Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jubilee Greenway

Perhaps only one point should be made in addition to what has already been said. There are now plans for a 60km walking trail to be opened to mark the Queen's diamond jubilee in 2012, one kilometre for each year of the reign. See the following link: [1] It might be appropriate for this to be mentioned.Michael Glass (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Greenway does get a mention, but there's a bit of disagreement whether Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions applies to the footpath signs being used on the Greenway. If anyone reading this lives close enough to check, could you get out and see if the signs are the white-on-green type specified by TSRGD (with the little "man walking" icon), which would currently force the use of miles and yards on those signs - despite, as pointed out all over, the Greenway was designed to be 1km per year of HMtQ's reign. Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Silver Jubilee Walkway was opened in 1977

Two points.

• The Silver Jubilee Walkway is denoted by markers in the pavement of the type shown on the right.
• The TSRGD regulations only apply to "finger posts". If distances are not shown, the TSRGD is irrelevant.

Martinvl (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the old (1977) Jubilee walkway! I'm talking about the signage on the Jubilee Greenway. Maybe it isn't even open yet, but if it is, and if it is signposted with the green fingerposts that I mentioned earlier, then because those fingerposts are part of the TSRGD (weird, but true), then they also have to be in miles and/or yards. Which was what I was hoping some Londoner could tell us about. If the Greenway is actually signed by those in-road studs illustrated above (thanks, Martinvl) then they could validly indicate distances in km (though the one pictured doesn't show any distance indicator). Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Costs

In accordance with normal Wikipedia standards, I have deleted an arbitrary figure given for the cost of change, since it has been waiting for over two years (since Nov 2008) to be suppoerted by citation. At this stage, we have to regard that assertion as at best POV and worst mischief or vandalism. If a source (which predates Nov 2008) can be found, then the text may be reinstated. --Red King (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tracked down the original editor and asked him is he has the source. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hectare is metric

The hectare is a metric unit officially defined as one hectometre square (i.e. 10 000 square metres, see Table 6 of the SI brochure edited by the BIPM). However the article seems to imply that it is an imperial one… Sogrünwieeinstern (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. That's a sensible change you have made to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The point of the section is to note fairly random mixed usage - sometimes imperial and sometimes metric. So the fact that Sandringham uses miles and hectares relates directly to topic. I have reinstated, albeit with 'but' rather than 'and' to ensure that readers are clear what point is being made. --Red King (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK more likely than in the US?

Unlike in the US, it seems that more daily things in the UK are metricated. Does full use of the Metric System seem inevitable to you British?

not really in the forseeable future,as culturally it is so entrenched. Even though children are taught in metric in schools their parents generation (including the school teachers)still ostensably think in imperial, thus bring their children up to think that way. Most people still measure their height in feet, distance in miles and of course, drink pints of beer....metrication only really seems to have taken hold in official documents and correspondence etc. when people often need a conversion into metric! Perhaps in the long run it will take hold through the efforts of government. Who knows? Bensonby 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete metrication does seem inevitable in the UK to my generation. I'm 18 years old and whilst most people my age measure their height in feet and inches they would always give short distances and measurements in either metres or centimetres. The same goes for weight, while most weigh themselves in stone very few people my age understand pounds and ounces and would always weigh food at the supermarket in kilograms and grams. And while they do drink pints of beer at the pub its litres of spirits and 75 cl of wine. Its just a matter of time before we are completely metric. marsbar_man 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK does seem to have slowed down. Although we use metric units for most things nowadays, I can't see any sign of traditional units disappearing from the few specific contexts in which they are still used, such as: fresh milk, draught beer, road distances and speeds, prices of oil and precious metals, sizes of TV and computer screens, resolutions of printers and scanners, a person's height, and probably a few other things I've forgotten about or are outside my experience. I could mention the sizes of floppy discs, but the discs themselves have almost disappeared. The way a person's weight is measured is perhaps something that is currently changing. There are still plenty of 30-year-olds who use stones and pounds for that, though I'm over 40 and would strongly prefer kilograms. 217.140.96.21 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Games - purely metric

The Olympic Games are going to be a very high profile story in the UK for the next twelve months. Is it worth mentioning in the Sport sub-section that measurements for the Games are entirely metric? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unless this is unusual, either for the Olympics or for equivalent UK-based tournaments in those sports. This is an article about metrication in the UK, not about sport in the UK or events in the UK. The relevance of the Olympics is not demonstrated. I note, incidentally, that the claim is not backed up by the source provided anyway: the source only mentions the metric system in the context of games that took place over 200 years ago. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Either your comprehension of this matter is lacking or you simply don't want evidence in support of metrication in the article, which is unacceptable POV behaviour. Yes, the article is about metrication in the UK, but the SECTION is about sport in the UK. And I must point out that the modern Olympic began much more recently than 200 years ago. Anyway, the fact that the Olympic is all metric really is unarguable, so probably doesn't need a source. You are losing this debate badly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way does the Olympics reflect metrication in the UK? The 1948 London Olympics were metric too (did you even check that?). When the US hosts the Olympics, they do not do it as a means of expressing support for the metric system, for pity's sake. The Mile record was set in Rome, but that's not RS evidence that Italians are clamouring for pounds and ounces. The role of this article, as of any article on wikipedia, is to document its subject, not function as a platform for campaigns of any kind, nor is it to take on an editor's original research.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the modern Olympics began less than 200 years ago. But let me quote you the only reference your source makes to the metric system:

“ During the French Revolution reformists endeavoured to revive aspects of the ancient games with a national festival 'L'Olympiade de la République'. The festival was held for three years between 1796 and 1798 and include many of the sporting disciplines of the original Olympics. Though the festival had to be abandoned because of the turmoil's of French politics it set a precedent for future games by the introduction of metric measurement into sport generally. ”

Please tell me how exactly this backs up the claim you wish the article to make, and how exactly it demonstrates that claim's relevance to the topic of Metrication in the United Kingdom.

I would echo VsevolodKrolikov's points - he puts them better than I think I would have done - and would note that, for all your accusations and incivility, you don't actually demonstrate that the fact that the Olympics happen to use metric units is in any way relevant to metrication in the UK. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. The Sport section lists a number of popular sports in the UK, and states whether they use metric or imperial measurements, or a bit of both. One of the biggest sporting events in the UK in the next year will be the Olympic Games. It would be wrong to leave it out of such a list. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that the olympic games are themselves a sport. This is an interesting category mistake very similar to the original one suggested by Ryle regarding the tourist who tires of looking at Oxford Colleges and demands to see where the university is. The Olympics are a grand meeting of a wide variety of sports, but the IOC does not itself set the rules for these sports. In terms of rules governing measurements, the Olympics themselves are directly irrelevant, as the rules are set by the relevant international authorities. There is no directive from the IOC that all sports must be "purely" metric.

Furthermore, you've misunderstood the topic of this page. Metrication is a process, and AFAIK none of the sports at the Olympic games are going to increase the use of metric measurements at those games compared to previous internationally recognised events held on UK soil. If they were, it would be notable for that sport alone.

It gets worse for you, as not all of the sports at the Olympics are "purely metric". Association Football, governed by FIFA, specifies measurements in both metric and imperial, with imperial clearly the wholer or rounder number. (Pitch sizes for Olympic baseball as decided by the IBAF are primarily in imperial, although baseball has been dropped for London).

Finally, as stated above, you don't have a source for the 2012 Olympics as a significant event in the metrication of the UK.

It's really quite simple.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you really are desperate to keep out of this article anything that possibly suggests that the metric system even works, let alone might be a desirable thing. There's so much irrelevancy in that post that I give up debating with you. I have neither the time nor the energy. That doesn't mean that you're right. My previous post still says it all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And there we have it. An accusation of bad faith editing based on nothing at all. Well done you. I happen to have settled in an entirely metric country (well, save for room sizes which are expressed in tsubo or tatami), and have great difficulty dealing with imperial measurements these days, particular surrounding food. Recipes on American websites are a bloody nightmare for me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Olympic Games is relevant to a section about Sport this year. That you don't want it there is obvious. That it's (almost) entirely a metric event would appear to be your real reason. You grasped at straws to the finest degree to come up with other excuses to omit this obvious reality. Yes, bad faith. No question about it. You are certainly not trying to make this a better article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Still no sources then. You might want to read WP:V and WP:verifiability, not truth. I find it hilarious that you think I'm plotting against a measurement system.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You really are incapable of discussing the basic points others make, aren't you? Are you interested in making this a better article, or not? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wanting content sourced well is contributing to the encyclopedia. Regarding your personal attacks, you've got form as this ITN discussion shows. If you want to complain about my edits, go ahead, but there's always the boomerang. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I said I was giving up. I should stick to my word and wait and see if anybody else thinks that the Olympic Games is relevant to Sport in the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They're highly relevant to sport in the UK. There's been no evidence provided (yet - I'm happy to consider any provided) to show that they (in particular London 2012) are relevant to metrication in the UK. That's what other people have to consider.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If the games are declared to be more metric in 2012 than they were in, say, 2008 and that the reason for that is demonstrably connected to "Metrication in the United Kingdom", and not merely that the games would be that way anyway, and if there is an RS to support that, then I'll support its inclusion. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov that there is currently no apparent relevance to the article and that the cited reference does not support what was written. -- de Facto (talk). 09:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: this edit. There has been no discussion in this topic for nearly 48 hours now (and it was well over 24 hours when I removed the text), and there is no evidence that any other editors are likely to join in. The text has no previous consensus (it was reverted within 12 hours of first being included) and it is obvious that current consensus does not favour inclusion as is; HiLo is the only person in favour and he has declined to address the reasons provided not to include it (not backed up by the source, challenged as to its accuracy, no demonstrated relevance to the article topic).

HiLo. If you believe that those who oppose this are acting in bad faith, you're welcome to take it to a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. If you are not willing to do so, then please desist from making such claims as they violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The material has been challenged as to its accuracy and relevance. Per WP:V the burden of evidence lies with you to demonstrate both accuracy and relevance, if you want it to remain in the article. If you are not willing to do so, you have no basis to object when it is removed from the article. Pfainuk talk 10:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, you deleted material where there was no consensus for its removal (three editors for keeping, two (one being you) plus one (very different reasons) for deleting. Now you're editing in material where there are three editors for its removal and you alone opposing. You're being tendentious, as well as engaging in uncivil behaviour. I'll repeat the problems with the content. I suggest you read them carefully.

• Your source refers to metrication in the French revolution, not the modern Olympics.
• The Olympics are not exclusively metric, and the IOC does not enforce exclusive metrication on the international bodies it recognises as rule-setters, as evidenced by the IOC-recognised federation rules in association football and baseball, which run both systems together.
• No evidence (ie source) has been provided that any sport in the olympics in 2012 will be more metric than previous internationally recognised events in those sports
• No evidence (ie source) has been provided that local practice in any sport has become more metric because of the impending Olympic games.
• The structure of rule-setting in sports means that any rule change favouring metrication is much more appropriately dealt by referring to the individual sport because, to repeat myself for your benefit, the IOC does not decide the rules for individual sports.

I await your claim that you also have a degree in Olympic studies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I concede that the Olympics are not purely metric. Thanks you for clarifying that. The rest of my initial post still stands. The Olympics WILL be a very significant sporting event in the UK over the next twelve months. Why not mention them? And I really think some editors need to think a little about their aggressive defence of the status quo here. Is it really the article, or imperial measurement you are defending? Yes, I AM concerned about a lack of good faith here. Can't be bothered with the bigger fight though. I do have a life.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Olympic Games are typically done in Metrics. I would assume likewise for the games in the USA at various times, as well as the earlier London hostings of the games. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, just about any sport these days is done in metrics. Any changes have already happened. There's been zero sourcing produced to say that Olympics 2012 is part of the process of metrication of the UK, which is the topic of this article. Given the governing structures of Olympic-approved sport, this is not surprising.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be the point, yes? Wherever the Olympics are held, they use Metric as their standard. That doesn't really have anything to do with metrification of a country as a whole. They had Olympics in the US in 1980 and 1984 and 2002, and it's still 90 feet between the bases and 60 feet 6 inches from the pitcher's plate to home base. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it really is the article I am defending. As Pfainuk points out, you're contravening our principles of civility, so I'd recommend you think about where the aggression is actually coming from.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the mentions of any of the other sports appear to have anything to do with "the process of metrication of the UK". I thought they were there simply to describe the state of metrication of major sports, as is the Olympic Games. It still reads that way to me. I cannot fathom the aggression in the negative responses, unless it's driven by something more than the state of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line would be whether a given sport has advanced the use of Metric in the UK. Unless the UK will be "more metric" after the Olympics than before, it doesn't matter. If sports that are continuously played in the UK have advanced the use of Metric, then they would count. And if they haven't, they shouldn't count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Then the other sports don't belong either, at least not in the way they are currently described. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If those sports switched from English to Metric, then they advanced Metric in the UK, i.e. they made the UK "more metric" in their own way. The Olympics might make the UK "more metric", but only for the few weeks that the Games are held, unless the presence of the Games does something to advance the use of Metric. Having said that, though, I don't see the harm in posting the one-line comment about the Olympics, except its temporary nature needs to be made more explicit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's only Wikipedia making this connection between the 2012 games and metrication, it's original research. As for the other sports, those references are about current British practice, and so are entirely appropriate. It would be nice if we could get a source systematising it a bit. (As an aside, it's interesting how rugby commentary seems to have adapted to metric much more smoothly than football. )VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the rest of the sports section does need to go as well. In terms of content, what it's actually discussing is not what units are used for measurement different sports, but what units selected teams and governing bodies use to describe the physical dimensions of players and athletes. In doing this, it breaks WP:NOR by inferring policies on units based on the units actually used by the websites of selected teams and governing bodies.

In US terms, what it in effect does is ignore the whole four downs in ten yards thing, and instead go into some detail as to what units the New England Patriots use to measure Tom Brady's height and weight on their website. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ASDA

At the best of times, survey are primary sources and also are suspect until proved otherwise. The survey to which de Facto refers was ASDA’s own survey which automatically makes it suspect. Why did ASDA sponsor the survey? Is it trustworthy? Did they take a truly representative sample of their customers or did they only survey pensioners? Would the survey stand up in court? How were “don’t care” answers handled – were they discarded? Unless the survey was conducted by a reputable independent firm, it cannot be taken seriously. In my opinion, the survey cannot therefore be said to be encyclopaedic.

Is it representative of the UK as a whole? Given Asda’s down-market image, the answer to the latter is a very loud “No”.

In conclusion, I think that all references to this survey should be removed from the page. BTW, in real life I some qualifications in statistics. Martinvl (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a similarly strong view on survey results. They should never be used here unless we also tell the readers the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. In this case we are told none of these things, so the text should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A survey report itself may well be a "primary source", as will be the report of any kind of research. However, the survey itself isn't cited - a reliable secondary source reporting the survey is used - as is generally preferred for Wiki articles. Whether we believe or trust the survey is irrelevant - all that is relevant is whether what is said about it is supported, as in this case, by a reliable secondary source. Our job is to include all relevant reliably sourced information, and not to suppress it. Our duty is to achieve balance - regardless of our personal opinion of the class of people who hold the views or of the organisation that collects the views. Given the status of Asda as the UK's second largest supermarket chain, the survey is certainly notable, and is certainly relevant to this article. -- de Facto (talk). 22:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether we believe or trust the survey is completely relevant. At this point, I don't trust the survey. That secondary source tells us what ASDA said about it's survey. That's not good enough. The source for the now added Tesco survey is just as bad. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence in WP:VER supports what I wrote about inclusion: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." -- de Facto (talk). 09:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

These are surveys about ASDA's and Tesco's customers - in the case of Tesco, 11 year-old data. Given the lack of independence in the data gathering, neither can be clssed as being encyclopeadic and both shoudl be removed. Martinvl (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Our job isn't to analyse the data - that is prohibited under WP:OR - our job is only to provide verifiable information - as per WP:VER, such as this data about the surveys. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We can judge the quality of sources. If a source about a survey doesn't tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked, it's not a quality source in that instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 10:41:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That "judgement" is nothing more than personal opinion though. The sources are established RS sources, so can be used to support what they write. Our duty is to write what is reliably supported - not speculate, synthesise or opinionate about what isn't supported. If there is reliably sourced criticism or comment about the surveys then we should include that too. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical thing to say. It's not just personal opinion. Like the first poster here I too am qualified in statistics. I have precisely described my standards for inclusion. It's what is needed to justify the inclusion of survey results in any article. (I have successfully made this point in many other places.) And a source that is generally regarded as reliable doesn't retain that badge for everything it says. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was reliably sourced - it doesn't matter what your opinion of it is. It was written - that's all that matters. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line with surveys is that someone has to pay to have the survey done - as a result any survey is dubious unless it is knownm why the survey was commissioned. The first question to be asked is "If they paid for the information, why are they giving it away?. Surely their competitors could use it as well". One should remember Disreali's comments about "lies, damned lies and statistics" and take into consideration that the work on standard deviations etc was developed well after Disreali's time. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

However, as with all other reliably sourced information in any article, we can leave the reader to check the references and draw their own conclusions. Our job is to neutrally comment on the subject, with support from reliable sources, not to twist, re-interpret or supress what they say. We must present it as we find it - and leave the readers to decide the value of it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your background is in real life, but both User:HiLo48 and myself have received a certain amount of training in assessing this type of data and we are both of the opinion that it is not reliable, thereby negating your entire argument.Martinvl (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion though does not trump the reliable sources. Sources are deemed reliable, not on the whim of whether you agree with or support what they report, but because they have a record of integrity, fact checking, editorial control etc. What your, HiLo48's or my opinion is of what a reliable source reports is of no relevance whatsoever. -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It can be of total relevance. In Australia "The Australian" newspaper is generally regarded as a reliable source. It not long ago published a political article which was soon shown to contain totally inappropriate and inaccurate content. Wiser folk pointed this out, both here and in other places, and that article from an otherwise generally reliable newspaper was not accepted here as a reliable source. You are trying to use a garbage articles to justify poor content here. many other examples can be presented. In the UK some newspapers are excellent sources for football scores, but not so on political matters. HiLo48 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The surveys undoubtedly took place. The reliable sources reported that the surveys took place and conveyed their declared findings. Do you dispute any any of that? -- de Facto (talk). 15:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources conveyed the findings in very summarised form, a form intended to justify a particular action. The sources did not tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. Without such information we are only seeing a biased presenter's conclusion. Don't you want the more accurate information? HiLo48 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that the sources are reliable then? -- de Facto (talk). 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the surveys took place, but there is insufficient eveidence to give them any credibility. How many people were surveyed? How many stores took part in the survey? What steps wer taken to ensure that the sample was not biased? Are they still valid (the Tesco survey took place 11 years ago and the Asda one 4 years ago)? In my experience of journalists, the average run-of-the-mill journalist, (and for that matter man or woman in the street), is insufficiently skilled to be aware that they need to ask these questions let alone know how to interpret the answers. The result is that without skilled statisticians being invovled, the survey must be of a dubious quality and certainly not encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The arguments against the inclusion of this survey are all apparently based solely on claimed editor superior knowledge and therefore should be rejected. They only claim, at most, to know it's not true (because they know more than everyone else). (Actually, the claim is weaker, they claim that it might, in there own experience, be false). Apparently, the opponents have no reliable source to add to the article, and no other objection based on Wikipedia policy, and therefore no standing to change the content, as they are unwilling, unable, or too uninterested, to form a proper objection, or to properly propose additions to the article's content. If you have a personal policy against surveys reported by the media, fine, get it enacted as a blanket prohibition in Wikipedia but don't try to enact it by fiat, or expect other editors to agree to it, on a talk page. And don't edit, or urge others to edit, according to your personal claims.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A few points in response to the last poster:

1. All the "superior knowledge" that I have quoted can be backed up by any undergraduate textbook on statistics. I suggests that he at least reads the article sampling theory and maybe he might learn something.
2. I have no reliable source to add to the article regarding public opinion, because as far as I am aware no such source exists.
3. I have a problem with the use of surveys that are not properly conducted. Does the previous poster have a problem with that?
4. I would point out that in the UK, all public opinion polls in the run-up to an election quote the number of people questioned, how they were selected, when the questioning took place and what questions were asked. These were all absent from the Tesco and Asda surveys.

This should make is quite clear that I am not just acting from what the previous poster has called "personal claims", but from sound statsitical practice.

Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for admitting that you can't be bothered to back up your personal claims with a reliable source (which, in case you are unaware, Wikipedia articles are not.) Nor have you explained how your criticism is relevant to the sourced content, which concerns a grocery store doing an experiment based on a survey. Your assertion of following some "practice" is still unvarified, and thus irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How about

Mulholland, H; Jones, C R (1968). Fundementals of Statistics. London: Butterworth. ISBN 0 408 49200 7.

Are you happy now?

If you check the dates on these reports, you will see that the Tesco report is 11 years old and the Asda one 4 years old. Read the Tesco report, then go to your local Tesco and check whether what is written is still valid. I can tell you right now that as of a few days ago (when I last wento to a Tesco) Tesco prices all of its fresh produce by the kilogram with the imperial equivalent in smaller lettering. The article says otherwise, so things have changed. If you read the Asda report, you will see that the writer of the Which report is not convinced by the Asda assertions. These are further grounds for removing the references from the article. Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• That book doesn't mention the Asda survey, let alone criticise its methods.
• The fact that Asda, the supermarket chain with the second largest market share in the UK, believes (as of May 2011) that 70% of its customers prefer imperial units is notable in the context of this article, and it is covered by reliable secondary sources - so needs including. Whether Asda's methodology in reaching that conclusion was scientifically sound, or not, is unimportant - unless you can produce a reliably sourced notable opinion to the contrary (i.e. not personal OR).
• As for the dates - all the news items on the Asda survey are from May/June 2011. What makes you say the survey is 4 years old? The Tesco (who have the largest market share) survey, albeit from 2000 (and that fact is clearly stated in the article), is also notable and covered in reliable secondary sources and relevant in the context of this article.

-- de Facto (talk). 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mrtinv1-What would make me happy is if you would stop parading your personal experiences (like your grocery tales) as if it matters to this article because it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Most media style websites these days, particularly those for tabloid newspapers, conduct daily polls on matters of "importance", like "Who should be next Prime Minister?" (The election in my country is two years away!) We would never use such poll results in Wikipedia because of the shallowness of the questions and the obvious self-selected nature of respondees. So, there are some polls and surveys that are OK, and some that are not, despite the fact that we can reference them to normally reliable sources. Nothing yet convinces me that these surveys are OK. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've come here from the verifiability not truth discussion. I'm really not clear what the objection to the material is. Could HiLo and Martinv clarify something? Which of the following do you have a problem with (either or both):

• The Asda and Tesco surveys show that consumer support for imperial measures is high.
• Asda and Tesco have stated that they are considering/have considered changing their approach to the use and display of imperial weights and measures in response to survey results that indicated support for the use of imperial measures was high.

These are two different pieces of content, but I wonder if they're getting confused here. I would say the first is too strong for the sourcing we have, but the second is fine. Regarding Tesco's policy, there is this report of a Which survey in 2004 suggesting that Tesco were indeed giving prominence to imperial in loose produce sales. So whatever Tesco does now, it clearly did change towards favouring imperial for some goods as it said it would. I suspect trading standards may have had a word at some point, but I can't find anything more recent than 2004.

Regarding the reliability of the surveys, we simply don't have enough details on the methods for us to be able to apply basic statistical knowledge to see if the surveys are faulty. We cannot presume that the market research organisations involved are incompetent in survey methods without evidence (proper ones employ professional statisticians). So I don't see why having the numbers stated in some form is risky - we clearly state our sources. However, as we can't also confirm they've been done by good organisations, I don't see the problem in attributing the results to company-commissioned surveys without necessarily stating the results as fact. The current language leans a bit too far towards crediting them as demonstrating something true about the world, and could do with tweaking. The Tesco move was reported overseas too.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The first wording is bad because it implies information that we don't have from the sources. Both wordings are bad because the word "high" is imprecise, demanding interpretation by readers according to their own biases. Even the second wording does not tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. And who says market research organisations were involved? As I said above, every day we get online surveys from media websites (therefore from reliable sources) that we wouldn't dream to use here because we know they are rubbish and meaningless. Really, without more details, any mention of these surveys is deceptive at best. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK - in that case I think you've got two issues confused. The first statement, as I said, is bad. But look again at the second version and at the sources. Tesco and ASDA both take the surveys as showing that support for using imperial measurements was high (90% is high for pity's sake, and the secondary source for ASDA describes the results as "plenty") and they both stated they would take action. Nowhere in that second statement does it say that it is genuinely true that support for the use of imperial measures is high. We don't know about the survey methods, and perhaps Tesco and ASDA have completely misunderstood the results. But it's clearly the case that they felt the results were high enough to issue press releases and change policy. To be honest, it looks like you're criticising Tesco and ASDA for how they have responded to, and reported on, survey results. That the surveys were biased and hopelessly done would be worth including, but only if you have actual RS material on that. (Martinv's citing of a general stats textbook only makes his qualifications look somewhat meagre. He could have cited Marketing Research (Routledge, 2006) which I understand is well thought of and has a nice chapter on sampling - which is probably one of the most likely problems in accessing customer views, or a whole number of books a bit more on the nail when it comes to the problems of this kind of research.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't know if the surveys were well conducted and the results properly interpreted, not do we know that they weren't, and that's the primary point here. We don't enough about them for the claimed results to deserve any mention at all here. BTW - here's a radical perspective. Both stories are about the stores surveying their customers. If a business wants to improve market share, it will survey those people who are not customers, yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't know whether or not they were interpreted correctly. But we do know that they were interpreted (or are you denying that?). And we know the supermarkets acted on that interpretation. What exactly is your objection to content as it stands? Your last sentence indicates your beef is with Tesco and ASDA, not with wikipedia content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Including the claimed survey results implies that they were valid. We have no evidence of that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not with proper attribution. Which?, the BBC and other news organisations have all reported these results - we'd need more than a misspelt undergraduate stats book as counter evidence that we were somehow misleading by saying "Tesco said X and Asda said Y". It's quite hard to fathom why you would even want to censor the information that they saw in these surveys evidence of high support for imperial measures.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the word censorship to describe the actions of someone saying some content is not acceptable is very unethical. If you can convince me the surveys were properly done and really did deliver the findings claimed, I would have no objection to their inclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What word would you use for the suppression of content on spurious and ill-founded grounds? Our job isn't to apply our own analysis to notable and reliably sourced information - it is to report it in neutral terms. The surveys, and resultant actions, are notable and are reported in reliable sources - so rightly belong in the article. That is how Wikipedia should work. Have you read the 'five pillars' - particulararly the NPOV one which says: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here"? -- de Facto (talk). 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole of the Which article about Asda, you will see that the writer is actually questioning the validity of the Asda rersearch, but doing it in such a way as not to open herself up to an expensive defense if Asda were to bring a case of libel against her. This tells me that the section on Asda was taken ourt of context from the original article in such a way that it should be removed from the article. Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I had indeed read the whole of the article. Have you read WP:original research? Where does it say she's avoiding libel? The writer does not question the research itself, she questions the wisdom of reintroducing imperial alongside the obligatory metric information. She also identifies as someone who is not accustomed to imperial measures. And crucially, she does not deny that ASDA commissioned a survey, or that the understanding of the results by Asda was that 70% of shoppers were confused by metric and would prefer things in imperial, and that ASDA is responding to this. There is a big difference between questioning research and questioning how one responds to it. That won't be in your stats textbook ;-) It doesn't mean she embraces the methods, she simply doesn't comment on them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And there in that post we have a classic example of how survey results become distorted. You said that Which said that Asda said that "70% of shoppers were confused..." What Which actually said that Asda said was that "70% of its shoppers were confused..." By leaving out the "its" you have now made a statement that could have quite a different meaning, i.e. all shoppers, or some undefined larger group of shoppers, were confused. It probably won't be, but in some contexts your sentence could be copied on to other places, attributing a very different result to Asda's survey. I know it wasn't deliberate, and you will probably say that precision doesn't matter here, but that's really where we disagree, isn't it? (Oh, and BTW, our article says "customers", not "shoppers" as in the source, again not quite the same thing. People ARE careless, aren't they?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, you're really, truly grasping at straws. Was I proposing what I wrote as text to be included in the article? Err...no. So that was a waste of time, wasn't it? As for "customers", feel free to change that to "shoppers". This is wikipedia, after all.

Neither you nor Martinv has actually shown any systematic problem with market research surveys done by either of these companies, let alone a specific problem with these ones sufficient enough for us to hide specific information from our readers for fear they might go away sorely misled and confused about the "true"(TM) state of mind of these companies' shoppers. Unless, that is, you're going to argue that no one should be allowed to read about surveys unless they've had as much edyoocashun as the two of you - which, to be frank, is what you're verging on implying at times. (Does it really take a course in stats to understand that surveys can sometimes be cooked or abused for PR reasons?) If you're worried about the poor reader being led astray by naughty supermarkets, why not go looking for other surveys from dependable organisations and let people make their minds up? I found this 2007 Mori poll which asks about metrication in general (rather than shopping behaviour and views) that puts opposition at 56%, with 22% undecided. And of course, this is a different survey population, not being limited to Asda shoppers, in addition to being a different question - but we can explain that in the text, wherever we put the content. This very brief NOP ICM 2002 survey about how people think of distances between places might also be worth including too. We don't have a section regarding public opinion on metrication, which is surprising, although it doesn't appear to be an often-surveyed topic, at least judging by my own internet searches. There are the British Weights and Measures Association sponsored surveys, but there would be genuine prima facie RS and NPOV concerns for their quality given the BWMA is an advocacy group. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Quit the mockery. It's never a nice approach. It's not education that's the issue here. It's thinking, clarity and logic. And again, you're drawing your own conclusions about questions asked. That's OR. A GOOD survey report would tell us what the questions were. The place to look for the sort of thing I'm talking about is public opinion polls about voting intentions, from high quality pollsters, especially near an election. They WILL tell us what the questions were and what their sample was. Asda and Tesco haven't. I'm disappointed in your low standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's not about education, then you shouldn't assert qualifications as if they make your opinion count for more than one, as both you and Martinvl have done, OK? Regarding your standards of evidence: public opinion polls on voting intentions "near an election" would be surreal proxies for public opinion on imperial versus metric. Polling near an election at all is slightly worrying if the issue has been part of a campaign. Timing in surveys is a (cough) well-known potential source of bias.

You've both got the wrong end of the stick anyway. I don't think anyone here means to claim the surveys as gold standard evidence for factual statements about public opinion or even the opinions of the shoppers at those stores. No one objects to the content being quite clear that these surveys were commissioned by Tesco and Asda, and any description of the results is attributed to Tesco and Asda. With all those caveats, both pricing moves have been reported in multiple reliable sources with specific mention of the polling numbers. For example, Asda's survey is reported in industry sources Retail Week and also in The Grocer, as well as the usual suspects like the Daily Mail, Sun and Express. The results are DUE not because they are good results but because they were specifically cited by dominant retailers as reasons for policy changes as reported in several places - and for good measure are not treated as suspect by any of the RS I have seen mentioned here. The Metric Association seems pretty certain that Asda's move is a PR stunt, but that needs to find its way into RS. As I've said above, I think the phrasing at the moment needs to be more cautious, and I'd happily edit except that the section is disputed right now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets get to the point. Goods, such as fresh produce, sold by the pound appear to be cheaper than good sold by the kilogram and for this reason unscrupulous merchants might well prefer to price their goods by the pound rather than by the kilogram. Given this situation, it is quite reasonable to ask whether or not these articles are really disinformation being put out by the stores in question in order to justify a switch to using pounds and ounces (a serious charge) or a lesser "charge" of seeking to drum up cheap publicity "spam". If either of these are the case. Since the burden of proof of reliability lies with the person posting the article, I challlenge User:DeFacto to demonstrate that this in not disinformation and not spam. In answering, would he please also demonstrate why Criticism of Walmart is not relevant to his argument (Walmart is the owner of Asda). Martinvl (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You're asking someone to prove a negative, which isn't right. You've got to show - with evidence and not assertion of qualifications or the OR you include above - that the sources for the information are wrong or that the content introduces POV into the article. Secondly, Criticism of Walmart makes no mention of Walmart campaigning against metric measures or producing spurious customer surveys as PR. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, (they don't appear to be the nicest of companies) but that page seems to bear no relationship to this topic specifically. Thirdly, if you have RS describing these pricing tactics, for Heaven's sake include it in the article! (I can only find blogs and chatsites) It would clearly be relevant to the topic, and probably due (depending on the RS, of course - national paper would be good).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, if you have reliably sourced information questioning the motives behind these surveys please add it, if you don't then please stop digging your hole deeper. However, even if you have such information, the reliably sourced discussion of these surveys belong in the article - because they are notable and becuase they are reported in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing which can alter those facts.

That the BBC and Which? are reliable sources is well established - they comply with the criteria. Whether they have been duped into reporting "disinformation" is irrelevant - as history cannot be changed. If there is reliably sourced material claiming that to be the case then it should most certainly be included, but your personal opinion doesn't qualify as such. -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look up WP:BURDEN, you will see "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." I have identified serious shortcomings in the amount of supporting information related to the surveys in question – the reports have failed to identify how the sample was identified, failed to state the size of the sample and failed to state the actual questions asked. Without these the surveys are worthless.

I have gone further than to merely criticise the lack of evidence that would support this as being a reliable survey – I have highlighted a scenario which, if proven, refutes the assertion that this is a reliable survey. The evidence that I have provided is circumstantial, but shows a level of distrust of Tesco’s policies which can be borne out by the following reports that I have found about Tesco: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

In line with Wikipedia policy of WP:burden it is up to you to provide evidence that the surveys are reliable and that in this instance my distrust of Tesco is misplaced. Likewise with the ASDA survey. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

However, and the point you seem to be persistently missing/evading is that, we are not asserting how scientific the surveys were (sample sizes, etc), we are asserting that the surveys are reported as having taken place and what the reported findings and resultant actions were. The cited references adequately support that - and are from well established reliable sources. There is nothing further to prove - as far as wp:burden is concerned we have satisfied its demands! -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

In 1965, Douglas Jay, president of the Board of Trade, asked for metrication of British industry product by product in order to reach full metrication within 10 years. [7]

In the months leading up to April 1976, Britons learned to calculate in the metric system. [8]

You can imagine that it wouldn't be hard to add a lot of similar crap here. Now suppose I'm an idiot who wants to force it into the article. What prevents me from doing it? After all, it's verifiable. Hans Adler 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing would prevent you (anyone can edit wikipedia, after all), but people would remove it afterwards as poorly sourced and an over-interpretation (OR) at that. I'm surprised at you calling people (like yourself) who think this is what the policy on verifiability currently implies "idiots". I wouldn't have called you that, even though I think you're wrong. Verifiability meshes with reliable sourcing and no original research. You make the mistake of thinking they are separable.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We have gone round and round in circles and I have now deleted the references to these surveys. Before they are re-instated, may I refer interested partices to the second point in the section Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws#Issues to look out for. My response is "Given the past record of both stores, I cannot rule out the possibility that their agenda is to hoodwink their customers". Martinvl (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So we have three editors who want to keep the material, and three who want to keep it out. Both of those two have declared POVs on their userpages, and one of them has started launching personal attacks. Martinvl and HiLo48 are not following policy regarding disputes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, your reason for deletion is deeply flawed. Firstly an essay carries no weight and does not trump policy. Secondly the reliable sources cited are the BBC and Which? (not the stores themselves). The BBC and Which? have deemed the information to be newsworthy. Are you suggesting that those esteemed organisations have an agenda to "hoodwink" the customers of those stores? Thirdly there is no consensus to remove the information. -- de Facto (talk). 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans, in the examples you give the discussion would probably hinge on notability and relevance to the article content. That hasn't been the case with these surveys. Notability and relevance hasn't been disputed, it is the reliability of the sources that is being questioned (the BBC and Which?, sources which are generally trusted and accepted as reliable) - using the curious and illogical tactic of personal opinion of the scientific validity of the surveys themselves and personal opinion of the possible motives of those conducting, commissioning or releasing details of the surveys. -- de Facto (talk). 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about we take the matter to RSN? Would people accept the input of editors there? We can put up the disputed paragraphs with the sources and see what people think.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the ASDA claim, putting it into context as seen by "Which". If my rewording is acceptable, there is no need to go to RCN. The Tesco quote is 11 years old and is probably not worth repeating (unless it is tied into the newer "Which" comment that is already in the artcile). Martinvl (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the rewording and restored the important point about the preferrence for imperial. The Tesco survey is all the more significant because of its date - just after the law change of January 2000. -- de Facto (talk). 12:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys aware that 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot? Does the UK have TV ads like my country which tell you that 9 out of 10 dentists us brand X toothbrush? (They fail to mention that Brand X toothbrushes are sent free to dentists all the time.) Statistics are abused all the time. That's what this is about. You wouldn't put results from the daily tabloid Internet polls in Wikipedia. The fundamental point is that we don't accept all statistics. There is a borderline. Most people haven't even thought about where that borderline of acceptance should be. Don't make that decision based on what matches your opinion on this topic. Be a little bit more scientific and logical. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_reports_of_market_research_surveys, because there is no way through this without more eyes. We could have worked on it collectively to provide a fair account of each side, but HiLo and Martin were not interested. So I've done my best to represent your arguments as they have appeared here.

As for the "context" provided for the Which? survey, I do not see how the personal experience of a single journalist, buying produce not at Asda but at a farmer's market, provides context for a survey on the opinions of a large sample of people shopping at Asda. If we want to talk about abuse in presentation of research, this is a very good example. Why omit the mention of the farmers' market? Keyboard run out of pixels?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the RCN summary is fair apart form one small addition - I would like it mentioned that both HiLo48 and I have claimed real life qualifications in statistics. I think that this is relevant because we are both using our "expert" knowledge to interpret the sources and the degree to which "expert" knowledge should be heeded might well be a factor. (I used the term "expert" is the way that a witness in court might be an expert witness). Martinvl (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note to that effect.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

At this stage, may I suggest that everybody in this discussion hold back until other editors have their say. Martinvl (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the following on the Wikiproject Statistics group discussion board:

A group of which am a member need help regarding the reliability of market surveys and hacve posted a request for inpedendent advice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_reports_of_market_research_surveys. Since market surveys are a branch of applied statistics, could I request input from members of the statitics group.

Martinvl (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting more eyes on this. I should point out that It's not simply about reliability of the surveys, though. It's really important you understand that. It's that every single report of Tesco's policy change mentions the survey findings. How do we handle this? I'm reluctant to keep the information out as it seems like a key part of the story - which is why I would put it in with clear attribution.

As for the survey, my own suspicion is that if it was done in house and accidentally-on-purpose deliberately biased, it would probably have been in the questions (a few subtle warm up ones to push you in the right direction - "How do you feel about regulations from Brussels?" etc.) or the sample timing (middle of the day shoppers more likely to be pensioners but this not taken into account) or location rather than complex calculation errors (GCSE maths, not undergrad). Possibly a sample-adjustment based on the most convenient available demographic profile of Tesco shoppers. Something that will leave as few Tesco employees involved in the survey aware that something has been done oddly. Properly done surveys at that time still produced clear majorities in favour of continued use of imperial, only lower than Tesco's, which suggests to me that if there was bias, it was in the survey instrument rather rather than fixing the sums.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that VK. Those possibilities are exactly the kind of thing I've been getting at when I've said, several times, that we don't know what questions were asked, of whom, and in what context. My shopping strategy is such that I would be unlikely to even bother responding to a survey in a supermarket. Those who would answer are from a different demographic. That matters. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do know a certain amount about how social and market research is done (I try to show it rather than assert it). As I pointed out on RSN, there's a difference between an inhouse team doing a survey and a properly done one. Surveyors are commonly required to fill quotas according to demographics. You may not stop, but people fitting your demographic will be stopped (and post collection other adjustments will be made to the sample). It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than simply whoever will stop. Not all surveys of people walking down the street are going to be bunk because of bad sampling or bad adjustment for sampling.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I think that you've misrepresented the discussion there. The main point is not about how scientific the study was; it is about whether the BBC and Which? are reliable sources for the assertions made about the study in this article. It is a question of RS, not of statistics. -- de Facto (talk). 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the Which report was that the jourtnalist concerned as casting doubt on the validity of the survey. Why did she cite her experience of going to a farmer's market - quite simple? Simple - you don't understand what people really think by watching them pick up pre-packed vegetables, you have to watch them actually asking the assistant for the vegetables concerned. You can't do this in Asda - there is nobody to ask. Why didn't she report on what she saw rather than the way she did it? Simple - it would not have been representative unless it was a properly organised survey and she did not have the budget to do it. What did she do? She gave her own experiences with the implication that this is how most people shopped. Now let me ask you a question - when did you last buy loose vegetables at a supermarket/market stall? How do you ensure that you get value for money? Do you tend to shop the same way as the journalist did? Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl - with the greatest respect, that's all a load of codswallop.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I disagree with your interpretation. In my opinion she is acting as a catalyst for discussion of the topic. She gives the view that there is a generation of people who don't shop by weight, but by the number of items. That doesn't mean she doubts the survey results. There are still the older generations who will have been brought up to shop by weight, probably pounds and ounces, who will make up most of the majority who would prefer labelling to be in pounds.

In answer to your question; it doesn't matter how I shop - my views and practices are irrelevant - as are yours. The article reports on a survey and the actions taken by a supermarket in response to their interpretation of the findings. That is what the article should reflect.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I will ignore VK's comment.

DeFacto however made a valid suggestion - the author was trying to stimulate discussion. I read the postings and although there were a number of different points of view, Asda's suggestion that 70% of its customers are confused by metric units is not reflected in the comments that were made. Regarding DeFacto's suggestion that it is mainly older people who would be drawn to using pounds, do the sums. I assumke that people born before 1960 (now aged 51) would have done their schooling in imperial units and those born after that year would have used metric units. Assuming that people shop for their food from the age of 20 until the age of 80, about half would have been taught the metric system, at school. Thus, if 70% are confused by metric units, what went wrong at school? Or were Asda telling porkies? Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

...or did they just run a sloppy survey? There's plenty of them around. Several times here I've mentioned the daily online polls conducted on newspaper and TV websites, often otherwise regarded as reliable sources. But there's no way we would use those surveys as reliable sources on Wikipedia. On that we all agree. (I hope.) So why are so many here so keen to unquestioningly accept the ASDA survey which we have no more reason to trust? I also note that I've asked this question about five times here now, and had no response. That tells me a lot about those who are keen to include the ASDA survey in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy, or not, it's what the RS reported that's important - have you read WP:VER? If you can find an RS alleging sloppiness please include it to balance the valid RS content already present. That the survey is RS and should be in the article doesn't imply that anyone (even the person who added it) accepts (or rejects) its validity, just that they believe it should be included, for NPOV reasons perhaps. Please don't attempt to assert or second guess the motives of others by reference to their acceptance, or otherwise, of your personal POV and prejudices on this issue. -- de Facto (talk). 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There has to be some reason why you extremely repeatedly ignore my observations about unreliable online polls in otherwise reliable sources. When conducting negotiations it's always wise to work out the real motivations behind the behaviour of those with whom one is negotiating. You haven't explained your behaviour adequately, so I have to guess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If I appear to "ignore" your POV about the reliability of the surveys it's because it is irrelevant. It is not supported in the RS and has no place here. The reason for inclusion of the survey info is because it is a relevant and notable contribution to the article and it is reliably sourced. -- de Facto (talk). 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, Martinvl, your supposition could be wrong. As it wasn't until 2000 that selling fruit & veg by the pound became illegal, it is quite possible that many of those who, although educated in metric, were exposed to shopping in pounds and may have been influenced by or followed the example of their elders and got used to shopping in pounds. That would leave only those who didn't become aware of shopping until after 2000 and who would have never been exposed to imperial - lets be generous and say all of those those born since 1990. What percentage of the population was born before 1990? Certainly more than 70%. However, both my and your calculations are OR, so count for nothing. What does count however is what the RS says. -- de Facto (talk). 21:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One point that has been repeatedly skirted is why we mention Asda - Asda's customers, more than the other "big four", are concentrated in the "D" socio-economic group (ie unskilled workers), so only quoting Asda without an appropriate qualifiation of teh associated bias is a mis-representation of fact. Martinvl (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If we say it's Asda's shoppers, we're not misrepresenting anything. If we were to generalise to all supermarket shoppers, we would be. The reason why we mention Asda is not because of their demographic, but because it's mentioned in several RS. I have absolutely no idea why you think people are focusing on Asda because of its demographic, unless you're trying to insinuate that people are POV editing. We can't mention Asda's demographic in relation to this because it would be original research to put the two things together.

That said, I'm inclined to replace Asda's numbers in the lede with some broader-based polling sampling the general population. We're a bit hamstrung by the sense of that part of the lede being about 2011, but that can be changed to accommodate slightly older research if it's the best we've got. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In Australia we have the national government body, the Australian Bureau of Statistics which routinely produces pretty reliable statistics on all sorts of stuff. (Never seen metrication. We got over that decades ago.) Is there an equivalent UK body? HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The UK has the Office for National Statistics, which traces its history back to the census of 1086. -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the simple, simplistic, admittedly interesting, but ultimately pointless answer. I was hoping that you would be able to tell from the broader context what kind of an answer would really have been helpful here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, you'll need to elaborate, because I don't see any connection between our discussions here about the reliability of Which? as a source for the Asda story and the ABS. I answered the only question you posed. -- de Facto (talk). 12:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, the ABS and the ONS are equivalent bodies, and neither is in the business of doing opinion polls. They handle Census data and other information that informs the detail of policy (not what people think of policy, but the state of the nation - health, social habits, family and housing patterns and so on.). They don't (i.e. shouldn't) do work for their respective governments assessing popularity of policies. In the UK, it's market/social research organisations like NOP, ICM, Gallup etc that typically cover people's opinions about the world (as well as commissioned research done by university departments, often at the behest of governments.) I hope that answers your question.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I don't think anything has been "skirted", the reason for the metion is pretty clear - we mention Asda because it is their survey that we are discussing. It needs correctly attributing so that the reader knows the background context. It carries weight too because Asda have the UK's second biggest share of the market. If you can find a reliably sourced survey of Waitrose or M&S customers then that should be included and accurately attributed too. -- de Facto (talk). 10:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not be included either. At least not with the same undue weight with which this poll is already being pushed into the article. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that ASDA said they were motivated by a poll. It's barely encyclopedic information (remember? encyclopedias are about condensing information, which involves leaving out irrelevant details), but whether to include it or not is ultimately a matter of style. But the number that came out from the poll is meaningless without a lot more detail that we just don't have. It's a problem with sources such as newspapers that they don't understand statistics, and neither do their typical readers, so they provide exact numbers without the context that would make them meaningful. There is also no indication that the number is sufficiently reliable to be relevant to the article itself as opposed to the ASDA digression. Therefore the only valid (i.e. non POV-pushing) reason to include the number is to go into excessive detail on a very, very minor point. This is by far outweighed by the fact that readers who find statistics about acceptance of the metric system in an article about metrication will interpret them as saying something about acceptance of the metric system. That's why several editors have been saying that the apparent lack of quality is a problem.

In case it wasn't clear: There are two conceivable reasons to include the poll result:

1. because it is relevant to why ASDA started offering Imperial, and ASDA starting to offer Imperial is relevant to metrication in the UK;
2. because the number sheds light on acceptance of metrication in the UK.

Under the first rationale the number would be part of a rambling digression, so it's no wonders that some editors are concentrating on the much more reasonable second rationale. Hans Adler 15:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I came across two interent entries of interest:

1. [9]
2. [10]

The first of these is a typical professional-quality survey, but it comes at a price - $4795. It is the sort of reprot that the marketing managers look at carefully when planning their strategy. You will notice that the methodology used is described in an appendix.

The second of these is a gvernmetn report into the oligopoly that the four big supermarkets have in the UK. If you go to page 16 of this report, you can see the socio-economic breakdwon of each of the big four's customer base. It is noteworthy that Asda's customer base is more skewed towards a partcilar socio-economic group (Group D - unskilled and manual workers) than the other supermarkets, meaning that a survey made of its customers is the least representative of Britian as a whole.

I trust that this puts both the quality of the Asda and Tesco surveys into perspective, and in particular shows why the Asda customer base is the least representative of the UK's shoppers.Martinvl (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, what's the obsession with the socio-economic groups and whether they are "representative of the UK's shoppers"? All it says is that Asda (UK's 2nd largest by share) chose to start using imperial again after a survey of their shoppers. A notable event reported in sources with a reputation for being reliable. Nothing more, nothing less. No-one (other than you apparently) seems to feel the need to assume that it therefore implies that 70% of the UK public don't want metrication. -- de Facto (talk). 16:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hans, they've hardly been given undue weight - buried as they are in a small sub-section. Perhaps you mean they shouldn't be included in the section intro or in the lead? The first reason you give for inclusion is exactly the reason for inclusion. There is no attempt made to extrapolate or imply a wider meaning. And by "several" editors complaining you mean just you and 2 others? The complainants have yet to poduce a convincing argument to justify their attempts to suppress this information. -- de Facto (talk). 16:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using unnecessarily emotive language. Suggesting that something does not belong in an article is NOT suppression of information. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, please answer some of the outstanding criticisms or questions about your stance on this - or concede that your stanc ise unsustainable. This has gone on long enough now I think, even without further unproductive distractions. -- de Facto (talk). 06:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made many points above. They still stand. Putting your disagreement with my position in words like that adds nothing to the discussion. That post, in fact, is an unproductive distraction. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have made some points yes, however most, if not all, of them have been challenged and many of those challenges remain unanswered. If there are no answers, then the points cannot still stand - they have been toppled. -- de Facto (talk). 08:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. You are adding nothing to the discussion, just making sweeping statements that you don't really like what I've said. My points stand. And this discussion is pointless. I shall not respond again unless you contribute something new. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Without support your toppled points remain in ruins. Cuurently the balance is heavily in favour of keeping the info on the Asda and Tesco surveys in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 08:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on Asda and Tesco and added a reference to Waitrose to put things into chronological order and knit everything together into a coherent whole. I have also removed the Asda commetn from the lede as it has WP:UNDUE prominence in that section. Martinvl (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted it as it introduces a whole new selection of non-neutral language, personal POV and OR to this apparently controversial and sensitive area. -- de Facto (talk). 08:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undone User:DeFacto’s reversion. Given the number of references involved, it is better to see them in situ in the article, so I have been WP:BOLD and updated the article. Issues that might need to be discussed in fine-tuning the changes that I have made include:

• Is it appropriate to note the different socio-economic groups served by Waitrose and Asda? So far this article has not touched on that matter.
• Given the unreliability of the Asda reference, does the Waitrose reference balance it>
• Is it appropriate to mention the Asda reference in the lede. I think not, as this would be WP:UNDUE, unless this can be put into context, citing the Waitrose (and potentially other supermarket) policies in a short sentence.

Finally, I would not be unhappy if the whole Asda/Waitrose section be removed – but either both must stay, or both be removed. Martinvl (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That edit was inflammatory and uncalled for, so I reverted it. We haven't yet reached a consuensus for how to proceed. Replacing RS sourced comment with personal OR and non-netral wording, even "supporting" it with a self-published house magazine is unacceptable at this stage. -- de Facto (talk). 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For Heaven's sake HiLo and Martinvl, you are behaving badly. You appear to think that consensus is what YOU think is a good argument. This is not acceptable. The issue is clearly in dispute and has not been resolved. Hash out a new version on the talkpage, do not ignore anyone who disagrees with you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You and DeFacto are behaving badly. I was sitting quietly, hoping for some sensible thought to arise with time, but it led instead to a claim by DeFacto that because I hadn't posted for a while, my points had been toppled. Bloody ridiculous. A debate should never be won by the largest volume quantity of verbal diarrhoea. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never commented on how long it had been since you made a post. I did point out that your arguments have been demolished and you didn't attempt to defend them - you appear to have well and truly lost the debate. -- de Facto (talk). 21:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I support VsevolodKrolikov's comments. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you DeFacto. Here's an example of the dangers of Martinvl's original research. Waitrose on-line offer customers the opportunity to specify orders for some loose produce in imperial. (Go to the website and try to buy some Carlingford new potatoes, for example). We need RS secondary sources covering the positions of these supermarkets. Martinvl makes a good point that Asda customers may, given their socioeconomic background, be more likely to register a preference for imperial. The problem we have in Wikipedia terms in handling that is that we don't have a source saying that. Putting together a poll in 2000 (ICM found lower socio-economic groups more likely to dislike metric) with information on Asda's demographics from a Guardian article that does not mention metric, in order to assess Asda's own poll as described in Which? is WP:original research. Again I feel the need to stress that this is Wikipedia, not someone's research project. We don't combine sources like this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts – so what exactly are you trying to communicate by adding the Asda statement? Unless this statement is put into context of the article as a whole, it add nothing to the article. That is why I added the Waitrose reference.

BTW, I have also moved the bit about Tesco to the start of the paragraph because that is where it belongs chornologically.Martinvl (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of a specific survey, it's insufficient to demonstrate a point one way or another. If you could find a broader survey, that would be much better. As far as justifying it based on reliable sources, that's only a minimum requirement, it's not a ticket to inclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, you don't think coverage in reliable sources like Which?, Retail Week here, The Grocer here, as well as national tabloids Daily Mail here, Daily Express here and the Sun here and also, for example, regional newspaper coverage in the Scunthorpe Telegraph here isn't enough to constitute due weight for inclusion? I wouldn't cite the tabloids directly as RS on a topic like this, but their coverage adds to the weight (We have RS to verify that the event happened). I agree we should look for opinion polls of a wider base for the lede (sacrificing up-to-dateness a little, but it's the best we can do). I just hope some of the other editors here are patient enough to work out a new addition to the lede without trying to batter their preferred version into the text.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Waitrose Weekend

Martinvl, could you give more details about the Waitrose Weekend reference? What does it actually say? What page is it on?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) More: I don't like the Daily Mail as a source, but it said in June 2011, "Both the Co-op and Waitrose have recently - and very quietly - reintroduced traditional weights on loose fruit and vegetables.source here. My suspicions are also raised by this user subpage, where Martinvl uses the same source to claim only that the magazine uses exclusively metric (on edit - the same　claim is made here - I misread the edited txt). There's also noise on metricviews.org.uk (a campaign group for metric) about Waitrose' recent move, lending weight to the feeling that the source Martinvl is using is not adequate for the claim he is making, and is highly likely to be original research.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, is your evidence stronger than evidence here that the Co-op magazine uses exclusively imperial? (ie, is it based on more then checking what units that particular issue used?) I'm not clear on why free magazines are due content here. What clearly is due (through news coverage), is what customers face when they try to buy goods. To be honest, going into things like free magazines looks like someone trying to find evidence in support of metrication, rather than covering the topic from a neutral point of view. That's particularly the case if the content is based on primary sources, as it means you're putting forward your own arguments. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of Waitrose Weekend next to me – my wife picked it up yesterday. It has 24 pages with metric units on pages 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15. (I have ignored 5 pages of pure advertising). Metric units included text in recipes such as “340 g jar Essential Waitroses Tomato and Basil Pasta sauce”, “650 g Apples” (always sold loose), oven temperatures in degrees Celsius or gas mark (but not Fahrenheit). It also has a gardening section where it advises “Make a flat-bottom trench 5 cm deep and 15 cm wide …” . It also has a weekend radio and television section. I also saw their quarterly magazine last night, but my wife has since thrown it out – it followed the same format. One of the statements of general advice in it was “Use metric scales and measuring spoons”. The importance of citing the measurements used in free magazines is that those are the units of measure that their customers would expect to find. The above summary is verifiable – you can go to your nearest branch of Waitrose and pick up a copy and check what I wrote (OK, you might get the weeks copy in which case the page numbers will be different). This is in complete contrast to the Asda assertion – I cannot verify Asda’s assertion without asking Asda to supply their figures and methodology. In short, I do not know if Asda are lying and the way in which Which? presented the article suggests that Which? themselves are not convinced about its accuracy.

Regarding you comment about Sainburys and Waitrose - I did a little original research this afternoon and visited both stores (before reading your comments) – if they advertise a loose product by the kilogram, then they include the imperial equivalent on the label, but in text that is less than a half the height of the metric text. This is obviously original research and therefore has no place in Wikipedia (which also means that we should strip out half the article!). Martinvl (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, what do you believe is the essential difference between walking around Sainsbury's and observing their price tags and thumbing through the Waitrose magazine and observing the units used within it that leads you to summise that writing about your experience in Sainsbury's would be OR, whereas writing about your experience in the Waitrose magazine would be perfectly acceptable? Could it be that the one supports you POV where the other doesn't? Surely both are be text-book examples of OR. -- de Facto (talk). 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not particularly happy about citing the Waitrose reference: in my view however, what I have done is a lot more objective than than what you have done. Lets get things back into perspective - "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". In this case, either the British public are incredibly stupid or there was something amiss wth the Asda statement or why do you see fit to refer to it three times in one article? I have identified that Asda, more than any other supermarket chain has, as its customer base, the least educated members of our society. This makes the Asda research at best, rather biased towards a particular sector of the population as possibly explains the question "[are] the British publis incredibly stupid". If this is the case, how can you justify mentioning it three times in the article without trying to put it into perspective and even more so attacking those who do? If you agree to removing all references to the Asda report, I'll not push the Waitrose one. Martinvl (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You say you are "not particularly happy about citing the Waitrose reference"? It clearly wasn't a good-faith addition then. Martinvl, here are some questions that you need to answer to help us understand your objectives here and your motives:

• Why did you cite the Waitrose reference?
• What is the "exceptional claim" to which you refer with respect to the Asda survey comment?
• Why do you think that your OR about the socio-economic profile of Asda customers is relevant?
• Why do you think it matters whether the Asda research is representative of the whole nation, or not?
• There has been no rational reason given for the removal of "all references to the Asda report", so why would you imagine that I would even contemplate agreeing to its removal?
• What makes you think it matters whether you "push the Waitrose one", or not, when it clearly doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion?

Your assertions and behaviour on this is getting a bit too arrogant now for my liking. Have you read WP:Tendentious editing? -- de Facto (talk). 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, quite apart from this being a clear case of original research (Wikipedia editor consults primary source to draw conclusions about that primary source), for someone who is very assertive in declaring his expertise in handling these kinds of data issues, I'm rather surprised you consider this good evidence at all. Your claims about the validity of various pieces of evidence display a strong bias towards promoting the cause of metrication. Your user page also proclaims this bias too. If you really want to aspire to being trusted on Wikipedia, you need to sort these kinds of issues out. I recommend that you take out the Waitrose magazine reference, as it's not supported by sourcing appropriate to the Wikipedia project, both in terms of OR and in terms of coverage in reliable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of RS support for the assertions, I've just removed it as OR. -- de Facto (talk). 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I had been hoping that Martinvl would do this voluntarily. But removing it is right. The content is clearly not supported by RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting together information from opinion polls

Let's assemble some opinion poll details to form a section and something appropriate for the lede to get past the impasse over Asda in the lede. Put more recent first, and hopefully get some historical ones to let readers see how polls have changed over time. As itsmejudith pointed out over on RSN, major polling organisations are members of the Marketing Research Association and are bound by a code of conduct not to doctor results to suit their sponsors. I've put a section for discussion at the bottom, so that people can look at the information we have clearly.

2007

this Mori poll, commissioned by the Sun says:

Q12 As you may have heard, the EU recently decided to drop rules that would require Britain to use metric measurements of traditional units like pounds, pints and miles.

How strongly would you support and oppose Britain switching to use entirely metric measurements, rather than continuing to use traditional units? %

Question	result in %
Strongly support switching to metric	11
Tend to support switching to metric	8
Neither support nor oppose	22
Tend to oppose switching to metric	14
Strongly oppose switching to metric	42
Don't know	3
Total support	56
Total Oppose	19

2002

this ICM poll on distances:

Q1. When you are considering the distance between two places, which of the following statements best describes the way you think?	%
I only really think of distances in kilometres, not miles	4%
I think of distances in both kilometres and miles	15%
I only really think of distances in miles, not kilometres	79%
Don't know	2%

Q2. If you are driving, cycling or walking, how do you prefer to see the distances on road signs?	%
Metric units like kilometres	8%
Imperial units like miles	86%
Don't know	6%

Discussion

If we could add information above here and discuss what we think from this point down, it would help readability. A secondary source considering how opinions have changed over time would be great, if anyone has one. We can't really comment on trends otherwise.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Although the 2007 poll was carried out according to good principals, the question on metrication was invalid - the preamble did not make sense - I think that it should have read "As you may have heard, the EU recently decided to drop rules that would require Britain to use metric measurements instead of traditional units like pounds, pints and miles." This interpretation of the EU directive was disinformation put out by certain eurosceptic groups. When the directive was passed, supplementary units could be used until 31 December 2009. The directive removed the sunset clause. The directive also extended the scope of metrication to all matters affected by the "Internal market", instead of just for purposes of "economic, public health, public administration and public saftey". Although Article 95 of the EU treaty is a little woolly in its definition of the "Internal market", it explicitly mentions "consumer protection" (eg advertising). The eurosceptic groups concerned hijacked the directive as a victory for themselves by conveniently forgetting two-thirds of the directive. I therefore think that the pollsters were misled as to what shoudl be asked.

The 2002 poll is really a non-poll. When one pulls away the veneer, it is asking people what they are used to seeing around them. Since then, English motorways have acquired a raft of metric roadsigns, but half the population are unaware of the signs themselves, and only a small fraction are aware that they are in metric units. I know that DeFacto is a motoring enthusist - maybe he could tell us what the signs are (I already know the answer). Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of the polls. As itsmejudith has pointed out, these are serious polling organisations operating under a code of conduct. It's going to take more than your personal opinion to say they are not RS and due for inclusion. I stress what I said above, please try to put your own biases aside and attempt to reflect the information in reliable sources faithfully. You've continually tried to spin anything that does not support a picture of increasing and high acceptance of metrication out of the article based on no more than your own opinion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In my views polls are meaningless, unless the context in which they were taken is examined. There are three parts to any poll:

• Who commissioned the poll and why?
• Do the questions in the poll faithfully represent reason for the poll?
• Was the sample a fair sample in the context of the purpose of the poll? If not, were the adjustments to the output appropriate?

Interpretation of polls by Wikipedians is WP:OR. Therefore the results of polls shoudl not be published in Wikipedia unless their purpose is self-evident or they are accompanied by a reliable and neutral interpretation. Martinvl (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that questions should faithfully represent the reason for the poll?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the questions do not represent the real (as opposed to the declared) reason for the poll, it is a pretty useless poll. Matching the quesations against the declared reason for the poll indicates whether or not the poll organisers are telling the truth. Of course, if WP:OR is needed to clarify this, then the poll has no place in Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a novel idea in research methods (which are probably not your area of expertise, I sense). I have to say, in all my years of dealing with social research, I've never seen an authority say it's a good idea to bias a large scale quantitative survey in such a manner. Indeed, you appear to be challenging the raison d'etre of the code of conduct for major polling organisations. I really think you ought to contact them all jolly quickly, as you'd save them an awful lot of money and effort.

As for the need for context - that applies to ALL reliable sources, as I'm sure a moment's reflection would have revealed. There's no reason (except inconvenience to one's POV) why this should apply more to polls than to any other reliable source.

Here's a chart to show what you're doing:

Good Research	Bad Research
Anonymous, openly POV wikipedia editor wanders into his local supermarket, flicks through a single edition of a free magazine and declares not only that the magazine never, ever uses imperial measures, but also that this is of significant consequence to national metrication	Major national polling organisation, bound by a code of conduct not to doctor results, conducts survey with a large sample and publishes results indicating that the majority of the population do not want to get rid of imperial measures.

Look, it's great that you have a passion for a cause. But Wikipedia is not the place to carry out that cause. Stay and edit neutrally (it really can be fun trying to edit neutrally when you have strong opinions on something), or divert the energy into assisting the UK metric association. I'm sure they'd be grateful. And that latter way, if all works out for you, we'll be putting in polls showing a clear majority in favour of only using the metric system.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, there are not really any metric "road signs", as such, on English motorways. I imagine thet what you might be promoting as such are the boards placed at 500 metre intervals and/or the little white posts placed at 100 metre intervals which have unit-less numbers on them - those numbers arbitrarily happening to be the distance in kilometres along the road from an arbitrary origin. Motorists don't need to know, and probably don't care what the numbers happen to be based on, as they are not intended to tell the motorist anything (who cares if they happen to be 78.5 km (or 78.5 nautical miles or whatever) from some unknown point somewhere. They are merely linear location indexes for the convenience of the road management authorities and the emergency services. The units couls be miles, km, furlongs or whatever - no-one would give a fig. Although the boards are relatively new - with bigger more legible numbers so that stranded motorists, or whoever, can see them to convey their position to whoever they need to be able to locate then, the little white posts have existed for decades.

What the poll tells us is that the vast majority of the people want imperial measures used on signs where the numbers are intended to mean something to them. And indeed imperial units are currently required by law for such signs. -- de Facto (talk). 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect to the 2007 and 2002 polls mentioned above, the questions are perfectly clear and the results are perfectly clear. They will add some valuable information about public opinion to the article. This will add balance to the article which is currently mainly about what has been imposed on the public whether they want it or not, rather than what they actually want to have. -- de Facto (talk). 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Martinvl about the distances survey (Martin - I'm sincere in saying stay and edit: you've made good points amid the noise of trying to keep stuff out or in; and apologies for sounding patronising in saying this). The results are really not ideal/wholly meaningful, because the population has not been exposed to distances in kilometres for journeys (afaik - I visit the UK once a year these days and I see road signs are still in miles, but correct me if there are other exposures to kilometres). I'm sure the methods were fine, but I think we should exercise discretion in how we place it. Mentioning it (if we do, and I'm not sure about that) probably should be somewhere very near the fact that road signs are still all in imperial. The 2007 poll on the other hand seems fine to me. There's been decades of metric education and dual pricing for a long time, so respondents are far more competent to express choices.

I'm surprised by the 2007 results, to be honest (as with earlier, similar polls, I should add). I'm even more surprised that someone hasn't done research into exactly why imperial is so "sticky". I spent a mere two years in my mid 20s in an entirely metric country, and on returning to the UK really struggled with imperial measures for non-prepacked food. Then again, I'm rootless middle class. Go figure.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters, wrt this article in Wikipedia, that kilometres are still not allowed on legal road signs. The poll was conducted and the results gave the then current public opinion. If there is an RS it is relevant to this article.

The 2007 poll results don't surprise me at all. Imperial measures are deep-rooted in British culture and history, and are still widely used in everday life by many, many people. I'd be interested to see what current opinion is about the use of decimal currency, and what percentage of the population would still prefer to be able to use pounds, shillings and pence. -- de Facto (talk). 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

RS is a necessary requirement for inclusion only, not a sufficient requirement. Thus, not including is not the same as rejecting. In terms of due weight, given that distances are still in miles, that poll is not as pertinent as either polls about what people want to happen, or about how people deal with the metric/imperial choice now. I'd rather see other polls take up the due article page space.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, "being deep-rooted in British culture" is not a good explanatory factor. It's basically a black box "just because" explanation. ("History" too.) Cultures are in a constant state of being reproduced by generations and by people within those generations. The key is being able to explain why or why not cultures change.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether kilometres are allowed on legal road signs might matter if this was an article on 'Whether the imposition of foreign measurement systems on the people of the UK will be considered a bad thing after it happens'. But it covers a rather broader topic. Whether metrification has been imposed in a particular area of society yet or not doesn't seem very relevant.Nevard (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the two polls should not be treated too similarly. The 2007 poll is about part of British life where metric had been not only visible, but dominant for seven years and longer (weights and measures). The 2002 poll is about a part of British life where metrication has basically not happened (road signs). Martinvl isn't wrong when we have to take care with opinion polls (just wrong in saying they are unusable). The 2007 poll reflects reactions to metrication, where the 2002 poll is effectively about the prospect of metrication, which both in 2002 and even now is not an immediate prospect. We should probably exercise discretion about the 2002 poll, and we should definitely not ignore the differences between polls about weights and measures, and polls about road signs.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl has begun Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys. I thought people should know.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to give it 24 hours before mentioning it here so that uninvovled editors could have their say first. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you justify that? And you had already edited the guideline too, before any real discussion had taken place. -- de Facto (talk). 15:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of a principle of keeping things like this secret for 24 hours. DeFacto's right: editing the guideline itself doesn't sound at all like you were waiting for outside input. As one fellow editor to another: take a deep breath and then one more. You're in a dispute. That's the time to be more careful about editing behaviour, not less so. Otherwise you'll lose whatever battle you think you're in because of your behaviour, not because of what you had to say.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

National Curriculum for England

I have the document open on my computer. I cannot find where it says that children are not taught how to manipulate imperial units. (The document in general says what they must be taught, not what they musn't be taught.) I don't see how keeping content in line with sources is pointy editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a section on education which clarifies the situation. Martinvl (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to your source is broken.

I would like to know whether it actually positively confirms the statement "[t]he National Curriculum makes no mention of ounces, inches, yards nor does it make any mention of conversion between pints and gallons or between feet and miles." If it is a text of the curriculum itself, note that this is a primary source and we're not allowed to draw interpretations from it. I would not be inclined to accept a text of the maths curriculum as verifying such a statement, partly because it's unreasonable to expect readers to read a very lengthy document to be sure that other units are not mentioned, and partly because units are used in non-mathematical contexts as well. For example, it is plausible that the PE section mentions yards in a football/cricket context, or that the D&T section mentions ounces in a cooking context.

Similarly, the statement [t]he only exposure that pupils have to the imperial system of measure is to "know rough metric equivalents of pounds, feet, miles, pints and gallons". Is this actually what the source says, or is the claim based on the other units' absence from the document? If the latter, I would suggest that that's unverified. Even if it is, I find it difficult to believe (as this statement suggests) that a teacher, when asked a question about imperial units, will be forced to refuse to discuss them, or that schools are forced to prevent a children from taking rulers into classrooms because they are marked in inches as well as centimetres.

It might be that teachers only actively teach metric units, plus "rough metric equivalents of pounds, feet, miles, pints and gallons" (though this would need better sourcing than a quote of a small part of the maths curriculum) but that doesn't mean that all other forms of imperial units are going to be entirely banned from the classroom, as this suggests.

Finally, I think that the precise details of how metric measurements are included in the maths curriculum are probably OTT, so I'm not happy with this section. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The document is being treated as exhaustive of all mathematical education, and the list of what is not there is POV. See this government publication that specifically mentions conversion within a non-metric system. We usually do not draw attention to what is not in documents, as this is (demonstrably, in this case) OR.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - probably worth mentioning at this stage that the National Curriculum is not the be-all and end-all of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (schools are perfectly allowed to teach other things if they wish), and doesn't apply at all in Scotland or to the independent sector. Pfainuk talk 22:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martinvl, there might be a problem with the cited URL, or maybe it's just me, but when I follow the link I don't get anything very obvious to read. Can you confirm, with a quote please (or good url/page number, paragraph number, or whatever) the support for the statement: "they are not expected to manipulate units expressed in a non-decimal system of measurement". Are the use of fractions covered at all?

You added the statement: "The National Curriculum makes no mention of ounces, inches, yards nor does it make any mention of conversion between pints and gallons or between feet and miles." I wondered if it mentions grams, milligrams, kilograms and tonnes, and the conversions between them or if it mentions millilitres, litres and cubic metres and the conversions between them or millimetres, centimetres, metres amd kilometres and the conversions between them.

Additionally, doesn't it mention the use of non-metric measures or expect any level of understanding of them at all?

For the sake of balance too, I suppose we also need to explore whether non-state schools offer a better level of education.

-- de Facto (talk). 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And also in Scotland, which has an entirely separate education system. Pfainuk talk 22:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the link. In response to Pfainuk's question, the phrase "know rough metric equivalents of pounds, feet, miles, pints and gallons" is a cut-and-paste from the document (which is why it is in quotation marks). The document is a PDF file and it is an elementary task to verify the existance (or otherwise) of the other units mentioned. I have rephrased things to state what the National Curriculum requires rather than what is taught.

The document does mention conversion between centimetres and metres, though this is certainly taught in in A-Level physics. (I am a part-time A Level physics tutor). Many independent schools follow the National Curriculum so they woudl be in the same position as the state schools. I don't know about Scottish schools - perhaps somebody woudl like to look at the Scottish sylllabus and add it to what has already been written. Martinvl (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The PDF is for maths only. You changed it in your edit war so that it no longer claims that some units are banned in schools, but you still apply the point to all subjects when your source only refers to one. And regardless, readers should not have to trawl through lengthy primary sources to find the bits that they need to verify a point. That's surely the essence of WP:NOR: we should not have to go away and do our own research from primary sources to verify the points that you want the article to make, and nor should our readers.

I note that you do not attempt to address the point that giving precise details of the sections of the curriculum concerned is too much detail for a topic such as this. Pfainuk talk 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that the document link is fixed, it is clear that it is a primary source, and the added content is unsupported original research and synthesis of the contents of the primary source. I note too that that OR didn't include mention that neither milligrams, grams, tonnes, millilitres or cubic metres are mentioned and that the only mention of kilograms is in a side note stating that it is acceptable to treat mass as synonymous with weight and litre is mentioned once - in the sentence: "‘three-and-a-bit litre jugs’"! Not only was the addition OR, but non-neutral (POV laden?) OR at that. -- de Facto (talk). 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding use outside of science and maths classes: the UKMA itself states that

The National Curriculum now requires only a familiarity with the names of old imperial units and, more recently (because of some unfortunate backsliding on metrication), approximate conversion factors for imperial units deemed still in common use. Unfortunately, although the emphasis within the mathematics and science curriculum is on metric units, there is no requirement for teachers to use or encourage the use of metric units in other subjects such as geography or on the sports field. Children therefore learn that imperial units are "normal", whereas metric units are for science and maths.

Would the UKMA be a reliable source to use? (Not for the opinion that children are taught that imperial units are "normal" (that's UKMA SPS opinion and would belong in a different place - advocacy groups, probably.), but on the characterisation of "emphasis on metric" in science and maths and "no requirement" in other subjects?) I'm very hesitant to say yes, as they're an advocacy group (just as I wouldn't want to use BWMA material). I find the reference to "backsliding" interesting: this article is about the process and movements back and forth are more pertinent than anything else. Anyone have anything on that?

As for non-NC schools: I would be inclined not to mention independent schools unless there is RS stating they teach more or less imperial. The percentage of children who are in independent schools that don't follow the national curriculum is really very small in England. Scotland, Wales and NI of course need coverage.

Regarding what happens at stage three, this (cough) secondary (cough) reliable source highlights in policy documents what children aged 11-13 are expected to learn, including lacunae judged important (cough) by the secondary source. I really must get something for this cold.

We have policies on sourcing and OR to prevent inaccuracies such as those recently inserted from user-generated over-interpretation of a primary source. It is really important that a few of the editors on this page really need to understand those policies, as it appears at the moment, with the greatest respect, that they don't quite get them yet. We don't put primary sources together to make conclusions, and we don't analyse primary sources to make our own conclusions. Analysis and synthesis is what our reliable secondary sources do for us.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources (and lack thereof)

The statement:

“ The units of measure used on web pages associated with the British monarchy reflect the way in which Britain uses units of measure. ”

is currently included in this article without source. So, the specific claim is that usage on websites associated with the monarchy reflect British usage. It is claimed that the sources later in the paragraph back up this claim. However, having looked through those sources, I note that none of them make any claim whatsoever connecting the usage of units on websites connected to the Royal family with British usage more generally. This claim seems to be the whole point of including this section, but no source backs it up.

Per WP:V, all material challenged or likely to be challenged requires a source. No source currently backs up this claim. Please provide a source that connects usage of units on websites connected to the Royal family with British usage more generally or else remove this claim from the article. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement in question is the first of three sentences in a paragraph. The second sentence shows how royal sites that are not government hosted tend to use imperial units, while the third sentence shows how royal sites that are government hosted tend to use metric units. Thus the second and third sentences verify the first. The preceding paragraphs in the article state the same thing. As far as I am concerned, this statement is properly verified. I have again removed the flag. Martinvl (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, because none of them make any claim whatsoever regarding British usage. The claim that these pages demonstrate "the way in which Britain uses units of measure" is unsourced and unverified. The claim (in sentences four and five) that those sites use those specific units as a matter of policy (as opposed to in specific instances) is original research, as the pages that we're directed to do not mention the choice of units made by the websites concerned.

If similar claims are made elsewhere based on similar evidence, then they too are unsourced and/or original research. All such statements should be appropriately sourced or removed from the article. Pfainuk talk 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A fully sourced paragraph has been added to the lede of the section in which this statement appears. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This has now changed, but it now says:

“ The units of measure used on web pages associated with the British monarchy vary in a similar way. ”

So, it's not now doing anything at all. Why does the reader care? Why do we go through websites of the British monarchy, and not (for example) websites about the City, or Loch Ness, or the World Bog Snorkelling Championships? The point now seems entirely superfluous. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if the British monarchy is of equal importance in British life as the City, Loch Ness or the World Bog Snorkelling Championships. Michael Glass (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, because it isn't a section about the British monarchy. It's a section about websites somewhat connected to the British monarchy, which is rather less significant. Please cite how websites related to the British monarchy (as opposed to the monarchy itself), are of any significance in day-to-day life.

(And I would incidentally suggest that the City is actually significantly more important to British people's day-to-day life than the monarchy, given its importance to the British economy). Pfainuk talk 17:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the City but not about Loch Ness and the World Bog Snorkelling Championships. I would say that the usage (or non usage) of metric units by the British monarchy does throw an interesting light on the uptake of the metric system in the UK. Michael Glass (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that it is not a section about the British monarchy. It is a section about websites in some way connected to the British monarchy. I would suggest that the significance to British life of the website of the Prince's Rainforests Project is not clearly greater than the significance of Loch Ness or the World Bog Snorkelling Championships. I would note that even the Prince's Rainforests Project (worthy though it may be) is not clearly more significant in British life than Loch Ness or the World Bog Snorkelling Championships - but this bit isn't about the Rainforests Project, it's specifically about the website of the Rainforests Project.

You claim knowledge of claim that these are units as used by the monarchy, but this appears to be based purely on the unit choices of websites vaguely connected to the monarchy. If so, this is obviously original research and must be discounted. I note that so far, you haven't even demonstrated that those websites (let alone the monarchy) have a policy on units. Pfainuk talk 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Buckingham+Palace&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 and Balmoral Castle http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BalmoralCastle/History.aspx http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BalmoralCastle/Today.aspx are more than vaguely connected with the Monarchy. Michael Glass (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that unless we have two pieces of sourced information - one, that there is a policy with regard to the Royal Family and its households, and two, that their practice reflects wider British day-to-day usage, the sentence is original research. At the moment, we are determining what counts as connected with the monarchy, and it's us making a statement (which is very suspect) that royal practice is representative of everyday British practice. For example, look at this 2007 royal birth announcement. The baby's weight is given in imperial. Does that mean that there is no policy, or that the press office broke the policy, or is it simply what the hospital told them? Is the NHS not metric? Does it mean there are different policies depending on whether it's babies or something you buy? The thing is, we as wikipedians are not allowed to put information together like this, as it's original research.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The section was later changed so that it instead dealt purely with websites related to the monarchy:

“ The units of measure used on web pages associated with the British monarchy vary in a similar way. ”

This makes the second point less significant: we're no longer asserting a connection with British units (though we are asserting a similarity with the previous point, which could be OR). But the first point on original research remained: we were still implying, without source, some form of policy on units on these websites.

What it also removed, however, was the point that was being made. Whereas previously we were making an OR point about British usage, this sentence is just introducing a discussion the usage of units on websites somehow connected to members of the Royal family (such as the Prince's Rainforest Project and the websites of certain Royal residences). The argument that it's relevant appears to be that the monarchy is an important part of British life. My view is, so what? The text doesn't discuss usage by the monarchy. It discusses usage by websites connected to the monarchy, which is not the same thing. And I see no reason to assume that the website of Sandringham or the website of the aforementioned Prince's Rainforest Project is an important part of British life. Pfainuk talk 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you mentioned the birth of a prince where the press release gave the baby's weight in pounds and ounces but don't mention the web page on Buckingham Palace where the description is metric. Both links are evidence of the varying usage in the UK. What's wrong with putting such evidence in the article? Michael Glass (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it's quite clearly original research. The page has serious problems of editors try to assemble evidence from primary sources to draw conclusions that can then be added as content. This would be fine if it wasn't on Wikipedia. But this is Wikipedia. I sense a certain frustration that people want to be able to cover as much as possible but feel limited by our policies. But I'm afraid it's how this place has to work. The challenge should be: how good can we make the article within the limits of WP policy? If there's no secondary RS commenting on usage by the Royal Household (that it varies, or is predominantly metric, or predominantly imperial, or there's such and such a pattern of usage or whatever) then we should remain silent on the issue. It's not our place to make such declarations.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What is original research about pointing out the obvious? The evidence is as clear as the nose on your face that usage varies in the United Kingdom. Such a fact is abundantly demonstrated in the article. I believe that your interpretation stretches the policy beyond all reason. It is not original research to point out that A says X, B says Y and C says Z when we have reliable sources to back this up. What would be original research is to state or imply that this variation in usage was deliberate or accidental or desirable or undesirable. Michael Glass (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about UK usage, we're talking about usage in connection with the Royal family. And for this we don't have reliable secondary sources, we only have the websites of various organisations, which are primary sources. You seem uncertain about why WP:No original research applies here, so I'll attempt to explain the problem: For example, we have our own definition of what counts as connected to the royal family (what makes ours a valid one?), and all we have is found usage on a few pages of a few arbitrarily selected websites, not usage in internal documents or in formal discussions. It's not for us as Wikipedians to make such leaps from primary sources, and the primary sources we have here would be inadequate in real world academic research to make any kind of strong statement. "varies" is not a harmless word. It implicitly excludes a 99% - 1% balance of usage, yet for all we know given our paucity of data that may be the real balance in our originally constructed definition of relatedness to the royal family. I recommend the option of staying silent on the issue until we get some proper secondary reliable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This is actually a more general problem with this article: this is not the only point where editors appear to have believed that it's OK to just say, well, this source uses these units and this source uses those sources so let's put them together and draw our own conclusions. It isn't. It is original research to state or imply a connection between quoted instances of units on a couple of websites and general usage in a given field. All conclusions in this article that are based on the assumption that a given set of individual instances of units are representative are original research and must be removed or rewritten.

And where we do come up with a text discussing quoted instances of units on websites that doesn't do that, we also need to ask about relevance. The point about the importance of the Monarchy to British life in this discussion is irrelevant because it assumes a connection that we're not allowed to make. Without that connection, a list of individual instances of units used on websites related to the Royal family is trivia without relevance to the article. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not commenting about what the Royal Family does in private. That is irrelevant. Secondly, no-one is stating or implying that the Royal Household has a policy on units of measure. What we have is what is written in the Royal website. I believe that what is written in the Royal website is in some way connected with the British monarchy. I therefore would like your answers to the following five questions.

• First, do you agree that the Royal website is in some way connected with the British monarchy?

• Secondly, do you agree that the description of Buckingham Palace is in metric measures only? http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BuckinghamPalace/BuckinghamPalace.aspx

• Thirdly, do you agree that the description of Balmoral Castle grounds puts the metric measures first? http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BalmoralCastle/Today.aspx

• Fourthly, do you agree that the birth announcement of the Queen's youngest grandchild gave the weight of the child in pounds and ounces? http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2007/THECOUNTESSOFWESSEXGIVESBIRTHTOABABYBOY.aspx

• Finally, do you agree that the copyright of all of these pages is held by "The Royal Household"?

If we can come to some agreement on these factual points we might be able to make some progress. Michael Glass (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant comment on babies' weights - Here in Australia, where we metricated pretty fully back in the 1970s, and where my 24 year old son seeks translations from his old dad of weights given in imperial measures, babies' weights are still almost universally announced in pounds and ounces (often along with the metric equivalent). I cannot think of any other circumstance where Australians use pounds and ounces. Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, how many of those websites count as primary sources for the content you want included, and how many as secondary? See WP:Primary, which says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (emphasis in the original) Also see WP:SYNTH, particularly the first line "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, you have not answered my questions. Asking you to say yes or no to five factual questions does not require you to analyse, synthesise, interpret or evaluate anything. It just asks you to read, observe and answer yes or no. As you have not done this, I will try again.

• All of the websites referred to above have been copyrighted by "The Royal Household". True or false?
• This website http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2007/THECOUNTESSOFWESSEXGIVESBIRTHTOABABYBOY.aspx says: "The weight of the baby was 6lbs 2oz." Was the birth announcement of the Queen's youngest grandchild given in pounds and ounces? Yes or no?
• Does this website http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BalmoralCastle/Today.aspx puts metric measures first in its description of the gardens? Yes or no?
• Does this website http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BuckinghamPalace/BuckinghamPalace.aspx use only metric measures? Yes or no?
• Do you agree that these web pages, all of which have been copyrighted by "The Royal Household," have some connection with the British monarchy? True or false?

When we have come to some agreement on the facts, then we can go on and consider other questions. Michael Glass (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I didn't: I am not going to bother answering your questions because you are trying to engage in original research and I have no intention of validating or encouraging that. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what original research is and what the difference between primary and secondary sources is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, we both know that what I have asserted about the websites is factual. You have asserted that the website is a primary source, and therefore can't be used. I would question that assumption, but even if we accept that it is a primary source for the sake of argument, the policy still says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

• It is a straightforward descriptive statement to say that one web page uses metric units and another uses pounds and ounces. Any educated person can verify that.

Why do you object to making a simple descriptive statement about the web pages? Michael Glass (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, these are unquestionably primary sources. They are direct examples of what we are trying to describe (usage), not descriptions of usage by independent sources.

Secondly, unless you want to have a horrendously prolix sentence, it's not a question of a single descriptive statement, but several descriptive statements: one for each of the pages that refers only to the item mentioned on those pages and not to the whole website or even other pages in that section of the site. Here's a parallel for what you want to say: "some scientists believe in evolution, while others do not". I could back that up with websites quite easily in just the same way you want to do here, but it would clearly be bad Wikipedia content.

This leads to the third problem - why mention these webpages at all? No one has produced any reliable sources at all referring to patterns of imperial or metric usage in the Royal Household. No RS has been produced that thinks it worth discussion. For scientists in my example above we have reliable sources that consider general views on evolution among scientists to be noteworthy (and surveys instead of editor OR). If all this means we don't include information on usage by the royal family, then so be it. We are dependent on the existence of reliable sources. If they don't exist, we can't pretend they do, or, as is being attempted in different parts of this page, do their work for them. We are not a publisher of original research.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The question of notability is a matter of opinion, so I won't comment on your opinion of the notability of the differences between the web pages on the website. The example of the theory of evolution is way off, because it is so complex that it would be virtually impossible to do the whole topic any form of justice without going into an immense amount of detail about who believes what and with what qualifications etc. etc. However, in the case of usage, A better example might be the height of Mount Everest. Here different authorities have come to very slightly different conclusions about the height of the mountain. The article brings together several of these measurements, and I hope you would agree that this is in order.

When the article said that the usage of the Royal Family was a microcosm of usage in the UK, this was clearly going too far, just as it would be wrong to conclude from 4 or 5 web pages that the Royal Family was following the Times Style Guide, or that they were a lot of careless duffers because of the differences. If the article jumped to any conclusion this would be going too far because it would be an interpretation or evaluation of the website. However, if the article pointed out that the Royal website uses metric measures to describe Buckingham Palace but used pounds and ounces to give the weight of the new royal baby, this would simply state the facts unless these facts were phrased in a tendentious way. This, I believe was the problem with the example given in WP:NOR where the two statements were brought together in a way that carried an implied criticism of the United Nations.

I believe that an interpretation of the policy should not ignore this caveat: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Michael Glass (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability (or in this instance in Wikipedianese, due weight) is not simply a matter of opinion. If there are no reliable sources paying attention to this information, it's very likely not due content. You or I may think it's very interesting, but we don't decide what is or isn't relevant simply based on our own personal interests. Unlike real-world publications, we cannot strike out on our own.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comment. Are you saying that if other people haven't seen an elephant in the room, that it mustn't be mentioned?

I believe that if an editor sees that elephant, he or she may mention the beast, provided the statement made about it is a straightforward, descriptive statement that any educated person - with access to the source but without specialist knowledge - will be able to verify from the source.

Of course, the elephant must still pass the test of relevance Michael Glass (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You are quite correct about relevance. And this does not appear to pass that test. It's not really a case of an elephant in the room. It's picking out a couple of chairs in a large meeting room and making a statement about how important those particular chairs are, when no one else has. Don't you find it telling that there doesn't appear to be anything written about metrication in relation to the royal family?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Sometimes actions (or a lack of action) speaks louder than words. When the Duke of Edinburgh spoke up about limiting population, it is not surprising that people commented on the fact that he was a father of four. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/8260768/Population-control-Room-not-doom-for-everyone.html It would be significant if a member of the Royal Family spoke either for or against metrication. Even a consistent use (or non use) of metric measures on the royal website would send a subtle message, too. However, that's not what we've got. Instead, it's a mixed bag, with some use of both metric and Imperial measures. Now I know you would feel that this is not notable, but I see it as worth noting that the Royal Website sometimes uses metric measures and sometimes doesn't.

However, that's not the most important issue here. The important issue is that the policy on no original research specifically exempts straightforward, descriptive statements that any education person - with access to the source but without specialist knowledge - will be able to verify from the source. Michael Glass (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, there are two fundamental differences between the Duke of Edinburgh's comments on population control and what you want to say here. The first is that for the former we have a secondary source taking note - the Daily Telegraph. We have no secondary source taking note of the measurement uses by British royalty. The second important difference is that in the former we have a single datum - what the Duke said, as what we might want to describe per the allowance on primary sources. In the latter case, you want to put together several pieces of data in order to create the possibly highly misleading statement that usage "varies". Did you not understand the point about the statement "Some scientists believe in evolution, while others do not"? You're not describing a single primary source, you are synthesising multiple primary sources.

Maybe this example will get you to see the problem: Stephen Fry, having been voted one of the nation's top living icons (Queen nowhere to be seen), is quite possibly of more consequence to the majority of the population than the royal family. Yet it would be out of order for me to trawl his twitter account for uses of metric and imperial measures to insert a statement about how he uses them, as if it mattered to metrication in the UK. I could only mention Fry's views if reliable sources had deemed them important.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, there's a difference between primary and secondary sources. I believe that the Royal website is a primary source of information about the website itself. When it comes to information about the monarchy, I think that the media releases of The Royal Household may be an authoritative secondary source. In any case, I believe we can note that a web page metric units and another uses Imperial units. This simple descriptive statement can be verified by any reader who follows the links.

About Stephen Fry, he might be an amazing communicator, but I don't think he has anywhere near the impact that the monarchy has had on British life. If, for argument's sake, editors found Stephen Fry's opinion about metrication they might add something about it to the article. Provided the statement was a straightforward description it would pass the test for no original research but it may be open to challenge by other editors on the ground of notability.

Using an argument based on just one clause of the no original research guideline is too sweeping. Most articles on Wikipedia consist of compilations of information culled from various sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research helps to explain the difference between compiling information and what is meant by original research in the policy. Michael Glass (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The websites are absolutely primary sources in this context. A primary source is a source used for information about itself. If it is a royal household website, then for any information about the royal household it is a primary source. A secondary source is at one remove. A newspaper article about the royal household is a secondary source. A tertiary source like a textbook is about what secondary sources say about primary sources. Do you see how it works? The royal household website would only be a secondary source for information not about the royal household.

The essay you linked says: "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." My argument is that you are trying to present an unpublished conclusion. As for my quoting policy, the point about not presenting unpublished conclusions concocted from primary sources is repeated, and is central to the principle of no original research. It's not some unnoticed or trivial addition.

Regarding the influence of the monarchy, their importance for metrication really does need to be established in a secondary source. The impact of royal brides on fashion is both notable and established. On the other hand, the impact of the Queen's TV watching habits on what everyone else watches is not notable and not surprising. It's probably nil. Same goes for the Queen's choice of breakfast. The influence of the monarchy in general seems to have declined dramatically since the 1980s. The Queen's speech used to get 25 million viewers, and now struggles to get 5 million Eastenders gets more than that on a regular basis. I will grant you that Qi only got 3.3 million near the end of September, but there's no accounting for taste.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed that the Royal website is a primary source for the Royal website.
• Agreed that organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research.
• Agreed that your argument is that I am trying present an unpublished conclusion.

The problem is that this is not my intention at all. My intention is to note what the royal household used in some of its web pages. That is all. If you consider that I am trying to present an unpublished conclusion, please tell me what unpublished conclusion do you think I am trying to present.Michael Glass (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Usage in various parts of the royal household varies" implies some kind of even-ish mix, which is something we simply do not know and cannot say without assembling primary sources ourselves. Here are some similar sentences which could be formed using precisely the same method of handling sources.

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

Each of these is potentially highly misleading. You'd quite rightly get very short shrift on any climate change page trying to introduce anything that sounded like there was a fairly even split within climate science (and the evolution page editors wouldn't like you either), while the Eastenders one verges on a BLP issue and might be removed immediately. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your statements are potentially misleading. The reason for this is that there are very few three legged dogs in Canada, very few biologists who disbelieve in evolution, very few climate scientists who doubt that global warming is happening. But let's try some other statements:

• The eye colour of members of the UK House of Commons varies.
• The colour of roses and tulips varies.
• The coat colour of dogs, cats and horses varies.

These statements are true and I do not believe that they are misleading.

Now when it comes to the use of units on the Royal website, is it misleading? I don't think so. The usage varies. This is not surprising, because it comes from a country where milk is sold by both the pint and the litre, where petrol is sold by the litre but fuel economy is worked out in miles per imperial gallon, where Marilyn measures mountains in metres but Freddie prefers feet and where the Times prescribes metres for some measures but feet and inches and stones and pounds for personal measurements. In such a climate it is not surprising that the Royal website uses metres for measuring Buckingham Palace, hectares for measuring the grounds of Balmoral and Sandringham and pounds and ounces for the birth weight of a baby. So what is misleading about saying that usage varies? Or, if you still take issue with stating that usage varies, why not just note, without comment, the way the royal website reports various things?

Now if you turn round and say that the royal family is not important enough, I can accept that this is your opinion. However, what I find it hard to accept that you believe that simply noting the way the royal website uses units of measure is original research. Michael Glass (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it isn't misleading? How do you know that they don't actually overwhelmingly use one system over the other and we've just found some stray examples of unusual usage because we inadevertently went data fishing for them with google? How do you know if the website is at all representative of how they conduct business with other agencies? What appears in their annual reports? We have a principle called "verifiability, not truth" (truth meaning an editor's claim that something is true). We can make general statements about the colours of eyes, flowers and pets because we have reliable sources which can be made available if someone asks. We can't do that here. And yes, we can't because no one in the real world seems to think it's at all important, at least going by the lack of sources. This suggests we shouldn't put it in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, did you notice that you have changed the subject? I was talking about the Royal website. You are talking about "they", presumably the Royal Family or the Royal household. Now if we are talking about the royal household then we will have to do the extensive research that you have described to find out about the units that "they" are using. However, if we are talking about the Royal website, we just need to observe the website which is quite a big enough job.

If we want to find out about just the royal residences, we could go to the following page http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/ResChannel.aspx This gives a list of residences and former residences.

• The Buckingham Palace web page gives metric only measures http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BuckinghamPalace/BuckinghamPalace.aspx

• The Royal Mews web pages do not use units of measurement http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/TheRoyalMews/History.aspx and this is true for the majority of the Royal residences listed.

• The page on Windsor Castle gives the dimensions of St Georges Hall in metres http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/WindsorCastle/WindsorCastle.aspx

• Land around Balmoral Castle is given in hectares with acres in brackets http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/BalmoralCastle/Today.aspx

• Ditto for land connected with Sandringham House http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/SandringhamHouse/Today.aspx

If it was thought relevant these could be mentioned because they are simply factual statements. However, we might also mention this birth announcement, where the weight of the baby was given in pounds and ounces http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2007/THECOUNTESSOFWESSEXGIVESBIRTHTOABABYBOY.aspx Michael Glass (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, that's six websites you're citing. How many sources would one have to combine before you would be prepared to call it original research? (By assembling the sentences like this you are effectively synthesising material from primary sources. Either that or it's simply trivia (would you really have a sentence for each website??).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. By the rules, the point is clear-cut. Either this is synthesising a point that these primary sources do not make (which is OR) or it's not making a point and just listing instances of usages by individual webpages (which is useless trivia). It almost doesn't matter, since per policy the net result is the same: we do not include it. Pfainuk talk 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Call it original research if you want, but that is not what the policy prohibits. The policy says: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are taking the first clause of the sentence but ignoring the second. Checking these websites and describing the units they use (or don't use) is just describing. It does not advance any position. Michael Glass (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you combine the information into a single statement then it is OR, advancing a position that none of the sites individually states (none of them comments on the other sites or on usage in general). If you state in a list the units used by each website in reference to a specific place without any evidence that RS cares about what each of these sites uses, it's obviously trivia (ie undue factoids). To me it also seems clear-cut. There simply isn't the sourcing to support what you want to include, not if we are to follow core content policies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that if I note that Buckingham Palace is described in metres but the last royal baby's birth weight was noted in pounds and ounces that this is Original Research? Are you seriously saying that noting this advances a position? What possible position could it advance? It is simply a description, no more, no less. Michael Glass (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you try to draw conclusions about usage on full websites by usage on individual webpages (either by statement or by implication), you're advancing a position about usage by a given website and thus breaking WP:NOR. As soon as you suggest (either by statement or by implication) that usage on a single webpage or a set of webpages is representative of usage by a given person or institution, you're advancing a position about usage by that person or institution and thus breaking WP:NOR.

The argument you advanced earlier - that this should be included because of the importance of the Royal family in British life - is based on the assumption that readers will infer that these pages are representative of usage by the monarchy. We must not allow our text to make such an implication, because it is original research. That argument falls down because it assumes that the text will draw an OR conclusion from the text.

You argue that that statement does not advance a position. I find that debatable (given your previous argument). But if not, then it still doesn't belong. I see no non-OR argument for inclusion that does not also apply to every other webpage that uses units on every other UK-based website. If we accept that no point is being made there, then the sentence has no benefit to the encyclopædia. It is pointless trivia that does not belong.

Which is why I say that to some extent, it doesn't matter. Either it's OR, or it's pointless trivia. Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. Pfainuk talk 17:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a wonderful way of ridding the article of things that don't suit you. You are saying that the mere mention of usage on the Royal website implies royal usage and so is advancing a position. However, if there is evidence of a pattern or usage or evidence of no pattern of usage, that this is original research. So it's a heads I win, tails you lose form of argument that turns a simple description into some kind of ideological position on metrication or on the importance of the monarchy in British life.

So let's leave the monarchy to one side and look at milk.

• If the article says, "Major supermarket chains continue to sell own-labelled cow's milk in 1-, 2-, 4- and 6-pint plastic bottles with the uneven metric equivalent value always shown before the Imperial volume (if that is shown at all)." this statement could be removed because it is unsubstantiated.
• If an editor added links to a supermarket chain such as ASDA, Sainsbury's or Tesco you could object to it because it is Original Research or unrepresentative or both.
• If an editor added links to ASDA, Sainsbury's Tesco and several other large stores, you could still object to it because it is Original Research or unrepresentative or both.
• Even if the editor carefully states that this is the case in the stores named, you could still object to it because it is Original Research and it could be deemed to imply a general statement about milk or metrication or both.

In effect, you leave the editor with no way to substantiate the text. All because of a dexterous misuse use of the policy called Original Research which clearly states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Michael Glass (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, why don't you take this up with RSN, if you think we're getting sourcing policy wrong?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be an idea but could you first explain if the point I made on milk fairly represents your idea of the implications of OR? Michael Glass (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your milk argument suggests that you don't understand the problem. Are you really sure you get the difference between primary and secondary sources and why we handle them differently? It's not a heads I win tails you lose argument - that would be a dishonest one. It's much more that you are caught between two stools. You don't have the sourcing to make the general comment without doing OR (which I think you've accepted now), and the descriptive comments you could make would be trivial. (In any case, an assemblage of them might still be seen as OR, as it's you deciding this grouping has weight enough for inclusion in the article). On this second point of trivia, to follow your logic, we might as well do a trawl of random celebrities to see if they announced their children's weights in metric or imperial, or cite dimensions given by Somewhereborough council in a newsletter to residents about the dimensions of the swings in a new playground (if you had a secondary source describing the use of metric or imperial by local councils, that would be entirely different.) Seriously, go to RSN if you want outside opinion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the milk example neatly illustrates the problem of making some distinctions between what you might regard as primary and secondary sources. If we want evidence of the size of milk containers we could go to a large store's web page (primary source?) or we could go to My Supermarket, which groups the four most prominent supermarket chains (secondary source?). Is there any real or substantial difference between relying on My Supermarket or going direct to the stores' own websites?

You say I don't have the sourcing to make a general comment (presumably about royal usage). That is right for a general comment about royal usage, but we do have enough evidence to state that the Royal website used metres when it described Buckingham Palace and St Georges Hall in Windsor Castle, because these are specific facts, and we have the evidence to state them. Your rejoinder to that appears to be another heads I win, tails you lose response (or falling between two stools, in your wording), because the specific is deemed trivial (even if the triviality happens to be Buckingham Palace) and a more general point about royal residences is deemed Original Research, even though it is something that anyone could verify simply by following a few links. I think we do need some outside clarification here about the rights and wrongs of the situation. Michael Glass (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And you've been invited to go and get such outside opinion repeatedly now.

If My Supermarket just goes and repeats verbatim the supermarkets' sizes, then it too is a primary source. Contrary to your point, it is perfectly possible to substantiate a text about milk bottles - using an outside secondary source that says something to the effect: Supermarkets are officially required to sell milk in metric units, however in practice common sizes are 568 ml, 1136 ml, 2272 ml and 3408 ml - equivalent to 1, 2, 4 or 6 imperial pints.

We're not here to trick you and we're not trying to be dishonest, as you seem to imply by this whole "heads I win, tails you lose" bit. Fact is, you don't have the sources to make the points you wish to make. The sources you have are insufficient to demonstrate any point that is relevant enough for this article. The answer is not to try and fudge it a bit by engaging in original research. The answer is to go and get some better sources. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I am not accusing you or VsevolodKrolikov of dishonesty. Nor am I implying it. I find that suggestion both offensive and wrong. I have refrained from personalities and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. This means refraining from accusing me of trying to fudge things. As far as I am concerned, the differences between us are about how Wikipedia policies should be applied.

Perhaps you have not noticed the problem in your second sentence above. If My Supermarket repeats verbatim the supermarkets' sizes and becomes a primary source, then according to your logic, it appears that the information becomes unusable for that reason. If it does not repeat verbatim what the supermarket says, it therefore becomes a secondary source and is usable. That comes close to stating that the test for usability is inaccuracy! But that is not what the policy says. It says that primary sources should be used with care. This is quite a different thing.

Finally, I take issue with any notion that using a primary source is ipso facto engaging in original research. Michael Glass (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My Supermarket is still a primary source for this information because it is not commenting on supermarkets. It is not "about" them in the sense that say, The Grocer writes about supermarkets. It's basically a price aggregation site. As a result it's still the editor, not a secondary source, assembling information from primary sources. One might be able to usethis source to say something like "Milk is sold in denominations of either metric or imperial, depending on the retailer." (Of course with a caveat somewhere about labelling practices, again with sourcing.) This is a newspaper writing about supermarkets, and it put the information together. It's not a great source, being a tabloid newspaper, but it would be a start.

I don't think either myself or Pfainuk are saying that any use of a primary source is original research. Rather, that if you have no secondary source to establish the notability (in wiki-terms for content: "due weight") of the information, then you're engaging in original research. This principle prevents long lists of trivia or the misrepresentation of the importance of actually unimportant things. If secondary sources have not given (a certain kind of) information a moment's notice, the presumption is that it's not important enough for inclusion. For this article, food pricing is clearly an important part of the topic (coverage in secondary sources shows this) so judicious use of primary sources to provide illustrations of what is happening in food pricing would probably be OK.

I apologise for misunderstanding what you meant by a "heads I win, tails you lose sort of argument". To clarify - it's not an argument as such (it was that word that led to me believe you meant logical trickery of some kind). It's the situation I think you're in. (There are two separate arguments about OR: about due weight and about synthesis of primary sources, explicit or implied.) I certainly don't want things to deteriorate in this discussion. Wikistress is no fun.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that your suggested sentence, "Milk is sold in denominations of either metric or imperial, depending on the retailer." shows up one problem of using some secondary sources. The "either...or" construction could be read as either one or the other but not both and this is against what is revealed in My Supermarket and the individual store websites. These reveal that the stores stock milk paced in both litre and pint sizes. See, for example http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/shelves/Fresh_Milk_In_ASDA.html Therefore it appears that a conscientious editor, strictly following your interpretation of the rules, would be obliged to base the text on a tabloid newspaper rather than a primary source that clarified an ambiguity in the secondary source. (This is reminiscent of a problem faced by Ronald Knox, a Catholic priest who translated the whole Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English "in the light of the Hebrew and Greek originals.")

I can understand that there is a problem in interpreting primary sources, especially legal texts or long documents where the relevant facts have to be assembled from various part of the document and interpreted in the light of other documents. However, when it comes to straightforward data, there really is no problem of interpretation. I'm talking about facts that can easily be verified by an interested reader simply by going to the book cited or clicking on the link. Therefore it strikes me as perverse to go to a secondary source when the primary source or sources can give the information more authoritatively. (In the example you gave, we have a choice between the information being verified from a "primary" source (My Supermarket) or being deduced from a line in an article in a tabloid newspaper.)

However, it appears that you are more concerned with determining notability, and your argument seems to be that if a fact is not noted in a secondary source, then it has no "due weight" and is not important enough to mention in the article. (I find this a strange and novel usage of the term "due weight." I had always thought of it as referring to keeping things in proportion, and not to go into too much details over minor points in an article.) I question that finding references in secondary sources is always a good and useful technique to determine whether or not something could be included in an article. For example, there might be very little discussion of the maths syllabus in secondary sources, but that does not make it unimportant on an article about metrication in the United Kingdom. In fact, I noticed in another place you searched a whole education document for suitable and reliable information about what the syllabus actually required.

Notability in secondary sources is not a filter against trivia. The popular press is full of trivial factoids, while good factual information languishes in unread reports. If we use notation in secondary sources to determine importance it could well have the opposite effect, and rule out reliable information because it bears the label, "primary source". That would be truly perverse. Michael Glass (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, the problem is not with using secondary sources - it's with my phrasing. If "denominations of either metric or imperial" is not clear enough to you as meaning "in half litre, litre, two litre containers or one pint, two pint etc. containers" (with, as I said, an appropriate note afterwards about how everything must also be labelled in metric), then we change the phrasing. We don't abandon a core policy in Wikipedia just because I didn't phrase something well.

You mention my use of primary sources for maths syllabi. Before you raised that question, did you actually check to see if there were secondary sources that stressed the relevance of school syllabi in the process of British metrication? If you didn't, why not? After all, it's been a key part of the argument that information from primary sources has to be identified as relevant by reliable secondary ones. (Or did you genuinely think that the relevance of education to metrication had not been covered in reliable sources?) There are lots of sources, many going back to the beginning of the change such as this book, this article and this report looking at metrication internationally. There are also more contemporary newsy sources like this BBC article from 2004. I could go on. The article desperately needs this kind of material put into it to give precisely that indication as to why the content is relevant. At the moment there is far too much OR about the situation now. I think that is partly a result of some people trying to demonstrate just how much Britain is now modernly metric or still British-bull-doggedly imperial. However, the article is primarily about the change over the past forty or fifty years, not where we are in October 2011. I would like to put such material in (or at least find it for other editors to read and add), but my time on this article has been rather taken up with matters below this section.

If you've never heard of the idea that if something receives no coverage in secondary sources it has no weight, view it like this: your notion that the royal household's use of metric is a relevant part of the process of metrication is the equivalent of a very fringe theory. We define fringe by the level of acceptance among reliable sources, and there's not a single one yet been produced that sees it as relevant at all.

In general your comments about primary and secondary sources are really very out of kilter with what is usually accepted Wikipedia practice. Reliable secondary sources are how we define notability and due weight. They are our lead in how to interpret and understand primary sources. If we didn't do things like this, we would have campaigners, fringe lunatics, paid advocates and other people unable to prove their arguments to real-world authorities running absolute riot over all our pages. Has it never occurred to you why this voluntary, anonymously edited, self-governing encyclopedia that anyone can edit has, by and large, not fallen prey to these people?

If you don't mind, if you still want to pursue this, I really think you should take it to WP:RSN.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)