Talk:Stone (unit)

US is officially metric - or is it?

The article states that the US unlike Canada has not switched to metric. That's not really true. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 designated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce, and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system, to the extent feasible, including the use of metric in construction of federal facilities. It also created the United States Metric Board to assist in the conversion.

Most federal agencies including all military braches use metric now as a standard. Many Commercial and scientific interests use metric especially if they work internationally. The reason people assume the US never attempted to switch is that the common public resist changing just like many people in the UK still measure speed in Miles per hour but the measure distance in Kilometers. People in the US measure gasoline by the gallon and soda by the liter. Medications is CC's and ML's food ingredients in OZ's. As the article reports many people in the UK still use the old stone measure despite the switch to metric.

1. Almost all people in the UK still measure distance in miles, not kilometres. Miles are shown on road signs, not kilometres, and speed limits are stated in miles per hour.
2. In the US, the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 did direct federal agencies to convert to using metric units, and in pursuit of that aim it created the United States Metric Board, but Ronald Reagan abolished the Board in 1982. In 1992 the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was amended to require consumer goods to be labelled in both customary and metric units. Moonraker (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, the motorists sees signs that show imperial units, but the specification of the signs themselves are given in metric units (eg 600 mm by 500 mm). Go into a British supermarket and everything is in metric, go to a pub and beer is sold by the [imperial] pint, but whiskey in 25 ml and 35 ml glasses and wine is 125 ml, 175 ml and 250 ml glasses, motor car handooks are metric (apart from wheel sizes). In short, the UK is mostly metric, especially those parts that are hidden from the man in the street. For more information, please visit Metricaion in the United Kingdom.

BTW this artcile is about the stone, so please do not continue this thread.Martinvl (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"at the time it ceased to be legal for trade in United Kingdom in 1985"?

Is this true and accurate? The tabloids would like people to think so, but surely the truth is that it is illegal to trade *solely* in Imperial - you must have the metric equivalent displayed also. You could sell things in bushels and pecks, should you wish, provided you give an accurate conversion in metric measure. The so-called metric martyrs have been prosecuted for not displaying the metric, not for trading in stones, pounds and ounces. Neither the British Government nor the EU (in spite of the rumours to the contrary) have ever demanded that Imperial *not* be used, just that metric measures be available. Indeed, both Imperial and Metric measurements have been accommodated as equivalent systems in U.K. law since the 19th Century. As others have said, many young people in the U.K. use metric all the time; I myself (not a young person)started primary school as long ago as 1967, and I’ve *never* been taught Imperial, although (as is the norm) I'd tend to give my weight in stones, thanks to the bathroom scales being old ones. Jock123 (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The law actually states that metric units must be used and that supplementary units (for example imperial units) may be used alongside the metric units, provided that the metric version is the more prominent. The law also states that in most cases, prices must be quoted per kilogram (not per 454 g). Martinvl (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Even before 1985 the stone was not much used in retail trade, that is, in shops selling things to the general public, although it was used in wholesaling. Moonraker (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How much kilo in a stone?

I don't get it. I am here to see what a stone is (into kilo), but I cannot find it, read it. It is buried in text. My Q: How much kilo is a stone? And remind us: I am an editor. Let alone how many WP readers have the same Q and disssappointing non-A. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Buried"? Really? The first paragraph tells us quite clearly that (a) its value has varied by time and place from 3-12 kg; and (b) that the normal value in the UK is 6.35 kg:

The stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measurement that was used in many North European countries until the advent of metrication. Its value, which ranged from 3 kg to 12 kg, varied from city to city and also often from commodity to commodity. In the United Kingdom its value is normally taken as being equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (6.35 kg), though prior to the Second World War it had other values, depending on its use.

The only thing that I'd clarify in the lead is that in modern UK usage, it is primarily used for talking about the weight of humans, something like this:

In modern United Kingdom usage, it is equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (6.35 kg) and primarly used for weighing people, though prior to the Second World War it had other values and uses.

Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You commanding "Comments?" is arrogant. And that is before I dive into the content. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reworked the lede which had been the subject of many edits, many due to User:DeFacto who has now been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I certainly didn't intend to be arrogant, simply to solicit feedback. Kindly assume good faith. I look forward to your substantive comments. --Macrakis (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

AGF is for you too. I suggest you reread my original question, and then reconsider your reply. -DePiep (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC).

I re-read your question and my answer, and am still puzzled. Anyway, I've tried to improve the wording of the lead, which still contains the pound and kilogram equivalents for the modern value -- do you find that any better? --Macrakis (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No soup for you. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Till now it's been saying that a stone is approximately 6.35 kg. People want to know exactly what the thing is, i.e. that it's 6.35029318 kg. JIMp _talk·cont 08:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Reinstatement of the lede - 3 July 2012

Reinsted older version because:

• It is a a Wikpedia standard usage to give an abbreviation, symbol, shortened or alternative forms in the first sentence of an article.
• The wording "legal status was changed" is nebulous, whereas "ceased to have a legal status" is exact.
• The word "standardised" should not be used unless a citation exists stating that this is a standard form. When was the stone "standardised"? If you can't answer this question, or give a citation regarding the use of the word, don't use it.

Martinvl (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"st" is the abbreviation for the Irish/British "stone", but is it also the abbreviation for all the other "stones" mentioned in this article? You'll need references to support that assertion. The "stone" has not "ceased" to have a "legal status", its legal status has simply changed. The Irish "stone" is a standardised (14 lbs) version of earlier more locally defined "stones" as described in the article. Where in the article is the pre-WWII variations in the stone described? The use of "informally" is ambiguous in the phrase: "still widely used informally to measure personal body weight". What exactly do you mean? Ornaith (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted again. The Wikipeida policy is that if there is a dispute the original version stays (process is WP:BOLD change, WP:REVERT, WP:CONSENSUS), so please do not re-revert until each of the points has been satisfied.

• An abbreviation is language-specific, a symbol is not. You can verify the use of "st" as an abbreviation in the English language in the citation given. No further clarification is needed.
• As regards informal use - this is a summary of what was written later in the article. If this is a fair summary of what appears later, it should stay, if you can improve it, do so, but please remember that the lede is a summary of the article as a whole.
• The eighteenth century use of stones is certainly pre-WWII. I have seen references to the use of 8 lbs stones in the London meat trade up to 1938, but as they are self-published, I need something more authoritative.

Martinvl (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the dispute here?

• Do you dispute that there has been more than one defined stone unit?
• Do you dispute that "st" is the abbreviation for just the Irish/British pound of 14 lbs as described in the referenced OED?
• Do you dispute that "informally" is the wrong adjective to use to describe usage in formal situations such as the expression of the weight of sports people as the article says: "In many sports in the UK such as professional boxing, wrestling and horse racing, the stone is used to express weight..."?
• Do you dispute that the stone does in fact have a legal status? The article is very clear about that, it says: '...its use as a "supplementary unit" was permitted.'. That sounds like it has a legal status to me.
• Do you dispute that the Irish/British stone was standardised to 14 lbs?
• Do you dispute that the phrase: "Prior to the Second World War, it had values ranging from 8 to 16 pounds" suggests that something changed between 1939 and 1945 to the definition of the Irish/British stone? Yet there is no discussion of any such change in the article.

Please clarify your the objections to my changes in relation to each of those points. Ornaith (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My responses:

• The stone (singular) has multiple definitions - that is the language used in both Encyclopeadia Brtiannica (1772) and the Concise Oxford Dictionary. (Both are on my bookshelf and I double-checked today)
• The abbreviation "st" is an English language abbreviation. The OED is silent as to how widspread it is (or was). It should be noted that the Germans stopped using the stone in the 1870's (shortly after their unification). Today "st" is an abbreviation in German for "stuer" (tax). I do not know whether or not "st" was used on the Continent for the word "Stein" or "Steen", but I have seen documents showing it to mean "stuiver" (a small coin - the Dutch nicknamed their fl 0.05 (€0.022) coin) coin (one stuiver) until 2001. So, in response to your question, apart from English language use, no comment.
• You are welcome to use an alternative word for "informally", but remember that the stone has no legal status in the UK, Ireland or, as far as I am aware, anywhere else in the world.
• A term "supplementary status" does not confer any legal status. All that it means is that you are permitted to use it alongside, but not instead of metric units. The "supplementary unit" rule permits the weight on a bottle of jam to be stated as "450 g (1 lb)". For the record, when South Africa went metric, that would have been illegal - the weight would have to have been stated as "450 g".
• The self-published reference that I found stated that in 1935 the weights commissioners in London were instructed to stop stamping 8 lb weights as "one stone" and their use was prohibited from 1938. I am currently looking for a reference that carries more authority
• I would be happy to use the word "redefined", but one needs to clarify what is meant by that word and also by what action (and therefore date) it was standardised. The date of 1935 that I used above applied only to the United Kingdom (as you are probably aware).

I think that this answers my position on all of your questions.

Martinvl (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What you say does not provide any explanation of why you dispute what I wrote.

• My wording "The stone is any one of a number of units of measurement..." (with "stone" singular) supports your definition, it doesn't contradict it. In addition it is explicit that there are indeed multiple definitions. Your wording ("The stone ... is a unit of measurement that...") does not even allude to the multiple definitions, so could be misunderstood.
• Do you believe that "st" is the abbreviation for each and every definition of "stone", or just the 14 lb stone?
• Are you similarly saying that because hair colours have no legal status that we should say that "blonde is used informally to describe a hair colour"? That is, or course, ridiculous. Why, even if stone has no legal status (see later), should a description be qualified by the adjective "informally" (or similar)?
• Why exactly do you mean then by "legal status" (define it using other words) when it is clear from the text that the stone can be legally used in Ireland and the UK? Your SA example supports my understanding of legal status - it is not illegal, so is by default legally allowed in the situations described.
• If, as you appear to agree, there is currently no support in the article for the pre-WWII statement, how is it currently justified?

Please be explicit and try to avoid ambiguities. Ornaith (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My responses

• The references that I cited (one of which is reproduced in the article) used the singular word "stone" to describe various usints quantities called the stone. Since Wikipeida is about verifiability, not truth, we should do likewise.
• My belief is immaterial - what matters is what appears in the citations. One might need to consult a pre-1935 earlier reference (eg a dictionary) to find out.
• EU directive catalogues the units of measure that my be used for ... (see next point). I have not seen any legislation that catalogues how one describes hair - have you?
• Article 2a of the EU direcitve (before 2010) states "The obligations arising under Article 1 relate to measuring instruments used, measurements made and indications of quantity expressed in units of measurement, for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes". Since 1 Jan 2010 the EU directive has been extended to include all aspects of the internal market. In practice this means that if you advertise bananas at 25p/lb without the kg price being at least as prominent you can be charged for false advertising.

Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we agree on the first one then.

How about adopting this wording to add clarity to the introduction: "The stone is any one of a number of units of measurement...". It satisfies your demand for "stone" singular and in addition it is explicit that there are indeed multiple definitions (as you also stated above).

Is there anything in that wording that you dispute? Ornaith (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As there was no challenge to this, I have done it.

Now let's look at the next one.

As the introduction should be a summary of the rest of the article, and there is no mention of any stone definition changes around the time of WWII anywhere else in the article, shall we remove the unsupported mention of that from the introduction? If, at some time in the future, a supported account of such a change is added to the article, then we can add it again to the summary. Ornaith (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded my previous answer and have added citations for the use of the stone in the UK in both 1880 and 1938. Martinvl (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the previous content because you did not explain your reasoning for each change. Also, when adding new content, please be careful not to undo the work of others without first discussing that here. Ornaith (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And restored again following your further unexplained reversion. Ornaith (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have undone your reversion (which you have since reinstated without at least having the courtesy to wait for me to post my reasoning here. The text that follows is what I was about to post). I assume that you are objecting to me replacing "is any one of a number of units of measurement" with "is a unit of measure". The Oxford Concise Dictionary (1964) states "Stone ... 6 Weight of 14 lb. or of other amount varying with the commodity". Please note that the word "weight" is singular so all that I have done is to align the text with the source. If you revert again I will ask that you be banned under the WP:3RR rule. If you try to use this rule against me, I will use the defence of vandalism on your part. Please back off and check any sources that you might have at your disposal, but do not try to usurp the role of published authoritative works. Martinvl (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning about the "stone" is flawed there. The article text does not contradict the dictionary definition. In fact it correlates with it. The stone has multiple definitions, each is a different unit of weight. Let me explain: the 14lb stone does not eual the 8lb stone, they are 2 different stones - but they are both stones nevertheless. Does that help you?

With regard to the 3RR rule, I'll think you'll find that I have not broken it. You on the otherhand have. Do you want me to give you the opportunity to test your theory that my well reasoned improvements are actually vandalism, or are you going to participate in the discussion so we can stabilise this article's content? Ornaith (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the wording of the definition of the "gallon" in the Oxford dictionary of Weights, Measures and Units. It stated "gallon volumeThe reference unit for most volumentic measurement ..." The definition went on to describe the difference between the imperial gallon, the US gallon and the US dry gallon. Please note that the word "reference unit" is singular even though many different gallons were described. Since the stone, like the gallon, has many different values depending on commodity, locality, era etc, it too should be singular. Martinvl (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We clearly have a deadlock. I believe we need to convey the notion that the one name is used with multiple definitions in the summary. Let's try to come up with an alternative wording that satisfies the needs of us both. How about: "is a unit of weight with a variety of definitions dependent on usage context"? Ornaith (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it appears that the only area of discussion is how to word teh lede, I have reinstated the earlier version. Meanwhile I invite you to to write out your proposal for a revised lede in full. I see no reason to remove the additional material that I added regarding detaisl of the 20th century history of the stone. Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ornaith, I'd like to see your proposed lede as well. You might want to see how this problem has been resolved at foot (unit) and meter. GaramondLethe 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring these requests, I plan to offer something on this soon, but am busy with other jobs at the same time. Ornaith (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. GaramondLethe 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Finally I found time! Please see the new section, and tell us what you think. Ornaith (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

5, 8, and 14 pound stones

At some point I would like to add more material about the 5-pound glass stone, the 8-pound butcher's stone, and the 14-pound stone, as these have interesting histories. For example, R D Connor, in The Weights and Measures of England has a wonderful story about the butcher's stone. Apparently butchers refused to sell meat by weight, even when required to do so by several Acts of Parliament. Apparently their reasoning was similar to what would happen if art galleries were required to sell paintings by the square foot. Then, after centuries of paying hefty fines, the butchers finally gave in and adopted the 8-pound stone. A few centuries later Parliament abolished the butcher's stone. Decades later, Parliament abolished it again, and again, and again, to no avail. This explains why the butcher's stone was still in use within living memory. The 14-pound stone has an even more interesting history related to the wool trade.

The reason I mention this now is because there has been some disagreement about what should go in the lede, with both the 8-pound and 14-pound stones being mentioned. My point is that the main body of the article could use some attention precisely on the points in the lede that are the subject of debate. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I shall certainly try to get a copy of Connor's book and expand the article. Martinvl (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

On additional citations

Ornaith, please don't use edit summaries as a talk page. I don't believe you've read the whole of the cited journal article. Could you do that and then respond here with the additional citations you'd like to see? Thanks. GaramondLethe 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I'm the fool who didn't realise that wasn't all of it! Thanks for your intervention, and apologies to all concerned. Have you read it all and can verify that it supports what it needs to support? I'm not prepared to pay $25 to read it, so we'll have to accept the word of the contributing editor for it. I wonder if Martinvl can confirm the details for us. Ornaith (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I do have it and hope to carve out some time later tonight to give it a close reading. Based on the conversation I saw at the wp:teahouse you should have a copy as well; let me know if that doesn't work out and I'll send you the pdf that I have. GaramondLethe 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I have accepted the offer made in the tearoom, I haven't yet received a copy of the said document, so am still none the wiser. I notice too that in the meantime, Martinvl has added another reference. Ornaith (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you an email so that you'll have my email address. Respond to that so I can have your email and I'll send the pdf along. GaramondLethe 00:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I finally got the chance to read the reference, and as I feared it did not support the assertions attributed to it at the time. A new reference has since been inserted though, so that may cover it all. Thanks for your help with this. Ornaith (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes from Kisch (1956)

Taken from this note: Kisch, Bruno (1956). "Two Remarkable Roman Stone Weights in the Edward C. Streeter Collection at the Yale Medical Library". Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences XI (1): 97-100. (I'll be happy to email this pdf to anyone who is interested.)

• A common ("not too rare") form of Roman weights is a segment of a sphere.

• Fifty pound weights are unusual, as are weights of the form of a segment of an egg.

• The imperial Roman pound was 327.45 grams.

• Karl Pink published a monograph in 1938 of Roman and Byzantine weights in Austrian collections, a copy is available at UCBerkeley and a few other libraries.

Pink, Karl. Rbmische und Byzantinische Gewichte in Oesterreichischen Sammlungen. Baden bei Wien, R. M. Rohra, 1938. (Sonderschriften des Osterreichischen archaologischen Institutes in Wien, vol. XII.)

• Weights were made of serpentine or limestone and often had metal handles attached via holes in the weights; the handles could be elaborate.

Pink's monograph is cited by (at least) one work in English: Batya Dashti, Avshalom Laniado "A Byzantine lead weight from the port of Iamnia (Yavneh-Yam) and the title ἔφορος" Revue des études byzantines 1993 51:51 pp. 229-235

• "Weights often record the names and titles of the magistrates who issued them."

Two other references that cite Pink are written in German and the third in Hungarian.

• 1. Der Metrologische Traktat des Sextus Iulius Africanus, Seine Zugehörigkeit zu den ΚΕΣΤΟΊ und Seine Authentizität (1977)
• 2. Die Gewichte greichischer Zeit aus Olympia (1996)
• 3. A székesfehérvári ókeresztény korláttöredék (2009)

Of course, little or none of this may find its way into the actual article, but the joy (for me) is in the digging.....

GaramondLethe 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede is misleading

The lede needs rewording. The first sentence of the current lede suggests that the stone is a single unit of measure. This contradicts the body of the article where many different units of measure, all called the "stone", are described. Further on it muddles other facts from the article.

I offer the following alternative lede wording for discussion:

---

Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of weight equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is used predominantly in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different units of weight in several North European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980's due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, there were different stones, of various weights ranging from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity that they were used for. Elsewhere in Northern Europe, when the stone was used there, it had weights of 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.

---

Ornaith (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Very quickly, as I'm heading out the door....

• Did you mean to say "is ...now used predominantly..."? Do you have a citation in mind for that? Wording like "...is still used in Ireland and the UK..." falls on the right side of WP:OR (at least in my opinion) because it can be attested to with a handful of citations. "Predominantly" sounds like you've surveyed many reliable sources and, based on that survey, come to that conclusion, and I think that will have WP:OR problems. There may already be a cite that backs up "predominantly" in the article, but I didn't see one after a quick skim.
• As to "Northern Europe", there's the concept of "the community uses a particular stone for weighing things" and "stone embodied as a particular unit in national law" with a lot of murky history in between. Do you have any sense of whether this happened in Southern or Eastern Europe as well? Further afield? I'm just concerned that mentioning Northern Europe in particular means that we've found a cite that limits the range of this particular article to that geographic area, and with the Roman material I'm not sure that's the case.
• Do you have a cite in mind for "widely used to express body weight"? As per above, "widely" might be problematic without a cite.
• "commodity that they were used for" can probably be shorted to "commodity".

Overall, though, Looks like a good start!

One other note: I'm sure you used "misleading" in the strict technical sense, but it might have come across as a claim of bad faith. (If I had written the lede, I might think you were suggesting that I had been deliberately "misleading", especially if I read that before my morning caffeine.) This kind of misinterpretation is rarely a problem, but when it happens it's usually a pretty big problem. Something like "Improving the lede" or "Aligning lede with the text of the article" are, respectively, more bland and more wordy, but they are much harder to inadvertently misinterpret. So take that for whatever it's worth....

GaramondLethe 18:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of comments:

• The wording "unit of measure" bypasses the awkward weight/mass argument. In modern language, the stone would be described as a "mass", but since it has ceased to be legal unit of measure, the legal eagles are not too concerned. In the past, thhere have been endless edit wars over that wording.
• The wording "although the legal status of the stone changed " is a very wishy-washy way of hiding the word "ceased". The wording reminds me of the 14 year-old who was a "little bit pregnant".
• All the dictionaries that I have seen use the singular for the word "stone", not the plural when noting that the stone has different values, depending of commodity etc. Please refer to Guy's note at Kilometres per hour.

Martinvl (talk)

@Martinvl, comments following your comments:

• The dictionaries call it a unit of weight. If it's good enough for them, then why not for us? We need to be specific, not woolly.
• For the leagal status: "changed" is more accurate, it didn't "cease". The latter sounds like it became illegal to use, which it did not.
• My wording starts with the singular - the current stone. It had multiple definitions in history, it would be grammatically and logically incorrect to refer to them other than in the plural.

Ornaith (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, quick responses to your quick comments:

• By "is ...now used predominantly..." I was summarising my undersanding of the rest of the article and meant it isn't used much anywhere else.
• The same for "Northern Europe" that's what the article detail says. I didn't check whether it is all suitably referenced.
• The article says "... the stone remains widely used in Britain and Ireland for human body weight...". I was adding that to the summary.
• Yes.

Rest assured, my comments were aimed solely at the article content, not at the motives of previous contributors. Ornaith (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ornaith, I think you're safe if you drop "predominantly" and "Northern". The two may be justified, but not (yet) justified by what's in the article. GaramondLethe 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - You were not involved in the edit wars over whether the stone was a weight or a mass. I was. If you reinstate the word "weight" you will cause an edit war. Do you really want that?

@Ornaith - The stone was explicitly removed from the list of weights and measures that could legally be used for trade in about 1985. It is not authorised for any use for any legal purpose. In view of this, the lede shoudl clarify in one way or another that the stone has no legal standing - this can be done by inserting the word informarmally. If you know better, please tell me the purposes for which it is legally authorised and please quote the relevant legislation. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we need to be specific - it is a unit of weight. That it is a unit of "measure" is a useless generality.

In Ireland (and I suspect in the UK too) the stone is legal for weighing anything you like. Why would the Dáil be interested in legislating against the use of our bathroom scales do you think?

Ornaith (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You might like to read Metrication in the United Kingdom#Weighing machines, it will save me repeating it. The EU directive on weighing machine explicitly mentioned the use of weighing machines for purposes of trade and for use by an expert witness when preparing to give evidence in court. Both Parliament and the Dáil have (or should have) made provision to ensure that scales used for these purposes meet certain standards, not only in respect of accuracy, but also in respect of what units of measure may be displayed. Your bathroom scales are probably not legal for trade (accuracy not guaranteed, costs a lot less than scales used in trade), so they are not governed by Weights and Measures legislation. Martinvl (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice response (much better than hinting at edit wars). GaramondLethe 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, you are evading the point. I'm not talking about "trading" I'm talking about "weighing". There may be rules that say you must trade in kilos, but where are the rules that say I can't weigh (whatever I wish to weigh) in stone? We can't say that weighing in stones is illegal, because it isn't. Ornaith (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, Do you have a pointer to the discussion of weight vs. mass for "stone"? I found a half-dozen good sources for "weight" and one for "weight or mass", but I'm not finding anything that says the stone is a "unit of mass". (I'll also point out that the disambiguation blurb at the top of the article refers to "unit of weight".)

I'm not saying that I want to change "unit of measurement" to "unit of weight", but I'm curious as to what sources were used to justify the present version. GaramondLethe 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the text of the Weights and measusure Act 1985, Schedule I (Definitions of Units of Measurement), Part VI (Definitions of units which may not be used for trade except as supplementary indicators), you will se a section headed "Measurement of mass or weight" and the stone catalogued in that list. It follows therefore that in the Unted Kingdom the stone was legally defined as a "unit of mass or weight" when it ceased to be legal for trade. BTW, this is one of the references used in the article.

I don't know what either Gramnond or Ornaith were taught at school, so I hope that you don't mind me suggesting that you read this article which describes the difference between "mass" and "weight".

The following sentence appears in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." [my emphasis]. The point to start a legal analysis is the legal text itself which is what I have given here. Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't find that a very convincing reading of the statue. Second from the bottom in "Sch. 1 Pt. VI substituted (1.10.1995) by S.I. 1994/2867, reg. 6(5)(c)" is "metric ton" which is definitely a unit of mass. The quintal (never heard of that before) is defined as a unit of mass as well. Both of those are relatively recent metric units so it's not surprising that they're defined in terms of mass rather than weight. "Stone" is much older and would have been initially defined as a unit of weight; I'm not aware of any redefinition taking place. So anyway, the heading "unit of mass or weight" appears to have the plain meaning that some units (metric ton, quintal) are units of mass, and some (stone) are units of weight.

I think we can be a little more rigorous than the "math is fun" url. From section C.7.2 of IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997:

The weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that provides the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame. The the SI unit of weight is the newton (N). In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" is often used as a synonym for mass, for which the SI unit is the kilogram. The verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of." Nevertheless, in scientific and technical practice, the term "weight" should not be used to mean mass.

So that's all well and good, and if we like we can say the "stone" is a unit of Newtons. That's not particularly interesting, though; people who defined and used the concept of "stone" were wholly innocent of the concept of "Newton", and they defined the term as a unit of weight. (By the by, several other reliable sources define "stone" as a unit of mass; I don't have a sense of that literature yet and I'm curious to see if that was a simple confusion between mass and weight or if they thought they were redefining the term as a unit of mass.)

To bring this to a close, I'm curious how reference works such as Wikipedia handle the evolution of technical language. This is exactly that kind of problem (the km/h discussion is another example).

GaramondLethe 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, where is the "edit war" over whether the stone is a unit of weight or a unit of mass? It is certainly a unit of weight (the dictionaries verify that), and if it is also defined as a unit of mass then, assuming there are references, we should say that too. We shouldn't be deliberately vague about what it is though, not in an encyclopedia. Ornaith (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, a bit of vagueness can help with compromising. I think "abbreviated representation" is tolerably vague, for example. I was mostly taking exception to Martinvl threatening potential edit wars as a consequence of raising the topic. If this has been hashed out elsewhere and "unit of measure" was the consensus I'm happy to respect that, but I am curious to have to a look to see how the conversation was resolved. GaramondLethe 09:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposal for a new lede section

Taking into account the comments made about my initial proposal, I now offer the following for discussion:

---

Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is still used in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980s, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, there were stone definitions of various weights ranging from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it had weights of 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.

---

I've taken into accout Martinvl's comments about the weight/mass controversy (for now) and singular/plural wording and Garamond's comments about "predominantly", "Northern Europe" and succinctness of "commodity". We can decide about whether it should actually be described as a unit of mass, weight, both, neither or simply of "measure" later. Are we happy to go now with this version as the new lede? Ornaith (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would run a little more easily and not trip over the weight/mass distinction?

In the UK, prior to 1939, there were stone definitions of various weights ranging definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it had weights of varied from 3 kg to.... NebY (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@NebY, yes, I like it. Let's see it all as we now have it:

---

Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is still used in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980s, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it varied from 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.

---

Is this good to go with now? Ornaith (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this can be tightened up a bit:

Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg). Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade. In both Ireland and the UK the stone is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe the stone varied from 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.

Thoughts? GaramondLethe 20:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good for me, but I think most of Europe metricated (and thus lost the stone) in the 19th century. It wasn't until the 1980s that Ireland and the UK introduced metrication legislation (related to EU membership) which changed the legal status of the stone for them. Can we get that nuance back into the wording neatly? Ornaith (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm....

"Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication, a process that began in FOO in 18?? and completed with the EU membership of Britain and Ireland in 198?, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade."

If that's not too wordy for you go ahead and fill in the blanks --- you might be able to get the dates from one of the annexes of the SI pdf. GaramondLethe 09:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

I have tried to capture a few of the missing bits (and have introduced the word "deprecated" instead of "ceasing to have a legal status"). Here we are:

The stone (abbreviation st) is a deprecated unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) that is used in the United Kingdom and in Ireland to express personal body weight. Until the advent of metrication (nineteenth century in Continental Europe, 1980's in the United Kingdom and in Ireland) it was used several European countries and had values ranging from 5 to 40 local pounds (3 kg to over 15 kg) depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season. Multiple values of the stone were in use in the United Kingdom until 1937 when the last of the commodity-specifc values, the eight pound stone used in the London meat markets was deprecated.

I think that I have managed to pack more information into the paragraph without adding to the word-count. Martinvl (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"used in several European", unless by is better.

I like it. GaramondLethe 21:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with the wording "used in ...". Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated? Deprecated by whom, and for what purposes? It may be "deprecated" by EU bureaucrats, but why should their opinion be given such prominence (first line of lede) amongst all the opinions of it. Its use isn't disapproved of by those who use it daily without question. I don't like the "multiple" in "Multiple values of the stone were in use in the United Kingdom until 1937" either. If we can drop the first use of "deprecated" (the second is fine) and replace "multiple values" with "More than one value" I'll accept that. Ornaith (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, would "Several values" work for you?

As to "deprecated", my understanding is the sense of the word does not mean "forbidden" or "unused" as much as it means "no longer official" and, perhaps, "obsolete" (or at least "intended to become obsolete"). I think the "no longer official" sense is accurate but, based on what you're saying, the term is not "obsolete". "Unofficial" might be better than "deprecated", and "colloquial" might be better still. Martinvl, your thoughts? GaramondLethe 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - Deprecated by the UK and the Irish governments in their respective areas of jurusdiction. In the UK NHS hospitals are forbidden to have scales that show anything other than kilograms. About 20 years ago there was a tragic case where a baby died because midwives did not pick up a loss of weight because one midwife used imperial units and the other used metric units when filling in the baby's record card. The coroner had quite a bit to say about that.

@Garamond - I am happy with any of these terms. What I am trying to get across is that the term "stone" should not be used in any official or legal document - in the case of the baby that I mentioned above, the midwife concerned would now be held accountable for failing to do her job properly. Martinvl (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, it's only deprecated by governments then and only in certain circumstances. That either needs qualifying that way or dropping. We cannot mislead the reader into believing that it does not or should not carry on in general use as usual. Your tragic tale is not related to the stone , but to hospital procedures. Ornaith (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word "deprecated" - it effectively means "legally struck off". Since the stone was only ever legally defined for use in trade, and it has since been stuck off teh use of units that can be used for trade, it is deprecated. Until about 1980 the Government never sought to regulate what units of measure could be used for medical purposes - in 1986 UK and Irish legislation was aligned with EEC directives and the units of measurement that might be used for medical purposes catalogued - the stone was not one of them. Martinvl (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, in general use "deprecated" means disapproved of. As it is only disapproved of by certain bureaucrats, then the unqualified use of that word could be misleading. We need to be clear, the stone is an everday unit of weight, and is not disapproved of, other than by government bureaucrats for some government controlled activities. It certainly isn't deprecated by our local weight watchers club, it is their bread and butter (so to speak). I cannot see why this is such a sticking point, do you disagree? Ornaith (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - The word "deprecated" is used where standards need to keep a defintion on record for historic purposes, but do not allow it for use in new products. Hospitals are not allowed to used stones and pounds to record patient's weights, manufacturers are not allowed use stones and pounds on safety notices, merchants are not allowed to price good "by the stone". Martinvl (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to interrupt, but Ornaith, are you ok with "colloquial"? If so, I'll leave you two to discuss the nuances of "deprecated".... GaramondLethe 09:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, not really. "Colloquial" is usually an adjective used to describe use of language, not of concept. If "stone" is colloquial, what is the formal word to use when referring to a stone? A stone is a common or garden unit of weight, and invariably used when discussing one's waistline, like the pound (lb) in the US. It isn't slang, it isn't a colloquial way of referring to the weight, it is the normal English word for it. Ornaith (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I chose that word carefully, as we're dealing with a language issue as opposed to a legal or scientific issue. To answer your question, the "formal" word for "stone" would be "kilogram". I think we've also agreed that the informal use of "stone" is limited to Great Britain and Ireland. I don't know that this is enough to make the word "stone" a colloquialism, but as an informal, geographically-limited term I think it's a good candidate.

So, being just slightly playful with words here, I'd like to recommend labeling the stone as a "colloquial unit of measurement". It's informal, it's geographically limited, and there's no negative connotation as that might be attached to "deprecated" or "unofficial". If that's too much playfulness for your taste, "informal" would do as well.

GaramondLethe 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy with the word "informal". Martinvl (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Informal" still sounds a bit murky and below board. I'd be happy with "conventional", "popular", "traditional", "established" or even "customary". They are all more apt. Ornaith (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

None of these words are more apt - all are Weasel words. The word "Customary" is a total no-no - it has a specific meaning in the United States. Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, yes some probably are, but no more so than "informal" or "deprecated"! What is the "specific meaning" of "customary"? Which are the least weasel? How about "conventional", "traditional" or "long-established", they are fairly safe, and unlikely to be misunderstood. If we can't agree on one, we'll have to drop that idea and go back to the more verbose version. Ornaith (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - The words "informal" and "deprecated" both alert the user to the fact that there are circumstances where the word "stone" should not be used. The article itself will enlarge on the restriction. The word "deprecated" is not a weasal word - the text of [[ISO 31-1] uses the word "deprecated" against the definitions of the foot, inch, yard and mile - See Deprecation for more about this word. My own view is that the word "deprecated" is the better word to use, but I am happy to use the word "informal". Martinvl (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, in a legal context "deprecated" may be good, but otherwise, as in this article about a normally uncontrolled unit of weight, it is not accurate without additional qualification. "Informal" doesn't really sit comfortably - we don't informally wash or brush our hair, how can we be said to be informally weighing ourselves? It seems that we have reached deadlock on this, unless we can think of another word. What was your objection to "traditional" and what is special about "customary"? How about "commonplace", "familiar" or "well-known"? Ornaith (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Has a law ever neen passed about washing or brushing hair. No. Has a law ever been passed about using stones as a unit of measure. Yes. Therein lies the difference. I stick with my prefered word of "deprecated" (meaning that the law has been revoked) and as a second choice "informal" which sends a warning signal out to the reader. Martinvl (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An editor who is uninvovled with this discussion modified the lede last night. I have therefore replaced his/her changes with my proposal. If we want to change anything we can continue debating it here. Martinvl (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, I'm not understanding your objection here. If you search for "formal weighing" and "informal weighing" on google I think you'll see there's a reasonably broad consensus in how the two terms are used. (See "formal measurement" and "informal measurement" for a large sample size). As to washing and brushing hair, I certainly can dress formally or informally, dance formally or informally, walk formally or informally, sing formally or informally, and yes, measure formally or informally.

As to your other suggestions:

• traditional: This can describe ideas that are old and yet still legally defined (e.g., Christmas).
• customary: Invokes United States customary units
• commonplace: I'm not sure how this distinguishes the stone from the kilogram, which must also seem pretty commonplace by now.
• familiar: Kilograms are familiar as well, and the lede should make the distinction that the stone has a different status than other familiar units.
• well-known: Ditto.

And now I'm going to ask you to think about how much time you're willing to invest if you declare this to be a deadlock, how much this article will be improved if "traditional" is eventually chosen over "informal", and how much you could improve other articles in the same amount of time. Have a look at this: the wikipedia article for Aam (unit) doesn't even exist yet. Want to write it? (I'll help!) And there's a whole list of potential articles here.

The best is still the enemy of the good. I completely respect that you want this entry to be as great as it can be, but it looks like you're investing a large amount of effort for what (to me) seems to be an incremental improvement. It's your call, of course, but Aam (unit) would be fun, too.... GaramondLethe 05:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, yes an editor who had not been involved in this discussion modified the lede last night. Fair enough, we could have reverted it back, giving a polite explanation in the edit summary, and invited the other editor to join this discussion. But no, you chose to attempt to gain an advantage from the situation, and replaced their contribution, not with the original, but with your own favoured version that you have been advocating here, and with no edit summary at all to expalin why. Extreme bad faith I would say after all the effort we have jointly expended here to attempt to get a balanced and agreed text. Ornaith (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, we must remember that this article is about the stone, not the kilogram. The stone can be used for both formal and informal weighing, and according to the article, it is used in boxing, wrestling and horse racing - presumably that is for "formal" weighing. The stone isn't illegal for either formal or informal weighing, in Ireland at least (I'm guessing the same would be true of the UK), although it is probably no longer legal to actually advertise the price of goods per stone without the metric equivalent also being given. Whether it could be used in official government documents I don't know, as it probably never was much used there anyway. In Ireland the stone is probably in more common use than the kilogram, particularly for weighing yourself, and you'll find people there who have no idea what a kilogram is. Here are a few recent Irish instances demonstrating some of what I am saying: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], ... the supply is endless. We cannot assume that because it has gone out of fashion in the rest of Europe that it is no longer the main unit of weight used, for some purposes, both formal and informal elsewhere. It isn't an "informal" or "deprecated" unit of weight in Ireland. Ornaith (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith: If you read Schedule 4 in this document - which part of Irish Law you will see "Units of Measurement which cease to be authorised". The stone is included in that list and is therefore a deprecated unit. QED.

Martinvl (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, please don't be so combative, you risk making a fool of yourself. Your quote doesn't address the points in contention, that the stone is still in common usage, your reference just shows that the stone isn't "authorised" for the few things that it needs to be "authorised" for. That doen't affect its status for its other traditional uses. To concentrate on its status in just one of its roles, and to give it such a prominent position at the start of the lede, would be to give it an unduly heavy emphasis. So please replace your inflammatory outburst with this: "QED still not proven". Ornaith (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, any choice is going to be problematic. Out of the choices I've seen so far "deprecated" is best and "informal" is my second choice (with an honorable mention for "colloquial"). You didn't answer my question, though: how much better will this article be with a word other than "deprecated" versus how much time you're going to have to invest to make the change? GaramondLethe 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, I would find the article unacceptably misleading, and to be giving unwarranted emphasis to the EU bureaucrat view with the word "deprecated" in the first sentence. If we can't agree on the appropriate word for there, what about going back to the "Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure..." version without the extra word. "Deprecated" is misleading because it only applies to the limited circumstances in which a "legal status" actually applies, the sale of spuds or whatever, and falsely implies that ALL of its still current uses are somehow disapproved of. We have seen that it is still used for both formal and informal weighings, so "informal" is a non-starter. "Colloquial" is literally incorrect, because, charming as that would be, "stone" is NOT the colloquial word for kilogram, but the formal word for "stone"!

@Martinvl, where are you with this now, can you manage without the controversial adjuncts? Ornaith (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, well, as I said, it's your call. If I might, let me make a few observations on how you might make your argument a bit more effective. Piling up web pages that use the word "stone" isn't going to be that persuasive: "deprecated" does not imply "uncommon". Instead of a newspaper article, can you find (or request) the newspaper's style manual and determine if "stone" is preferred or accepted? Can you track down the association rules for horse racing, wrestling, etc. where weights are mandated to be reported using stone? Are there any other areas where stone is used officially? Once those citations have made it into the article you'll be much better placed to argue for an addition to the lede, along the lines of "The stone is a unit of measure that has been deprecated for most official uses but is still the preferred unit of measurement in horse racing, .....". To get you started, you might find this helpful. GaramondLethe 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, "deprecated", in the general context, and without further qualification, literally means "disapproved of". This unit isn't disapproved of, other than possibly by the bureaucrats. The lede should reflect the content, which does give examples of UK usage in boxing, wrestling and racing. I haven't checked the voracity of that. I gave those references to demonstrate unfettered (as opposed to deprecated) use in all walks of life Ireland. I'd be happy with "officially deprecated for some regulated uses", but nt in the first sentence of the lede, maybe as the last. It isn't the most important thing to say about it, it is relatively insignificant in its consequences to use. How about:

---

Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) that is used in Ireland and the United Kingdom, particularly to express personal body weight, although due to metrication it has now been officially deprecated for some regulated uses. Until the advent of metrication (nineteenth century in Continental Europe, 1980's in Ireland and the United Kingdom) it was used several European countries and had values ranging from 5 to 40 local pounds (3 kg to over 15 kg) depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season. Multiple values of the stone were in use in the United Kingdom until 1937 when the last of the commodity-specifc values, the eight pound stone used in the London meat markets was deprecated.

---

I put "today" in recognition of the fact that the definition hasn't always been 14 lb.

Ornaith (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had to revert yet another bad-faith attempt to bypass this discussion. @Martinvl, please wait until we have reached agreement here before editing the lede again. Please read the comments above, we are nearly there now. Ornaith (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl appears to have abandoned the discussion here, and is now resorting, not only to unwarranted reversions, but blatant disruption and what amounts to shear vandalism here now (and at Kilometres per Hour actually), so, as I do not want to be involved with such immoderate behaviour, and frankly have more rewarding pursuits to be getting on with for now, I am going to keep my distance for now, until I find out what can be done to resolve the situation. Thanks for your help Garamond. Ornaith (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I see there have been no comments supporting me here, was this a figment of my imagination too (as it apparently was in Kilometres per hour), or was Martinvl disruptive in those actions? Please explain why no action. Ornaith (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan on editing here again until your SPI process completes. GaramondLethe 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For me, Ornaith's draft is fine on the main issue, but I don't agree with "it was used [in] several European countries and had values ranging from 5 to 40 local pounds", because to me the English-language "stone" is not the same unit as the German-language Stein and so forth. If we were to say "Similar units with names meaning "stone" were used in several European countries..." then for me that would be better. Moonraker (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPI process just lurched forward (thanks for the shove, Martinvl) and once we get a decision back from CU we can resume the normal discussion/editing process. I'm hoping it'll be less than a day from now. GaramondLethe 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Moonraker - Please look at this French publication and this German publication. In them you will find the British stone discussed in exactly the same way as the stone of any other European country. Martinvl (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPI process is now complete - User:Ornaith has been tagged as a sockpuppet of [[User:DeFacto]. Martinvl (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Weight vs. mass (again)

The National Standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-Z234.1-89 Canadian Metric Practice Guide, January 1989:

• 5.7.3 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the term "weight." In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" nearly always means mass. In science and technology "weight" has primarily meant a force due to gravity. In scientific and technical work, the term "weight" should be replaced by the term "mass" or "force," depending on the application.
• 5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3 NIST Guide to the SI, section 8.3

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb “to weigh” means “to determine the mass of” or “to have a mass of.”

Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Zyxwv99. I had quoted the NIST document in the previous section a few hours before you put this up. The document is certainly dispositive for existing units of measure, but I don't find it helpful dealing with archaic metrology. If the people writing about "stones" when the stone was in use thought they were measuring weight, it's not clear to me that revising this to state that what they really meant was "mass" (but not "Newtons") is the best way to write an encyclopedia article. If "units of measure" was the consensus of the community I'm happy with that. Do you have a pointer to where this has been discussed? Thanks, GaramondLethe 19:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The usual place where this gets discussed is in articles on customary units of weight such as the stone. Each time it gets discussed, things get better. The article improves, and the people involved learn something, if only by having to find references to back up their assertions. What has frequently needed improving in these articles is the insistence that customary units of weight must, in pre-scientific times, have referred to "weight" in the modern scientific sense, even though the concept had not yet been invented. The reason many people (myself included) feel that all customary units of weight were actually (de facto) mass units is because a) they were measured exclusively with balance scales, which measure mass, and b) those customary units of weight that have survived to modern times have been legally defined as units of mass. Since the British stone is 14 pound avoirdupois, and the pound avoirdupois is a unit of mass, it follows that the stone is a unit of mass.

With regard to changing the article, I'm happy with a neutral position. I'm just here because I don't want the article to stray too far into the opposite camp. (By the way, I was just reading an English translation of Newton's Principia a few minutes ago, and noticed that it uses the word "weight" for "mass." Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It was only in about 1900 (I think) that the GCPM definitions started differentiating between weight and mass. As one who has had a scientific education, I prefer the word "mass" - some time ago I had the wording "mass or weight [sic]", bu tthuis artcile isa very unstable as one person after another tries to add their own viewpoint, often trying to play dpown the fact that the stone is no longer used in the UK for any official purposes. So we have described the stone as "a unit of measure", "a unit of weight", "a unit of mass" and "a unit of mass or weight [sic]". If we are to push WP:V to its limit, we shoudl be using the last definition because that is the most recent legal definition. Martinvl (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Zyxwv99, I have indeed learned something --- the idea of arguing for mass from the use of balance scales is something I had not heard before. I'm reassured to hear that "things get better". GaramondLethe 09:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you didn't misunderstand what I meant. When the scientific distinction between weight and mass was first understood, something over 200 years ago, balance scales were still in use, not only for trade, but also for national standards, as they had been since time immemorial. From then on the issue was one of "legacy systems," i.e., a thing being held over from the pre-scientific era. However, in this case there was nothing that needed to be changed since balance scales, however inadvertently, had always been measuring mass. The linguistic issue, i.e., what to call it, is a separate issue. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, by "things getting better" I meant that discussions on the weight vs. mass issue that one finds on the talk pages of article on customary units were as recently as two or three years ago often highly uninformed, a situation reflected in the articles themselves. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

GaramondLethe wrote "If the people writing about "stones" when the stone was in use thought..." In some places the stone may be a historical curiosity, but in the British Isles it is still in everyday use. Some editors here need to take more of a world view. Moonraker (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the 1970's potatoes were sold to the general public in one-stone and half-stone bags and a number of other commodities were sold on the wholesale markets by the stone. As part of metrication, the stone ceased to be used for trade in the 1970's and officially struck off the law in 1985. Today it is only used for matters that have no legal consequence.

This anonymous comment is wrong about "officially struck off the law", whatever law is intended: customary measures can still lawfully be used for any purpose in the United Kingdom, although for most trade uses they can only be used alongside metric measures. The "no legal consequence" comment is also wrong. As the stone is still in everyday use in the British Isles, especially for body weight, it appears in evidence and is heard in court in criminal and civil matters. Moonraker (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated

I see there's already been some discussion about this. I get the impression that it's someone's attempt to paraphrase "not official" (deprecated doesn't mean this, it means disapproved of, per dictionary). Rather than argue the meaning endlessly, the Wikipedia approach is sources. If there are reliable sources that say it's "deprecated" in general use, cite them (there may be sources saying that it's deprecated for scientific work, or for specific uses, but that's not general deprecation). If not say what's in the sources ("the stone was removed from official UK measures in 1985", Oxford Dictionary of Weights, Measures, and Units). Pol098 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pol098. The sense of "deprecate" as used in national standards is capture here: {http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/SP1038.pdf The International System of Units (SI) – Conversion Factors for General Use}. Table 4 contains "Deprecated Names and Symbols" with the explanation "Other units from older versions of the metric system, some terms not recommended for continued use, and jargon that shall not be used". A few examples: candlepower, fermi and kilogram-weight. In this sense, "deprecate" is much stronger than "disapprove": closer to "shall not" than "please don't". Likewise it's also stronger than "unofficial": this isn't an informal measure than never had legal status, it's a measure that had its legal status removed. During the discussion above I suggested "colloquial" as a compromise, and that didn't fly (and that was probably the right choice). If you can think of a word that conveys "legal status has been removed" better than "deprecated", I'm willing to give it a listen.

One other note: the user arguing against "deprecate" was very recently banned for socking (as in a couple of days ago). When I saw that revert I thought we were dealing with that user again. My apologies for being a little quick on the draw. GaramondLethe 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion, or this article, until now (I came across it because of misspelling of "supersede"). I totally agree with Garamond Lethe on the meaning of "deprecate"; in a technical context it means "still supported but should no longer be used". However, I don't think that the use of stones is deprecated; it's widely used by perfectly respectable sources such as newspapers, though not used for more "official" purposes. rather than discuss either the meaning of "deprecate" or whether the use of stones is or is not deprecated, Wikipedia guidelines give us an answer: if it's deprecated, a source is required. As there's no consensus, "deprecate" is not an acceptable synonym for anything else. "Colloquial" is clearly wrong.

For anybody who reads this I would clarify that the NIST reference in this discussion was given to explain the meaning of the word "deprecate"; it does not include the stone as deprecated (it is a US publication, so is probably oblivious of the term).

"If you can think of a word that conveys "legal status has been removed" better than "deprecated", I'm willing to give it a listen." Um, um, let me think ... um, how about "legal status has been removed"? Oh, that wording is not actually used by sources, how about "in 1985 it was removed from official UK measures" - which is a verbatim quote, with citation, from a reliable source? Perhaps the first sentence could read "The stone (abbreviation st) is a commonly-used but no longer official unit of measure...". ("[Not] official" rather than "legal", "unofficial", or anything else, is what the source says.)

To summarise, I challenge "deprecated" as unsourced; either a reliable source must be provided (and if other sources disagree, then more is needed), or the word should not be used. I've added a cn for the moment. Pol098 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The wording "in 1985 it was removed from official UK measures" would be good lead-in for Stone_(unit)_(UK), but perhaps not this article. "Stone" had legal status of some sort or another in several other countries as well.

For the use of the word "deprecate" as a term of art, I'd cite the SI (see table 12 in the 1971 and 1991 revision, and the description of table 8 in the 1997 revision). The 1997 version as published by NIST is behind a paywall; I have a pdf of it and would be happy to email it to you if you'd like to look it over. As best I can tell, this use of "deprecate" began long after the deprecation of "stone" had occurred in fact, so I wouldn't expect a contemporary source to use the term. I think it's generally permissible to describe an older action with a newer term. If the link to deprecate doesn't give sufficient coverage of this technical use of the term, that's a problem to be fixed there. Actual deprecation is country-specific and citing can be left to the body of the article. Would you consider this to be an acceptable solution?GaramondLethe 18:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand "deprecate" in this sense, it refers to elements of standards that are still supported officially, use of which is however not recommended because they will at some later time become obsolete. At least in the UK, the stone is no longer an official standard unit of weight; so, I don't think "deprecated" is the right word. As regards standards, I would have though the stone is obsolete, though that word should probably also be avoided because the unit may not be obsolete in a more general, encyclopedic sense. If the stone is merely deprecated and not obsolete in some jurisdictions, we should say so. Since the exact meaning is explained in the following sentences and "deprecated" is (IMO) the wrong word, I think it would be better to remove the word completely. --Boson (talk)

Hi Boson. The 1997 SI states: "Table 8 lists deprecated units and, in many cases, units with which they may be replaced. .... Except for the special cases discussed in the previous clauses, do not use units that are not part of SI .... Units that are not to be used are discussed in more detail in 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2. Note that these subclauses and Table 8 are not complete but only indicate prominent examples."

The sense you're describing is more common to software engineering; in standards there's a slightly different use of the term. By 1971 the "deprecated" terms were obsolete; there's no "later time" specified. GaramondLethe 19:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed more familiar with the word "deprecated" in software standards (where it is ubiquitous) but I understood its meaning to be the same for all standards (roughly: legal but no longer recommended, usually because it is expected to be removed at an unspecified future date) . Even if the usage is different in non-software standards (though I have yet to see any evidence), I doubt that there are many readers who are familiar with that usage. Many readers are probably not even familiar with its meaning of "obsolescent". Since the first sentence is meant to tell the reader what a stone is, I don't think the use of the word "deprecated" is helpful; so even if you were able to find a citation that refers to the stone as deprecated, I don't think it would be appropriate to use the word here. I would prefer "traditional".--Boson (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've said in every contribution I've made to this discussion, I don't even think it's necessary to discuss the meaning of "deprecated" and whether it applies. If it's appropriate, then a reliable source should be supplied; if not, it should not be included, and is subject to removal. See WP:BURDEN. Full stop. The actual situation is already described accurately in the intro, with verbatim quoting from reliable sources. Mention of non-use where it isn't used in the intro makes sense (North America; don't know about other Anglophone countries). I've added a comment to this effect in the body. A factual comment: many, probably most, people in the UK find weights in stones and pounds meaningful, but don't relate to either pounds only, or kg. Personally I think non-decimal units are horrendous (either kg or pounds only are better than st/lb), but that's the way it is. Pol098 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a note to expalin why the word "deprecated" was used. In that way the reader can understand its status. If anybody can come up with a better word, please do so. The term "stones" for anything other than human body weight is only ever used by journalists who are trying to avoid the use of the word "kilogram".

BTW, I have reduced the kilogram conversion in the lede to 2 decmial places and quoted the whole number as a note as well.

Martinvl (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is about the word deprecated, which is inaccurate and the wrong word to use; I've said this every time I've commented. Responses studiously avoid addressing this issue. The note added by Martinvl does not explain why the word deprecated was used; it does state that the official status of the stone was removed, which is not under contention. I've removed a (true) comment "As of 2012, there is no legislation in place that formally authorises the use of the stone" as obvious and verbose, but have no objection to its being reinstated - personally I think the whole footnote is unnecessary.

"If anybody can come up with a better word, please do so": "The stone (abbreviation st) is a commonly-used but no longer official unit of measure...", which follows sources.

"The term "stones" for anything other than human body weight is only ever used by journalists who are trying to avoid the use of the word "kilogram"." This is total nonsense. In addition to actually being untrue, it implies journalists are stupid: they have enough sense to use the word that people understand and relate to, they would never use an obscure term instead. Pol098 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pol098 - do you read the British papers? I do, almost every day. British journalists tend to convert everything to imperial units, they would rather say that a rhino weighs 120 st than to say that it weighs 1500 kg or 1.5 tonnes. Having said that, I have not seen the use of stones used in that context anywhere else - British nature magazines and reference works would usually use kilograms or tonnes. Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one could cite Capstick Comes Home for an older use of the word ("three stone o' monkey nuts"). --Boson (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the footnote "As of 2012, there is no legislation in place that formally authorises the use of the stone." is a little misleading. As I understand it, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 formally prohibits the use of the stone as a primary unit (for trade) and mentions its possible use as a supplementary unit'. --Boson (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that a great many words have been said here, but there is still no source for the use of the word "deprecated". Certainly the stone may not be used for trade; it is prohibited - this has made no practical difference since the end of the slave trade for a unit used for weighing people. I've added a reference to the article to an NHS style guide that recommends use of the stone as the preferred unit for people's weight - it's not just newspapers. Obviously nature magazines and reference works use standard scientific units, not stones. To show that the term is in common use, a typical discussion on an NHS Web site has many people giving their weights in st/lb. Please don't keep saying that the stone is not an official unit - that's not in contention, use of the word "deprecated" is. It remains unreferenced (I repeat for about the 8th time, the word "deprecated" is not sourced). WP:BURDEN: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source". Rather than remarks on how much the stone is used, the response needs to be addition of a reliable citation documenting that "stone" is <quote>deprecated</unquote>. Pol098 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "commonly used" by itself would be misleading. One would have to specify that it is commonly used (only) for body weight, (only) in Britain. --Boson (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph at present includes "removed from official UK measures and no longer permitted for purposes of trade, but it is still commonly used to express the body weights of humans", which seems clear enough. Should this be reworded? The text also says that it was a European unit (although it was also used In Australia at least, I don't know if people there still use it as much as in the UK). Pol098 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The source for "deprecated" is the 1997 SI (as well as a few earlier editions that I only have in print). May I email you a copy of the pdf? GaramondLethe 23:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it the same as this? If you're using this to document "4.3.2 Deprecated Names or Symbols - Other units from older versions of the metric system, some terms not recommended for continued use, and jargon that shall not be used include:...", that had already been mentioned, and I had seen it.

If it's another document, can you sent it via Wikipedia mail, or do you need a conventional email address? Thanks again. Let me clarify a bit: I think deprecated as a blanket term is inappropriate, as it might send a signal that the term should simply not be used for any purpose. I'd certainly agree that the use of the stone in a scientific context is deprecated, as is calorie and pound, and indeed everything non-SI; but nobody in science is likely to be tempted to use it. (I don't think it's actually on the list of deprecated units, probably because nobody in their right mind would use it.) Units which are on the deprecated list, such as nautical mile or the widely-use calorie, don't say in the introductory paragraph of their Wikipedia article that they are deprecated. It's also quite clear that the term may not be used in trade in the UK. But (unfortunately in my opinion, I personally deprecate the unit "stone" for all purposes) "stone" is very widely used, even recommended as the preferred unit by organisations. It would be quite appropriate, though I think unnecessary, to say that the stone is never used for scientific or commercial purposes (I wouldn't say "deprecated" here because it's too weak - never used is stronger). Pol098 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now seen the latest amendments to the article and added references. This fits in with my opinion in my previous comment, re scientific usage. If the deprecation is indeed relevant to this article as a whole, to be consistent, the articles on the pound, gallon, nautical mile, and a great many others would need to be edited to add deprecated in the first sentence. To put this issue to rest, I'd suggest you edit, say, pound and gallon in this way. If your edits are accepted, I will acquiesce (as distinct from agreeing) and say no more. If not, the ensuing discussion in the Talk pages of the other articles might help us here. Pol098 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and reply to the email I sent and I'll send the pdf along. GaramondLethe 00:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stepping back for a moment (deprecated)

I'd like to restate what I'm hearing as the disagreement and make sure that I understand it.

Assuming that the SI cite is considered sufficient (and I'm happy to send a pdf of the SI to anyone who wants to examine the citation in context), what I'm hearing from both Pol098 and Boson is, (in my words): Readers are going to see "deprecated" and not understand that there is a technical meaning associated with the word and instead, mistakenly, assume the non-technical use is intended. This gives the (unintended) impression that use of "stone" is bad or wrong, rather than the (intended) sense of "nonconforming to an international standard".

I hear you. I agree that this is problem.

In general I'd say that we shouldn't hide technical language from readers. The difficulty here (as I understand it) is that the user isn't aware that there's a technical meaning and so doesn't catch the signal to go look it up.

So before jumping off into more potential solutions, have I identified the problem correctly?

GaramondLethe 00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather, I think it's also that by using the technical terminology, there's an entire non-technical world we aren't giving an accurate description of. 'only' body weight and 'only' in Britain, if we accept those, is actually a lot of use (about...6-7 hundred million stone, in fact? :p) that includes, for example, on TV; which is the sort of context that will make people look this up in the first place. In other words, the technical information is best represented as a special case, compared to the general or everyday. Near as I can tell. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Darryl, would it help if I told you I'm a research scientist in California who doesn't own a television? From where I'm perched, native English speakers living in the British Isles are a minority population of worldwide English speakers, and the "stone" is an interesting (and persistent) anachronism. This doesn't make me right, and it certainly doesn't make you wrong. I'm hoping for a solution that satisfies both of us. GaramondLethe 04:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, that's fair; I only speak from the perspective of having spent a few years with SkyTV. Still, consider that it's not unused where you live because of any technical or legal decree; it's just not used. Would you call 'lorry' deprecated, from where you're perched? Even from a worldwide perspective, then, 'deprecated' wouldn't appropriately explain the context/standing of the word for or to the average reader. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I sent Garamond Lethe (GL) an email in response to his kind offer of a PDF with some details; unfortunately I accidentally didn't keep a copy (possibly the message didn't even get sent? Might have pressed the wrong button, late). Basically yes, I agree with both previous postings in this new section. I think the problem is a little worse than GL states it; it's not like a jargon term like "conformal mapping" which means nothing, harmlessly, to the non-specialist; even to me, familiar with the jargon "deprecated" alone sends the wrong signal, "deprecated in a scientific context and forbidden for purposes of trade" would be better (but we don't want it in the first sentence or the introduction).

GL says in the latest article intro that SI deprecates all non-SI units; my last comments in the previous thread apply (in particular, add a comment to this effect to pound, gallon, etc and see what's said!). In my view GLs latest edits giving chapter and verse on SI deprecation should be removed from the intro (I should think that they were made largely in response to my criticism of the word deprecate; I think we can reach an understanding not requiring such heroic measures). Personally I don't think it's necessary to say that "stone" is deprecated for scientific use (nobody would use such a daft unit), though we could say somewhere in the body text something like "the use of stone, like all non-SI units, is deprecated by SI in cases, typically scientific, where standardised units are desired". (That actual text is off the top of my head, needs drafting properly.) And remove deprecated from the introduction entirely. I think I've said everything I can think of here or above. Let's see where we go from here! Pol098 (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the email; go ahead and resend. As to pound and gallon, those units have not been deprecated in the US (our acquaintanceship with the SI is, as we say, "nodding"). But yes, I take your point. I fully expect the eventual compromise to not contain any heroic measures. I'll also point out that the use of SI in medicine and industry probably dwarfs its use in science. And I think that's where I'll leave things for the moment.... will pick this back up in twelve hours-which-are-units-in-use-with-SI-but-not-SI-units-themselves,-see-table-6. GaramondLethe 04:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with much of what has been said. My main concern is that, in the first paragraph, "deprecated" serves to confuse - not only because of the common meaning of the word but also because of lack of understanding of the intended technical meaning (which I think is an extension of the normal meaning). I suspect that software standards, which some readers will be familiar with, are more rigorous or more precise in the use of the word, stemming from the nature of such standards which - unlike standards related only to text - must distinguish between two types of non-approved elements: (1) those which are obsolete and are not supported and (2) those which are "obsolescent", i.e. (though they should not be used) are defined and must be supported by standard-compliant software and must not produce an error (though they should normally produce a warning). Migration from one status to the next may be complicated. Since the exact status of the stone is defined in the following text, I think a word like "traditional" is more appropriate in the first sentence. The word "deprecated" should be used, if at all, only after establishing the specific context of a particular standard (and its scope). I have no problem with the use of technical language where it is useful. The problem with the intended meaning of "deprecated" is aggravated by the link to an article which does not adequately describe the intended meaning. --Boson (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to let go of "deprecated". When we went round and round about this previously my preferred suggestion was "colloquial", but Martinvl and I were able to agree on "informal". I'll go ahead and make the change. Thoughts? "Traditional" sounds a bit to ritualistic to my ear (more appropriate to Christmas celebrations, perhaps) but I'm will to hear an argument otherwise. IIRC "unofficial" was only opposed by our recently departed sock puppet, so that might be worth bringing up again if "informal" isn't to your taste. GaramondLethe 15:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Informal seems fair from where I stand. Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with "informal", but I would like the first sentence to read "The stone (abbreviation st[1]) is an informal unit of measure of weight now used in both the United Kingdom and in Ireland equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (6.35 kg) having been removed from the list of weights permitted for trade in both countries in the 1908's." The rest of the lede paragraph should be modified accordingly and all citations removed (except for the abbreviatioin "st"); if neccessary text to which the citation refers (such as the NHS) should be moved into the body of the article. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, apart from the typo (1908) of course. Perhaps it would later be possible to change the wording slightly to take account of the fact that the stone may be used as a supplementarty unit (so it's "sort of" permitted). It might be an idea to add the odd comma. --Boson (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Under EU regulations, any units is permitted as a supplementary unit, under UK regulations, only a certain set of units are permitted for purposes of trade - the stone is not one of them - the following appears as a note in Metrication in the United Kingdom - "The units permitted as supplementary indicators under The Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006 are the gallon, quart, pint, fluid ounce, pound and the ounce". Martinvl (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So far, I have been unable to find a general amendment to the Weights and Measures Act, i.e. one that would include loose goods from bulk. --Boson (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we bump the proposed comma up to a full stop? That's far too much for one sentence, especially the first. It should basically be a single direct thought; a dictionary definition, not 'this is what it is and where it's from and how much it is and some of its history from this year'. The information is fine, but, please, make them independent sentences; anyone reading will have forgotten the beginning before they reach the end. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC) As you should be able to tell from my writing, I'm intimately aware of the urge to fill a sentence with everything I can think to fit into it; the semicolon has been my favorite punctuation for a long time.

Lede changes - 30 July 2012 onwards

I have made two minor changes to Garamond's text - I removed the words "of weight" so as to avoid the long discussions of whether the stone is a weight or a mass. Technically it is a mass, but no references ever call it that. As the text now stands, it is 14 lbs (and it keeps quiet as to whether the pound is a weight or a mass).

The second change is to remove the references to animal weights. As far as I am aware, animals are never weighed by the stone, though sometimes journalists convert the value to stones to placate the Euroscpetic lobby who regard the use of the kilogram with disdain.

I have a number of other suggestions, but I would like to take them one at a time. Martinvl (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Say what you will about eurosceptics, but if Journalists are, literally, reporting the weights in stones, then...well, that -is- what is happening, isn't it? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur with dodging the mass/weight issue. I did dig up the manual on Irish horse racing where horse weights were to be reported in stones, but that's single example (or even a handful of similar examples) isn't sufficient for changing the lede, so concur with the second change as well. GaramondLethe 03:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the Irish horse manual - I did not see any references to the weights of horse, but I did see references to the weights of jockeys! 10 st = 140 lbs = 63 kg! Garamond, with all due respect, am I correct in assuming that you are American? If so, then the fact that you confused weights relating to jockeys with those relating to horses is "proof" of the last sentence in the lede - "... and may be unfamiliar to an international audience". Martinvl (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear.... Yes, I'm a 'Merican. And "unfamiliarity" is a kinder interpretation than I probably deserve. Thanks for checking where I didn't. And, of course, "concur" on the "unfamiliar" change. GaramondLethe 09:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A slight rewording, but retaining all the concepts (Wikilinking incomplete):

The stone (abbreviation st^ref) is an informal unit of measure of 14 avoirdupois pounds (6.35 kg) used in Great Britain and Ireland for measuring human body weight. It was formerly used for purposes of trade in many European countries where its value ranged from about 3 kg to 15 kg, but with the advent of metrication from the mid-nineteenth century onwards it was superceded by the kilogram, it use for trade in the United Kingdom and in Ireland being rescinded in the 1980's. It may be unfamiliar to an international audience.

Martinvl (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

'its' use for trade, and something strikes me as odd about the way the last sentence addresses the reader, but since I can't put my finger on it, I'll go ahead and agree to that. Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence is a little odd. Perhaps it's the way that in acknowledging the heterogeneous nature of WP's readership it also seems to lump them together as one perplexed, monolithic (sorry) group. I'd rather see it dropped than left to be expanded and encrusted - but it's not a big deal. NebY (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Garamond included the last sentence and then proved it to be correct (see earlier this thread), but I agree, it is a bit odd. Martinvl (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was my attempt at paraphrasing this; the original seems equally strange to my ear. While the stone remains a common unit of weight in the British Isles, it is virtually unknown even as a historical unit in North America and other places; use of the term can mystify an international audience. GaramondLethe 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that sentence? It could certainly be useful in the article, even if rephrased? Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have a reference. It was added by User:pol098. I'll put a note on pol's talk page. GaramondLethe 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is the cite User:pol098 gave for "large animals". I don't think it needs to go in the lede, but it is reassuring to me that I read that somewhere other than the rules of Irish horse racing.... GaramondLethe 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Who actually weighs large animals? Vets do. They almost certainly went metric in the 1980's. I do however believe that before the war, live animals were weighed in stones of 14 lbs and carcases in stones of 8 lbs - there being a supposed correlation betwen the two due to the offal etc having been removed. I woudl expect a vet to use kilograms - the reason that they are usually interested in an animal weight is to calculate what drug dose to give the animal (usually given in ml/kg). Journalists are a different breed, they are dab hands at converting kilograms to stones for the British public, but they do not actually weight the animals themselves. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been away from this article for a while, bit got a request to source a statement.

"While the stone remains a common unit of weight in the British Isles, it is virtually unknown even as a historical unit in North America and other places; use of the term can mystify an international audience."

1. "While the stone remains a common unit of weight in the British Isles". The stone remains a common unit of weight in the British Isles. This is sourced in the article; for example a current NHS website has a current style guide in which stones and pounds are the recommended units for adult's weights (pounds and ounces are used for babies).

2. "it is virtually unknown even as a historical unit in North America". Webster's 1828 dictionary, and many dictionaries since then, list the stone as a British unit. While not a unique and authoritative source, the web is full of questions to the effect of "what is a stone weight", with answers "14lb in the UK". Also, negative but relevant, the stone does not appear in any US system of weights. It probably was a historical unit, but so long ago that it is virtually unknown.

3. "... and other places." This would only be relevant in Europe and places associated with Britain. Europe metricated in the nineteenth century, and non-metric weights are long obsolete. I'm not sure of countries associated with Britain. I don't think the stone was used in Canada; I think it was in Australia but is probably obsolete, maybe understood by older people. others who have better information could help.

4. "use of the term can mystify an international audience". No direct reference as such. 2, above, documents that it wasn't used in the US since the early nineteenth century at least; and the many questions on the Web suggest that it's mystifying. It could be more pedantically worded "there is no evidence that an international audience would be familiar with the term".

I'd add another point: the "stone", an English word, was not used in non-Anglophone countries, by definition. A word which translates as stone was (and it wasn't clearly the same unit, not being 14lb). While it's a pedantic quibble, an encyclopaedia is where we want to aim for pedantic correctness.

Apologies for absence, and thanks for the offer to email me a source; my reply didn't get sent but I think it's moot now, the point I was unhappy about has been changed. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Pol098 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to item (3) - the stone was not in use in South Africa in the 1950's onwards - I don't have a proper reference, but did judo whiel at university (late 1960's) in the "under 175 lb" category.

In response to item (5) - IMHO, that style guide is a publicity stunt as it is not suitable for professional use - there is another website stating that the NHS should use metric-only scales, so one of the sites is telling "porkies". Moreover the site does not specified whether "ml" or "mL" should be used for millilitres (quite important in medicine). It might warrant a mention in the body of the article, bu tin the lede its existance can be swallowed up by the word "informal".

BTW, I revoked Pol098's last change - Ireland removed the stone from her list of legal units in 1983 and the UK in 1985. Martinvl (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no "standard" stone in the ancient Jewish world

This statement, in the first paragraph of the History section, seems highly implausible. Standardized weights and measures have been commonplace in the Near East since the mid-3rd millennium BC. The article Biblical and Talmudic units of measurement has some information about the subject in general but not the stone. Also, the reference looks unreliable. Even though the focus of this article is the stone in Europe, statements made in passing should be made with care. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding the Hewbrew section are well-sourced. Of course, other scholars might have different views, sso there is no harm is writing "A say X, but B says NOT X", as long as both are properly cited. 18:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew section is not well-sourced. The part that says there was no standard stone is sourced by a reference to a 19th century Christian Bible. To say that other scholars have different views is valid when there is no contemporary scholarly consensus. In this case, it looks as if no one has even bothered to find out what contemporary scholarship has to say on the subject. Furthermore, the source itself indicates that ancient Hebrew stones had definite weights. There may be some confusion over the fact that in English the word "stone" when used in reference to weight refers chiefly to the 14-pound avoirdupois stone (originally used for weighing wool) since other stones have fallen by the wayside. Common practice would have been for people to have weights in various sizes such as one shekel, five shekels, etc., any one of which could have been in the form of a stone.

Furthermore, my whole reason for bringing up the subject was to invite editors who might know more about the subject to weigh in so that the article can be improved. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree; a footnote in an 1836 Christian bible that rapidly wanders into personal experience of nineteenth-century middle-eastern bazaars is a poor source for the development of weights, lacking in modern standards of scholarship and not informed by nearly two hundred years of archaeology. Extrapolation from that footnote to a generalisation about the "Jewish world" begs many questions. What is the "Jewish world" - is it the history of the Jewish people up to the diaspora, through a variety of changes in governance, cultural and mercantile influence, autonomy and even location? In that domain, what is a standard - is it consensual or legislative, and can it be demonstrated by consistency within a limited time-period or alternatively its absence demonstrated by lower consistency across the entire history? Further, given the close alignment or even identity between metal coins and weights in Jewish history, should we even bother to discuss the degree of standardisation in an article about the stone?

I suggest that rather than try to answer all the above questions in the article, it move straight to the much more interesting - for our purposes here - development and spread of Roman stone weights, thus:

The name "stone" derives from the use of stones for weights - a practice that dates back into antiquity. The ancient Hebrew Law against the carrying of "diverse weights, a large and a small"² is more literally translated as "you shall not carry a stone and a stone (אבן ואבן), a large and a small". In Roman times weights crafted to a multiple of the Roman libra (a pound of about 327.54 g) for use in commerce were often made of stone.³ NebY (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your version would be a real improvement. However, I'm not sure just how much (if anything) either the Israelites or the Romans had to do with the development of stone weights, since stone weights were already fully developed before Romulus and Remus were born, and before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were born. They go back to the Sumerians, Elamites, etc. On the other hand, don't let that stop you from making the change, since I'm voting for your proposed change. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am quite happy with this text. Martinvl (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both - I've made that change. Zyxwv99, that's a very good point regarding the earlier history. But I don't know how full a history we should provide; this is an article about the unit of measurement rather than the use of stones as weights. There's a balance to be struck and I know I couldn't strike a better one without doing a bit of homework, so I'm inclined to leave it there. NebY (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'll see what I can do about the research. Maybe just one additional sentence would do the trick. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool! NebY (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?

Possibilities include:

• the 14-pound stone
• the above, plus other units of weight based on the avoirdupois system that have the word "stone" in the name
• the above, plus units in other weight-systems used in English-speaking countries that have the word "stone" in name

And so on and so forth.

Picking one topic would not require that the others be excluded, merely that they be demoted to subsidiary positions.

Personally I vote for the 14-pound stone for the following reasons:

• it is a unit of measurement, as opposed to the other items listed above, which are metrological naming conventions and therefore linguistic phenomena
• unlike other units with "stone" in the name, the 14-pound stone was an original part of the avoirdupois system
• it played a key role in the history of England and in the emergence of the British Empire

The avoirdupois system, including the 14-pound stone, was originally a system of wool weights. In the 13th century, exports of wool (mostly raw) accounted for about half of England's export revenue. By the 14th century exports of wool (largely preprocessed or semi-finished) accounted for about three-quarters of export revenue. For centuries, wool was to England as petroleum is to the Gulf States. Wool made England one of the richest, most powerful nations on earth. That's why the Woolsack is, to this day, the seat of the Lord Speaker in the House of Lords.

My main complaint is with the idea that the weight of the stone "varied". That's a bit like saying that the metre varies because some meters are centimetres, while others are kilometres. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a splitter, so I'd rather see a separate article on the "British Stone" (and its "key role in the history of England") and keep the current article for the Biblical/Roman/European history. Once the "British Stone" article exists then it might make sense to merge this article into it, but that's a decision than can be kicked down the road. GaramondLethe 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but it doesn't really answer the question: what is the topic of this article? Biblical/Roman/European history? The use of stones as reference masses? Metrological naming conventions in the Bible, ancient Rome, and in European history? Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment this article is about 21 kbytes in length. WP:SIZE suggests that one should consider splitting an article when it is between 40 and 60 kbytes. On that score the present article which discusses the use of the "stone" as a unit of mass in Europe is appropriate. The eighteenth and nineteenth centrury texts that were consulted show that there is nothing special about the British stone, other than that it is the last survivor of a whole range of units of measure. Martinvl (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not length, but the fact that this article does not seem to have a clearly-defined topic. The title suggests that it's about a unit of some sort. At present, this article is treating the word "stone" as a dictionary entry (see WP:NOTADICTIONARY), i.e., giving us a laundry list of things that word might mean, not only in English but in other languages. When I said I would vote for the 14-pound stone, I was merely suggesting one possibility. The main issue the lack of a clearly-defined topic. Much of the arguing over the lede seems to be due to the fact that everyone has different ideas on what topic they are discussing, since it has not been defined.

And please, let's not have any more discussion of splitting and merging, since that is clearly not merely topic drift but evades the question. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't clear. I think this article should be about any historical Western unit of measure based on stones. GaramondLethe 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would strongly disagree. It should not be about units based on stones, only those called "stone". I also disagree with Zyxwv99: this does have to include variants such as the Smithfield stone and should not be restricted to wool weights. To be fair and even-handed, I'd also like to disagree with Martinvl, though I haven't quite decided why yet. I do think a little background is fine as long as it's kept brief. Unfortunately this article has suffered from DeFacto's usual demands for citations and clarifications, which can cause distorting bloat. NebY (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Zyxwv99 has a good point in that the lack of focus is causing people to talk past each other, but right now this article's strengths are in Roman and European use. If the British/Irish sections are improved then I could see an argument for aligning the lede with that focus. GaramondLethe 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say the topic should be the unit of measure that is now generally regarded as 14 pounds, including the history of the concept, which includes different units of measure. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary it should not (and does not) include relatively unrelated meanings of the word "stone". I do, however, think that the prevalent current meaning of stone should be given more prominence and that a more precise metric equivalent should be given in the introduction. the historical meanings moved further down. The use of stones as reference masses is not the topic of the article, though it may be worthy of note in the discussion of the topic, particularly the history. --Boson (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should give some detailed conversions between the stone and other units of measure, but not in the lede. From my reading, it appears to me that the use of stones as reference masses is very much part of the aritcle - how were reference masses made in medieaval time? Cast iron? Bronze? Stone? There must be texts out there about amcient weights, but I have nto seen them. The article, as it stands, leaves options open but so many peole have been messing around with the lede that we saeem to have lost valuable information. Martinvl (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a pre-DeFacto version you'd prefer? GaramondLethe 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

errors in conversion table

The table in the Conversion section providing historical legal data , as clarified by the Weights and Measures Act 1837 :

Pounds Unit       Stone  kg 
   1   pound       1/14  0.453592 
  14 1 stone          1  6.35029 
  28 1 quarter        2  12.7006 
 112 1 hundredweight  4  50.8023 
2240 1 long ton      80  1016.04 

contains 2 arithmetic errors : in the Stone column : the 4 and 80 should be 8 and 160 . I do now know if the errors are from the original source (doubtful) , or from recent attempts to be more thorough than the original source (more likely) .

The metric- and pound-equivalents of the 'quarter', 'hundredweight', and 'long ton' in this table seem to agree with the extensive tables in this other article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversions_of_units
(allowing that the "long hundredweight" and "imperial quarter" applies there)

Any editor who agrees with this is welcome to make the change .
Mark (mgt220 @t yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.60.51 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... done Martinvl (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Weights and Measures Act 1837 ?

I was unable to find the Weights and Measures Act, 1837 on page 46 (ref. [19])
Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, Volumes 41-45
(the UK history article by T.G.Poppy covers pages 22 to 40 only ; another article ,
Weights and Measures in Canada by R.W.MacLean , begins on page 44)

Therefore , I do question the correctness of the current reference link . Further reading in the google book pages has caused me to also question the existence of the Weights and Measures Act of 1837 , which T.G.Poppy had no occasion to mention in his text . Of course , I may have overlooked something relevant , in haste ...

I did find a Weights and Measures Act of 1835 , page 25 in the same article by T.G.Poppy , from which I quote ...

17. In addition to establishing a uniform system of verification and 
inspection , the Act of 1835 dealt with several other matters which 
are worthy of note , as follows : 

(a) additional units of weight, including the stone of 14 lb., 
the hundredweight of 112 lb. and the ton of 20 cwt. were legalized ; 

[ in which I gather the author abbreviates cwt. for hundredweight ]

This text does seem to "clarify" the relationship among the weight measures (pound , stone , hundredweight , and (long) ton) . As author T.G.Poppy (on page 24) says :
The Weights and Measures Act, 1835 [8] ranks equally , in my view , with the Act of 1824 as a foundation stone of our present system . [ emphasis added ]
I am now inclined to believe that the 1835 Act is the Legislative authority intended to be cited in this wikipedia article .

Poppy's references , beginning on page 33 include more complete titles of the Acts of Parliament , for instance : [8] An Act to repeal an Act of the Fourth and Fifth Year of His present Majesty relating to Weights and Measures , and to make other Provisions instead thereof . 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 63. [ see the cited page , if interested ]

It is up to the wikipedia editors to decide if the "the 1837 Act" and current reference link are correct , or if the alternative (The Weights and Measures Act of 1835) and (page 25) reference [19] I have proposed , are better choices ...

Mark (mgt220 @t yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.60.51 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It should have been 1835, not 1837 - text has been corrected. Martinvl (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should it not have been the Weights and Measures Act 1963 which which specifies the current definition of the pound to be 0.45359237 kg giving a stone of 6.35029318 kg (or both)? JIMp _talk·cont 07:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, are we to take it that they were incapable of mulitplication back in 1837? If the pound was defined as 0.453592 kg, we get the following

1 pound         =    0.453592 kg
1 stone         =    6.350288 kg
1 quarter       =   12.700576 kg
1 hundredweight =   50.802304 kg
1 long ton      = 1016.04608  kg

... which is not what the table currently displays. Or is the error ours? JIMp _talk·cont 07:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The table is not supported by the reference, in particular the metric conversion.

The metric system was illegal in the UK until the passage of the Weights and Measures Act of 1897 (60 & 61 Victoria. Cap. 46.) "An Act to legalize the Use of Weights and Measures of the Metric System." In the 1830s the metric system was still using the Kilogram of the Archives made in 1799. I forget what the avoirdupois pound standard was at the time. Possibly one did not exist, as several standards were destroyed in the burning of the Houses of Parliament in 1834. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The conversion table should have a note indicating that the metric equivalents are based on the current definitions of the pound and kilogram. The table may be good, but probably has little connection to any events of the 19th century, as the relationships among the English/imperial units were already well established before 1800.

The article Weights and Measures Act has a long list of acts going back to the Anglo-Saxon period. Each item has a reference that, in most cases, leads to the appropriate volume and page of Statutes at Large containing the full text of the act.

The act of 1834 abolished the 8-pound stone and other stones but retained the 14-pound stone (see A collection of the public general statutes...). I wasn't able to find the text of the act of 1835, so the reference (which I put in) has a brief summary mentioning the pound, stone, etc., but no details. Doing more Google searches might help. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Here's the current organisation.

1 History 
1.1 Great Britain and Ireland
1.2 Continental Europe
1.3 Metric stone
2 Current use 
2.1 Conversion
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

The "Conversion" section contains two things.

• a table with incorrect/unreferenced/out-of-date data
• a note that there exist websites which can convert to and from the stone

That there exist unit conversion websites is no big news. It's useless to mention this here. Incorrect information is worse than useless. I suggest we delete this.

The rest of the "Current use" section deals with the current use in the UK & Ireland. So here's how the article currently flows: an intro, the UK & Ireland (from the middle ages to the eighties), continental Europe, the metric stone then back the the UK & Ireland (from the eighties on). I suggest merging the "Current use" section into the "Great Britain and Ireland" section. Once that's done I propose to ditch the "History" heading (not the text). So the article would look like this.

1 Great Britain and Ireland
2 Continental Europe
3 Metric stone
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

JIMp _talk·cont 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletions. I'm reminded of all those "Waiter! waiter! There's a fly in my soup" jokes." Bad material in a Wikipedia article is like a fly in your soup. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the conversions as the stone was part of system of weights which should be noted. I have alosd double-checked the conversions. I have also instroduced a new section heading - "Antiquity" as the second paragraph of what was the lede is not a summary of material in the body of the article. Martinvl (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The table looks fine to me, as it is only to four decimal places. Thus the differences between the current pound and kilogram and those of the early 19th century are not relevant. The text, however, could be improved, as "clarified" is ambiguous and slightly misleading, as it suggests that the relationships indicated in the table did not exist prior to the 1830s. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "clarified" was deliberate. Prior to 1824 the stone had many values, depending on commodity, location etc. The 1824 Act outlawed the stone, but traders continued to use it, so in the 1830's the value of the stone was clarified as being 14 lb. (The meat trade remained unconcinved until the eve of WWII). Martinvl (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest moving the table into the GB & I section rather than letting it dangle all by itself between the continental Europe section and the metric section. If the act didn't define these measures in terms of the kilogram, this should be stated. It also should be stated that the values are approximate; readers are looking for definitions and for non-SI units exact conversions to SI (where possible) are part of this. I also suggest adding a column for the (exact) current values. JIMp _talk·cont 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to move the table into the UK & I section. Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is both an issue of semantics and politics. The various sorts of stones are as different from one another the troy ounce is from the ounce avoirdupois: they are different units with similar names. This has been universally recognized by metrologists. On the other hand, when abolishing units of measurement, it is not uncommmon for governments to resort to tactic similar to those used to abolish minority languages by classifying them as dialects. Irish was once classified as a dialect of English, for political reasons, by the same governments that were trying to abolish it, even when linguisists insisted that it was a separate language. The word "clarify" in this context is obviously political. I am not referring merely to the user, but to the text of the legislation itself. [unsigned comment by Zyxwv99 19:37, 3 September 2012]