terms.--Charles (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In binary terms the 14% are part of the 56% opposed to metrication. Let's turn it around and look at it the other way. There are 19% who support metrication (including the 8% who did not feel strongly about it) - is that a miniscule minority then on your personal scale? -- de Facto (talk). 11:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No restrictions for buying by

I plan to reinsatate my removal of this sentence unless there is good reason to the contrary. In my view:

• The phrase is grammatically incorrect - since when did a sentence end with the words "buying by"?
• I believe that it is factually incorrect - the legislation makes no distinction between buyer or seller so this phrase is incorrect WP:OR.

Martinvl (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that you can improve the grammar, please do so. The fact though is that there is no law stopping you asking for produce by imperial measure - or do you know otherwise? -- de Facto (talk). 10:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly restrictions regarding certain types of buying - for example a local authority putting out tenders to buy goods must use metric units (under both the "economic" and "public administration" headings). I therefore think it best to make no mention of the buyer at all. That is alos the reason why I wrote the section on the legal position the way I did -I used the exact wording, where possible, straight from the EU directive/UK legislation as that avoided issues of WP:OR. Martinvl (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Retail trade "buying" isn't regulated in the Weights and Measures Act (the subject of the paragraph), as far as I know. -- de Facto (talk). 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I support removal. The meaning is unclear; whoever wants to keep it should rewrite it to make their intended meaning clear and provide a source that supports whatever meaning they intend this sentence fragment to have.--Boson (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-worded it and provided a RS. -- de Facto (talk). 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've changed the wording slightly to better reflect the cited source and avoid the ambiguity of the word "use", clarifying that it applies to the words used by the consumer, not the concepts that form the basis of the contract of sale ("the retailer must weigh in metric and sell the metric equivalent"). I also removed the word "primarily" because the sale must take place in metric units, regardless of secondary use on labels. I also clarified that some products are excepted (that may have been the intended meaning of "primarily"). --Boson (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

Hostility to metrication

Before this gets out of hand...

The edit warring on this article needs to stop. It isn't going to resolve the issue. If it continues, the article will probably get full protected. Looking over the history, it looks like the dispute is once again about the strawberries. Since that discussion, it appears that this source by BBC has been published, which may be relevant to this article. However, I still can't find any sources establishing the current status of ASDA's trial. And there really isn't much information on the ASDA trial. It was just a few news sources stating that a grocery store chain was attempting a trial with imperial units. Overall, it really didn't have a lasting effect on the subject. It might be worth considering the possibility of removing ASDA paragraph altogether. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages have a term for winning an argument by outlasting all those who disagree? I would agree with removing the Asda material. DeFacto won't. I moved away from editing this article precisely because of the unacceptable behaviour of that editor AND the fact that Misplaced Pages seems to have no processes to stop someone who has more time on his hands than anyone else winning a fight by wearing everyone else into the ground. It does not lead to good encyclopaedic content. It does not lead to consensual discussion. I think I'll walk away again. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alpha_Quadrant. With respect to the Asda/strawberry content, you know how difficult the discussion was, and how long it took us to arrive at a concise and RS wording to cover that information. Since then, another user (User:Jillipede) has appeared on the scene and attempted to insert something, similar to the OR/SYTH that we had managed to get eliminated, back into that paragraph. A curious aspect of 'Jillipede' is that the account has only been used three times (here, here and here). All 3 edits were to Asda related content, the first time was just 2 minutes after the account was created, and the other 2 were yesterday to insert this content about Asda strawberries. I reverted the 2 attempts to put the OR/SYNTH content into this article, fully reasoned in my edit summaries, (here and here). But shortly after my 2nd revert, User:Charlesdrakew reverted me, thus restoring the anti-consensus and OR/SYNTH, un-reliably-supported, POVy-worded content, and with the bizarre, inexplicable and infammatory edit summary: "Rv more POV-pushing by DeFacto"! Then User:Tom Morris came along and protected the article, so the bad content is locked in for the moment. -- de Facto (talk). 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ASDA trial was extensively discussed atMisplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers recently with a clear consensus that it is worthless as evidence of anything. We have no information on sample size, raw data, participation rates or methodology or even that this was anything more than a cheap publicity stunt without any meaningful survey ever being done. I would not know exactly where to find that discussion among the walls of text created by DeFacto's ad nauseum circular arguments which consist of repeated assertions withouy any reliable sources to back them. I agree with HiLo48 about the wearing down of opposition instead of gaining consensus. To me this behaviour is against the whole ethos of Misplaced Pages.--Charles (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, I notice that rather than explaining why you reverted my removal of the OR/SYNTH content, you chose to personalise the discussion yet again. Do you have nothing worthwhile to add regarding that content, and why you chose to restore it then? -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion needs to stay on topic. Bringing up past disputes isn't going to resolve the current issue. Accusing other editors of point of view pushing won't help this discussion either. I agree that User:Jillipede is clearly not a new users. In particular, this edit used the term "rv" instead of "reverted", suggesting they have a fair understanding of Misplaced Pages jargon. There is really no point in trying to figure out who the account belongs to. Yesterday I asked Tom Morris in IRC to full protect the article, given that the edit warring wasn't resolving the issue.

I understand that we had a very long discussion back in October to establish the current wording. However, we don't know the current status of the trial because there hasn't been any additional coverage in reliable third party sources. Given the fact that the trial received such limited coverage in the first place, would it be possible to agree on it's complete removal? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The event is part of the bizarre UK unit of measure saga. It would be a shame to lose that part of the picture. The BBC found it notable enough to mention it in their recent piece that you mention above. Although we do have reliable sources supporting the fact that it started, we certainly don't know of a reliable source describing what became of it. So we certainly shouldn't keep the OR/SYTH addition by User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew currently locked into the article - the addition that is based on speculation and a personal interpretation of the Asda online shopping site (we don't even know if the offer was ever available online). -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the BBC is being led by rubbish in this article? HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, led where, and what part of the article are you characterising as "rubbish" - presumably not any of the notable, duly weighted, reliably sourced content? -- de Facto (talk). 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose to raise an 'edit protected' to get this User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew addition of OR/SYNTH content reverted. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove problem addition

I believe that this edit has a) removed important supporting context, b) produced implications not supported by the sources, c) added an unsupported assertion and d) added a worthless reference, to the 'Retail' section of this article.

Let me explain each of those points:

a. Replacing "the Asda supermarket chain stated" with "Asda stated" means that readers unaware that Asda is a supermarket chain will need to follow the link before they can understand the context of the sentence.

b. The insertion of the phrase "Despite suggesting they would" is to editorialise the sentence to inappropriately undermine the reason for the experiment.

c. The assertion "the majority of Asda's fruit and vegetable lines were still packaged in round metric sizes (with no supplementary Imperial indications) ten months later in March 2012" is not supported by any of the cited references. We must remember that we do not know the scope of the experiment - whether it involved just selected shops, all shops, the online service, or what. So we cannot, based on our own personal observations, and with no RS support, declare that the experiment has now finished and what the results were.

d. The reference to "http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/catalog/sectionpagecontainer.jsp?departmentid=1214921923758", a transient live dynamic webpage liable to change at any time, does not and cannot support anything written in the text.

I propose therefore that we undo that edit completely. I understand that not having a comment about the results or outcome of the experiment is not a desirable situation, and believe that we could discuss how to deal with that, but we need to restore the integrity of the paragraph first. -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems unlikely that we will obtain impartial comprehensive and reliable sources for worthwhile encyclopedic content, I would suggest that the best course is to remove the whole Asda paragraph completely. It looks to me as if this article, together with the readers comments, gives the truest picture of what indeed looks like a short-lived publicity stunt attempting to gain sales from the anti-metrication segment of the market. At a minimum, the contentious paragraph should be removed until consensus can be reached on the Talk page, --Boson (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that it happened, and was in the article by consensus, and reliably sourced, do you support or reject this proposal? -- de Facto (talk). 14:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not support the proposal. I support removal of the whole story. Regardless of past consensus, which may have been nearer the (non-) event, when some editors may have thought it more relevant, it is not of lasting significance. If it had been followed up by other stores it might have become important, but I see no reason to retain it now. --Boson (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Boson, do you realise that article you referred us to is on the site of a single issue, anti-imperial-units, pressure group? -- de Facto (talk). 14:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that the website is partial. So is Asda. So are many elements of the British press. And journalists are often looking for an interesting story rather than the boring truth. As I said, "it seems unlikely that we will obtain impartial comprehensive and reliable sources for worthwhile encyclopedic content". But, for instance, if people write in to say that they have been round to Asda and the imperial labels are no longer being used (and nobody contradicts), it has the ring of truth. It doesn't mean we should use it as a source, but I would want a better source before stating otherwise. --Boson (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we done on this then, there appears to be no consensus to keep the controversial change to the long-standing version of the Asda paragraph. -- de Facto (talk). 08:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary: there is no consensus to retain the previous version. There appears to be a consensus (all contributors but one) to remove (at least) the whole paragraph. I suggest we leave the content as it is (and leave the article protected) until we have a consensus on whether to keep the Asda story at all. --Boson (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the mention of the Asda experiment

Given that 9 or 10 months after its commencement was announced and that we have not seen any reliably sourced report of its outcome, I would like to propose that we add the following sentence to the end of the short paragraph about the Asda experiment in the 'Retail' section.

• As of March 2012, the outcome of the experiment has not been reported.

-- de Facto (talk). 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comment in the preceding section. --Boson (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Better still, remove all mention of it - it is not encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, that's a different discussion. Given that the experiment detail is already in the article, do you support or reject the addition of the clarification about its outcome? -- de Facto (talk). 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of the whole Asda story

I propose removal of the whole Asda story. There are no reliable sources for anything of encyclopedic interest as of the present time and there is no evidence - reliable or otherwise - for anything of lasting significance. I see no current consensus for its retention. --Boson (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but for a different set of reasons. Firstly, Asda's "experiment" was nothing more than a carefully phrased publicity stunt. What Asda did was perfectly legal and similar is being done in Tesco, Sainsbury's and many other places. What Asda did was to sell 454g packs of strawberries (instead of their more usual 500g or 400g packs) but marked up as "454g/1lb" which they are totally entitled to do. I regularly buy "Olde English Thick Cut Marmalade" in jars marked just like that. The only thing that made this strawberry business even remotely abnormal was that Asda don't normally use supplementary indicators on their own-brand goods, and when they did so in this case they somehow managed to whip up the tabloid press (on a slow news day) into reporting it like this was "A snub to the EU" or whatever. Bollocks! It wasn't a snub to anyone, it was perfectly normal use of fully legal supplementary indicators. I don't consider a publicity stunt surrounding a perfectly legal activity to be worth any mention on Misplaced Pages.

My second reason for wanting this story deleted is that if it is left unresolved then after a while another well-meaning editor will wander along (like I did back in November, like Jillipede just did) and they will try and fix it. And the un-named troll who lives under the bridge will leap out and revert them like he does to anyone else who dares alter any aspect of it without his approval. It will just go on and on and on. Bin the entire section. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve, can you point us to a reliable source that supports your personal opinion about the Asda experiment please? The current long-standing content (before the recent disputed addition) is supported by multiple reliable sources, but none of them put that spin on the story. As you know, without reliable sources, it will remain as personal POV, and as such carries no weight. -- de Facto (talk). 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh for *****'s sake DeFacto, as everyone has told you time and time again there IS NO RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE DISCONTINUATION OF THIS FAILED EXPERIMENT. There never will be. Asda are not going to trumpet "Oh we screwed up - we're very sorry" are they? The point is, that apart from you NO-ONE CARES. We are all capable of looking at the world around us with open eyes and judging what we see. And everyone apart from you can see that Asda are not following up on their experiment of last summer, and when we therefore spot that Misplaced Pages hasn't caught onto that, we wander in and fix it. That's what we do - we're editors. I've been on Misplaced Pages for 6 years, have edited all sorts of pages and created about 20 new ones. Nowhere have I ever encountered such a blinkered attitude to my edits (and everyone else's) as is regularly exhibited here. If ever there was proof that the Asda story (such as it is) should be deleted, this was it. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, I think you've missed my point. There are reliable sources saying that the experiment started, and why. We know of no reliable sources reporting the outcome, so we cannot legitimately comment on that. But I have proposed a way of saying that whether it ended, or not, hasn't been reported - so we can justifiably leave it at that. I wondered if you had found any sources that support your view that it was a cynical excercise? If you haven't, as Misplaced Pages editors, we must surely leave it stand as it is. I don't see what the alternative is. -- de Facto (talk). 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the Asda content is part of the UK metrication story and should stay. It demonstrates that, even 45 years, or whatever, since the process was initiated, that the arguments, for or against, are still current (and evidently passionate). The current content, excluding the recent disputed addition, and possibly plus my proposed ending, puts it neutrally, in a nutshell duly weighted, and is amply reliably sourced. The article needs a neutral balance of content, and the Asda story was even mentioned in this recent (less than 3 months old) BBC News Magazine article on the state of metrication in the UK. I can't see any reasonable case for removing it from our article. -- de Facto (talk). 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt I'm speaking only for myself when I say we don't care about your "putting it neutrally" we don't care about your "duly weighted" and we don't care about your "amply sourced". The point is that it remains incomplete. And as I pointed out above, if it remains incomplete then it is just waiting for another unsuspecting well-meaning editor to wander along and get snared by it. The only thing that is vaguely newsworthy about the whole mess was that the silly EU-hating Luddite tabloid press ever picked up on it. Nothing had actually happened! Asda just marked something in the fruit dept. with a supplementary indicator as they are entitled to do. NOTHING HAPPENED. This is not proper news, and not relevant to wikipedia unless you are desperately looking for any indication that Imperial measures are not in the slow terminal decline that they are in the UK. So let's bin the damn thing - it has already caused a vast waste of time for a number of editors. Me included. In fact - see below. Let's just be rid of the entire article. Steve Hosgood (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The ASDA content is ONLY part of the story if you want to prove that "British people are opposed to metrication", which of course is a meaningless statement that I notice DeFacto has now stopped pushing once that was demonstrated. It didn't end up in the article via consensus. It happened through the wearing down of opposition and having time on his hands to piss off other editors so that they saw no point in trying to contribute any more. There is no evidence that it is being given due weight Just an editor far more obsessed with this topic than anyone else. HiLo48 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I heartliy endorse what HiLo48 said. Could we get things into perspective - there are two references in the artcile to teh establishment of the Metrication Board, but otherwise its role is not discussed at all. I just have a vague feeling that it is far more significant than the failed Asda publicity stunt. Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, that there might be other relevent content missing from the article is not itself justification for removing this relevent content that is already in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 08:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, the Asda content is part of the story because it invokes the imperial/metric discussion after the UK has spent 45 years, or more, on the path to metrication. -- de Facto (talk). 08:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, the Asda story is incomplete because we haven't found any mention of the outcome in reliable sources. That doesn't automatically disqualify the story from the article. We can add, as I propose above, that the outcome has not been reported. It is relevent because it invokes the imperial/metric discussion. -- de Facto (talk). 08:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto: you appear to be uniquely incapable of understanding what I and quite a few other editors have been pointing out to you (in this discussion and in months' worth of other ones): that no-one will never find a reliably-sourced reference for the outcome of the Asda experiment. Will you just listen to all of us for once and accept than in the absence of such references, the next-best evidence that can be found is just to open your eyes and look out of them. It is not OR to look around and report what you see, and you can always make that clear in the phrasing as several of us have tried to do in the last few months only to be reverted by you, because apparently you know better than all of us. The story cannot be left as it was (without resolution) because that's how it was for months and all it did was snare several passing editors. The suggestion here is that since the story (such as it is) has no real content (i.e. Asda did what the law allows them to do - shock horror), then we just all agree to delete it and avoid leaving an "incomplete story trap".

I don't know why you behave as you do with respect to everyone else's wishes. It's not your article. You don't have the overriding say-so on what can be included, with what evidence or not. You have continuously injected all sorts of bullshit suppositions and POV comments into the entire article and assume that you can get away with them. The result is that a reader of the article gets quite a different view of the state of play in modern Britain than they'd get if they walked down the street. An encyclopedia should reflect reality, no one editor's POV based on what he saw last time he left his house in 1955, and what he reads in trashy tabloids. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To repeat the substantial reasons for keeping it yet again...

That no reliably sourced notification that the experiment has ended can be found doesn't give license to delete the reasons for the experiment or the fact that the experiment started, or to make up your own ending. As has been explained above (and elsewhere) we do not know the scope of the experiment (number of shops, whether it included the online shopping service) so we cannot rely on personal observation to decree that it has ended, or what the outcome is. The best we can say is that the consequences have not been reported.

The story is relevent to the article because it highlights the importance still being placed on the level of public opinion about metrication, after 40-odd years of metricating, by a major player in the retail arena, and the Which? and BBC interest reflect its evident importantance.

We need to remember too that the article needs to reflect, not the idealised POV of an anti-imperial/pro-metrication fraternity sledge-hammered in and with OR/SYNTH unsupported edits, but a neutral POV, verifiable from reliable sources, of the actual subject matter. -- de Facto (talk). 13:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support removal per due weight. It is a pathetic piece of nonsense.--Charles (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles, can you support your personal POV with any logical reasoning, given the fact that in addition to the trade press, Which? found the Asda story worthy enough to do a whole piece based on it in September 2011 and the BBC found it worthy enough to put a paragraph about it in their December 2011 article appraising the state of metrication in the UK. -- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just his POV, DeFacto. It's the POV of everyone here except you. The difference between Misplaced Pages and the other published stories (that you never tire of using to prop up your POV) is that Misplaced Pages gets edited by anyone who feels like it, the others are read-only. A wrong or incomplete story on Misplaced Pages acts as a snare. We don't need that. And I'd not take much notice of the BBC story you never tire of quoting - it was in the magazine, not the news pages and the article is fundamentally wrong on nearly as many counts as Metrication in the UK is on Misplaced Pages. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, a question for you: can you support your personal POV with any logical reasoning, given that the Asda story is reliably sourced and has not been given undue weight in the article? Whatever your (or my) personal POV is of the situation or of the BBC article is irrelevant, if the story has due weight (and it appears with significant weight in at least 2 national institution reliable sources) and can be reliably sourced (which it can) then there is surely no reasonable excuse to leave it out. -- de Facto (talk). 11:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm bored with this already. DeFacto: are you just too stupid to see what's being said here. No-one denies that Asda did what they did, and yes what they did can be reliably sourced. We don't f***ing care! It carries no due weight however because it isn't a story in the context of anything Misplaced Pages needs to note. It is a story of the form "X does something perfectly normal and legal". People and companies do normal and legal things every day, many of them reliably citable, but they don't get mention in Misplaced Pages either. How about "User:Steve Hosgood drove to work on the left hand side of the road today". No-one cares! How about "The sun came up today"? It did but no-one's going to add that to a wikipedia article either. This is a zero due weight issue. Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To avoid me having to repeat the reasons for keeping it again, which no-one has yet provided a reasoned argument against, please read them here. -- de Facto (talk). 13:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My logical reasoning is that this article will never be neutral or stable if DeFacto is allowed to f**k around with it.--Charles (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a single paragraph from the BBC is not noteworthy. In fact, if that's all there was, it's probably evidence to of precisely that point. The BBC generates hundreds of paragraphs of content of various kinds every day. They use material from sources everywhere. Only one paragraph? Even mentioning it here is undue. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, that a supermarket marketing experiment got a whole paragraph dedicated to it in a BBC News Magazine article about metrication in the UK would alone give it due weight in this context, even if that was all the RS cover it got. So given that this story also got RS cover in Which? and in various trade press publications, it certainly has plenty of weight. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Which? report actually rubbihsed the Asda experiment/publicity stunt, but due to the laws of libel, they had to do it subtly - they did it in such a way that if questioned, they could answer "You might think that, but we could not possibly comment". When I "discussed" this with DeFacto last year he was too blinkered to see this. Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true. In fact they rubbish the entire notion of supplementary indicators as being unnecessary clutter in the labelling. It's also interesting to go and read The Sun's and the Daily Express's online versions of reports of Asda's action. Though the user-comments sections have a few comments of "Hooray!", at least as many comments are from those saying that this is a step backwards, or pointing out the papers' idiocy in trying to spin the story as being a "Snub to the E.U." or whatever. So much for the vast majority of the UK public hating metric as DeFacto would have us believe. Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether that's true about Which?, or not, is irrelevant to the Asda content here. Read here for the reasons for keeping it. If you have now found a reliable source to support the notion there is mass support in the UK for metrication, please reveal it, as such a thing could help balance the reliably sourced information that currently suggests mass rejection of the metric system. -- de Facto (talk). 13:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, do you have an RS to support that claim about Which?, or is it merely personal POV? Either way, the experiment took place, and is worthy content for inclusion for the reasons given here. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support removal per lack of due weight. "Asda obeys the law" is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, can you support your personal POV with any logical reasoning, given the fact that in addition to the trade press, Which? found the Asda story worthy enough to do a whole piece based on it in September 2011 and the BBC found it worthy enough to put a paragraph about it in their December 2011 article appraising the state of metrication in the UK? And given these reasoned arguments to retain it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Strewth - it's like having a conversation with ELIZA isn't it? DeFacto just matches patterns and responds with a cut-and-paste of a previous reply, oblivious of any follow up, like the bit that pointed out that Which? magazine actually used the Asda story as a criticism. Yes DeFacto (and this is the last time I'm saying it to you) I can support my personal POV with logical reasoning: I did so in the paragraph above yours. "Asda obeys the law" is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, even if Which? did criticise Asda's actions, and even though Asda's actions were perfectly legal, in what way do you think that that impacts the reasons for its inclusion here? We are yet to see a reasonable reasoned argument, and in terms of Wiki policy etceters, to exclude the details of the Asda experiment from the article. -- de Facto (talk). 14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support as proposer. This paragraph is one of several parts of the article that mislead the reader by giving undue weight to a particular point of view and isolated news stories, thus violating WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE) and WP:NOT (including WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). --Boson (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boson, can you flesh out your reasoning please by stating which particular POV that you think the paragraph is giving undue weight to, and any reliably sourced reference to support the opposing point of view.

We need any potential reviewer of this discussion to be able to easily weigh-up the arguments, as they would be unlikely to accept unsupported assertions (no matter how strongly phrased) of personal POV, such as some of those liberally sprinkled around in the discussion above. -- de Facto (talk). 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry - they won't be left in any doubt after reading this! That's three "supports" for deleting the thing, and I presume you DeFacto will vote with an "oppose". So that's three to one in favour of deleting, and I suspect there's one or two more "supports" out there yet to cast their vote. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, this isn't a vote though, it's an attempt to reach consensus. And, given that the consensus building process should be based on reasoned arguments, and not on personal POV as this one mostly is currently, then it looks as though no reasoned consensus is going to prevail. The likely outcome is that the 'dispute' gets escalated to another level, and potential neutral, uninvolved, reviewers will be basing their judgements on any reasoned arguments present. -- de Facto (talk). 17:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But it is a vote - that's how you reach a consensus in a democracy! So far 3:1 in favour of binning the irrelevant Asda paragraph. Probably 5:1 by tomorrow if HiLo48 and Martinvl do what I suspect they'll do. Then we'll ask Tom Morris to do the deletion for us as per majority wishes, and then we move on to the next piece of rubbish in the article. Steve Hosgood (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, may I suggest that you read: Misplaced Pages:Consensus - all of it. -- de Facto (talk). 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is best if we restrict ourselves, here, to a simple declaration of support or opposition with a brief summary of the reasons, rather than re-hash things that have already been discussed ad nauseam. I believe this would help to avoid confusing a reviewer with a wall of text. I think we should leave it to an administrator to close the discussion. If he or she has problems understanding the arguments, he or she can ask for elucidation. --Boson (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to agree a neutral summary of the dispute too. It looks as though we have boiled it down to whether the Asda paragraph stays or goes. I suggest changing it back to the pre-dispute wording too, because the current version is an unfair representation, compared to the NPOV, reliably sourced and OR-free version that was there before this dispute started. -- de Facto (talk). 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we have boiled it down to whether the Asda story stays or goes. If there is a consensus to retain the paragraph, then we can discuss what content it should have. So far, nobody has formally opposed its removal. Discussing the possible content it should have before we remove it is a waste of time and effort.--Boson (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Boson, are you going to flesh out your reasoning and confirm which particular POV that you think the paragraph is giving undue weight to, and provide any reliably sourced reference to support the opposing point of view too? I'm open-minded on this, and if there is any other evidence (as opposed to the wealth of unsupported personal POV we appear to be sinking under), I'd happily reconsider my position here. -- de Facto (talk). 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Which POV is given undue weight is irrelevant. Anybody is welcome to read the article and decide for themselves. The time for endless circular discussions is past. Now is the time to reach a decision. Please decide whether you oppose removal of the paragraph. --Boson (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, can you please provide detailed evidence that you are open-minded and that if there was other evidence (as opposed to the wealth of unsupported personal POV you claim we are sinking under), you would happily reconsider your position here. You see, as it stands, that claim reads like pure POV. In the absence of such evidence I shall claim consensus against you. (There, am I learning I learning to play your game well?) HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Steve, I wouldn't bank on Martinvl supporting its removal as it was he who added the Asda story to this article in the first place, back in September 2011, albeit with a less neutral wording than it's had more recently, in this edit. -- de Facto (talk). 21:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it must not be looked at as a vote. Quality of argument is all that should count. And the fact that DeFacto is always here must also be discounted. When I make a strong point he responds with a seemingly reasoned but lengthy request for further information. For an editor like myself who cannot always be here (nobody can be here as much as DeFacto), that's actually a very unreasonable demand, but in the absence of a rapid response, he then claims consensus. It's a very sneaky, approach, and very bad for Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support I would add that its inclusion is an outstanding example of recentism. I'm sorry to see that Introduction to the metric system is now suffering many of the problems discussed above. NebY (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As DeFacto has quite rightly invoked Misplaced Pages:Consensus this extract from it may be pertinent here.

• Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesdrakew (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one out that Charles. I wonder if those fitting that description in this discussion will take any notice, and start listening, responding and cooperating. -- de Facto (talk). 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That will be you then... Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose deletion of the Asda paragraph. I believe the Asda story is a valuable part of the article, as I've said before. The reason being that it is, I believe, part of the UK metrication story. It demonstrates that, even 45 years, or so, since the metrication process was initiated, that the arguments, for or against, are still current (and evidently passionate). The current Asda content, excluding the recent disputed addition, and possibly plus an explanation as to why we do not yet know the outcome of the experiment, puts it neutrally, in a nutshell duly weighted (one small paragraph in the 'Retail' sub-section of the 'Current usage' section), and is amply reliably sourced. The article needs a neutral balance of content, and the Asda story was even considered important enough to feature in this cited recent BBC News Magazine article on the state of metrication in the UK. I can't see any reasonably reasoned case for removing it from our article. -- de Facto (talk). 23:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support removal. One event given a PR-spin and covered by a few sources at the time with no follow-up stories, now being given undue weight.  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 00:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it is reasonable to claim that one short paragraph in this article, about a specifically "metrication in the UK"-related event, is giving it undue wight. The "event" achieved national coverage at the time, including in UK national large circulation popular press (The Sun, the Dily Mail and the Daily Express), although that hasn't been cited in the article, as ample reliable sources (Which?, BBC, The Grocer) have been. The BBC dedicated a paragraph to it in a feature piece it published at the end of December about the state of metrication in the UK. It is considered to be a relevent part of the story of UK metrication. -- de Facto (talk). 08:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto. Before I posted here, I read and carefully considered your views, so there's no point going over it again. I have explained my !vote.  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 10:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DEFACTO - WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING WITH THIS CONVERSATION? YOU HAVE MOVED AT LEAST TWO OF MY POSTS FROM AROUND TEN HOURS AGO, AND PERHAPS SEVERAL OTHERS. THEY ARE NOW NOT EVEN IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. YOU HAVE DESTROYED THE CONTINUITY OF THIS CONVERSATION. YOU DON'T FUCKING OWN THIS PAGE. PISS OFF. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, please read:

a) Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines

b) Misplaced Pages:Indentation

In "a)" in the 'Others' comments' section you will see under the "Fixing layout errors" heading: "This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom..."

In "b)" (which is referred to from "a)" in the 'Good practices' section under the heading "Keep the layout clear") you will see in item 2:

• "If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom:".

Then, perhaps, you could reconsider that comment of yours. -- de Facto (talk). 07:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise over the Asda story

I propose the following:

• 1) We get the Asda story removed from "Metrication in the UK". A "Shop obeys the law" story is not relevant to that article. And there is at least 5:1 support for that view amongst interested parties (see above).
• 2) We don't oppose DeFacto (or whoever) adding the story to the Misplaced Pages articles for The Sun and the Daily Express. If the story has any relevance it is in terms of showing how those papers delight in spinning any story they can find in order to vilify the E.U. You'll notice that the fact that the Asda experiment didn't lead to any obvious long-term change at Asda is not important when it appears on pages dealing with the newspapers. All that matters is that the piece suited their policies of sensationalising any anti-EU story (no matter how tenuous).

I offer this idea up in good faith in order to try and shift the deadlock that's emerged above. Please discuss.Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What deadlock? We have clear consensus above to remove it without any need to appease one editor who tells the rest of us to follow WP:Consensus while systematically ignoring it himself.--Charles (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The totally true reason why the Asda story is so important to some

I think I've realised why deFacto is so unable to leave the Asda strawberries business alone! To us it's just another marketing ploy that didn't work, and it's been quietly forgotten about. But deFacto has convinced himself that it was The Signal for the start of The Uprising.

Let me explain - you see, the reason that none of the rest of us have ever noticed the "vast majority of British people who hate metric" that deFacto is always going on about, is that they are all busy getting ready in their various ways for The Uprising. Some like deFacto himself have been toiling away in their Mums' basements making all the "Down with Metric Measures" and "British Imperial Measures for the British Worker" placards ready for the Great Defence of ASDA (see below).

The Uprising itself happens when Asda unexpectedly changes all its product lines to sell stuff in Imperial measures only, but they need to signal this impending action to their supporters. Of course the E.U puppet government of Britain will send in the boys in blue, but they'll have reckoned without these Enlightened Ones. This previously unseen army will take up the steam cannons that they've been building in their secret underground workshops, and they'll take up their placards and they'll heroically defend the shops of the Asda chain against the forces of E.U mandated metric darkness who oppose them. Old ladies and the hordes of youngsters (whom the BWMA claim can't understand metric) will all flock to Asda's stores to buy stuff in "proper" package sizes with their carefully hoarded pounds, shillings and pence.

The UK government would back off in the face of such solid unexpected opposition. But it's only the start! The Enlightened Ones now rush to the secret underground hangars and reveal their fleet of airships armed with heat rays and equipped with the latest steam propulsion! Flying across the country, they pause only to acknowledge the happy waving crowds of British people free again to buy pints of orange juice and gallons of petrol in Asda's petrol stations. They'll stop and moor the airships just outside Hampstead where they'll disembark and proceed to their secret headquarters in a rambling old mansion owned by The Sun newspaper group. Once there, they'll assemble in the cellars and ceremonially throw the switches on the controls of the cryogenic chamber to revive Queen Victoria whom they have kept in suspended animation for the last 110 years pending such a glorious day as this.

Together with the revived Queen, the airship fleet would proceed to Westminster, and with Her Majesty restored to her throne, it is a swift business to convince the traitorious puppet UK government to resign en-masse (and to leave these shores for Brussels where they belong) in favour of an interim emergency parliament composed of MPs chosen from amongst the Enlightened Ones.

These will then all vote to revoke all pro metric, pro decimal-currency or pro E.U. legislation from the 20th and 21st centuries. This is the point where The Third British Empire rises up, ready to reconquer the world. Mwahh hah hah!

Or - at least, that was the plan. But when deFacto turned up at his local Asda last June with a van full of placards ready for the Heroic Defence, imagine his disappointment to find 1) that he was the only Enlightened One there and 2) that orange juice was still in litres, potatoes were still in kilos and horror of horrors, 3) strawberry punnets were 400g again.

DeFacto returned to his Mum's basement and had a Harold Camping moment. He cannot let go that The Signal was given last May, but that the The Uprising didn't follow as expected. Maybe Asda had realised that the timing was wrong, and had reconsidered. But it was The Signal, it was, it was! Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of this entire sorry article

Quite honestly - why is there a page dealing with "Metrication in the UK" anyway? Just throw a quick ten-line summary of metrication in the UK into the main Metrication page, and bin this one. There is nothing to see here. The UK's metrication process is not particularly unique apart from that fact that it started late compared with its neighbours, and has been done at a glacial pace. The UK's situation is not dissimilar from Japan's in that some pre-metrication units are still used a lot in popular culture even though they are illegal for trade and official purposes. The UK has currently got the minor oddity that five non-metric units are legal by special arrangement for three special purposes - the foot and inch (for heights, widths and lengths) on road signs, the yard and mile (for distances) on road signs, the pint for cow's milk in returnable bottles, and the pint for draught beer and cider sales in pubs. That's it! Nothing much to see here, move along, move along! Every other imperial unit is illegal for trade or official use other than (optionally) to appear as a supplementary indicator (where it carries no legal significance, so doesn't even have to be accurate).

There - I've said all that needs to be said! Tidy up the above paragraph, insert into Metrication and just bl**dy delete "Metrication in the UK" in toto. Job done. Everyone happy. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, supplementary indicators don't even have to be from the Imperial system. Any non-metric units can appear so it seems. You do occasionally see US Fl. Oz. on a few cosmetics, but there'd be nothing illegal about a 500g box of cornflakes giving a supplementary indicator in slugs by the look of it! Steve Hosgood (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)