Jump to content

Talk:Stone (unit)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Usage

This page contradicts itself - "formerly used in Ireland", and "the stone remains almost universal for use in Britain and Ireland" -- Mongboola


no one actually uses stones for weight descriptions. where are you getting this flawed information? 135.214.66.240 23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you American, perchance? *I* certainly do. I suppose the flawed information would be my life, then. —Wereon 09:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for my fellow countryman's statement. We're not all ugly Americans. I promise. ;) What the article has to say is surprisingly true: over here on this side of the Atlantic, a stone is just something you can skip over a pond. Many Americans you might ask wouldn't even realize it was a measure of weight at all in much the same way as a former professor of mine was utterly shocked when a classmate described themselves as weighing 170 pounds. He honestly didn't know what they meant.
All that said, I'm not sure this article should still be classified as a stub. Perhaps the unit's relation to international pounds and use as a measure of body weight with a "see also: pounds (avoirdupois)" would be enough? --Southpaw018 15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. The stone's relationship to pounds is already quite clearly expressed in the opening paragraph of the text, and the second paragraph describes the use of stones and pounds together. In addition to the discussion stating that its only current use is for body weight, it is already linked in the "See also" section to both human weight and the more general body weight. It is categorized in the relevant categories Category:Units of mass and Category:Imperial units. Geographical distinctions in usage are also set out.
Therefore, because I think it is right and because your criteria for doing this have already been met, I am removing the stub classification. Gene Nygaard 16:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not true that everyone in Britain measures their weight in stones. I use metric and so do a few people that I know. I have amended the word 'universally used' to say 'widely used'. My sister is a secondary school teacher, who tells me that most of her pupils think almost entirely in metric and would tend to give their weight in kilograms.Blaise 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I admin on a site based in the UK and the term 'stone' is used in an off-and-on basis. HalfShadow 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

11st 4lb vs. 10st 1lb ?

Pardon me for butting in, but is there a reason why the weight used keeps changing from 10 stone 1 to 11 stone 4 and back again? Richard B 22:30, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty senseless to me; that's why I keep reverting it. An additional problem was Chaosfeary's "1 pounds" the first time he arbitrarily changed those numbers. Gene Nygaard 23:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
11 stone 4 is Leopold Bloom's weight in James Joyce's Ulysses. (It's given early in the Ithaca episode.) Maybe there's a literature buff who keeps changing it? Bschak 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a 32 year-old Canadian, and I'm thankful for this "STONE" information. I was just watching a television program filmed in London, and the dialogue went something like this: 'With renewed energy and more interest in the bedroom, after 8 weeks Christopher lost nearly 3 stone.' I had absolutely no idea what that meant, or that 'stone' meant a measurement of weight. I had to search several places, but 'stone' is such an ambiguous word, and I was getting nowhere until I found this entry here on Wikipedia.

In the AC/DC Song "Whole Lotta Rosie" The lyrics went as follows. Never had a woman, never had a women like you. Doin' all the things, doin' all the things you do. Ain't no fairy story, ain't no skin and bone. But you give it all you got, weighin' in at 19 stone.24.115.227.252 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Justin

Mass vs. Weight

Isn't the stone the Imperial unit of mass? Mass and weight are not the same thing. This should be discussed. Shouldn't this page be Stone (mass)?

Hello. Please, sign your comments. You are right that mass and weight are not the same thing. A stone is definitely a unit of weight. At sea level on Earth, a 63.5-kilogram person weighs ten stone. Far out in the vacuum of space, far from any sources of much gravity, that same person would still have 63.5 kilograms of mass—but 0 stone of weight. Or, on Earth's moon, that same person would have only about 2.33 stones' weight. This is why the article is called "Stone (weight)". — President Lethe 23:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Surely you meant "A stone is definitely a unit of weight."? —Wereon 11:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! Sorry! I'll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out! — President Lethe 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)\
But the article says The stone is a unit of mass. Should this not be weight? – Pedantic79 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it now. :-) — President Lethe 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It’s defined in terms of the kilogram (not the newton nor kilogram-force alias kilopond), so it’s definitely a unit of mass. The distinction is of course moot for the usual applications of stones. That’s probably why noöne cared yet to move the article. Christoph Päper 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps your source is MISTAKEN. Then what? My opinion: ALL references to mass should be removed from this article. This self-centric over-academic discussion is unbelievable. Drop your classes and go see some reality.96.226.204.58 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the British Government in their infinite wisdom defined the stone in law as beign either a mass or weight. Wikipedia reports what they say, but does not correct it. That is why I inserted "[sic]" into the article lead. Martinvl (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's defined as about 6.36 kilograms only under normal conditions at sea level on Earth. The stone is a unit of weight. A unit is a unit of weight if the number of that unit that an object has changes on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in; a unit is a unit of mass if the number of that unit that an object has does not change on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter: Your amount of matter doesn't change if you move from the Earth to Earth's moon; your kilograms stay the same. But how far down you press on a weight-measuring scale does change. Human-defined units of weight and mass are interchangeable only under normal conditions on Earth. — President Lethe 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the stone is defined as exactly 14 avoirdupois pounds (not pound-force). An avoirdupois pound is exactly 0.45359237 kg today and nothing else. The kilogram is the SI base unit of mass. Therefore the stone is a unit of mass. Period.
A common scale of course measures force, but displays mass based upon some local value of g. It needs to be recalibrated when used somewhere with significantly different gravitation.
Imagine the avoirdupois units etc. were units of force. In that case when you brought the national prototypes that had been send out throughout the former English empire together in one place all would have to show slightly different results on the same scale. This isn’t the case, because they were made by comparison to the first prototype.
There also was a fixed relationship between the avoirdupois pound and the imperial gallon under specified condidtions (density, temperature, pressure), which only makes sense when the pound is a unit of mass, because otherwise the imperial units of volume would depend on gravitation, too.
In conclusion the number of your stones doesn’t change on a mountain, at the equator nor on Mars (although a non-recalibrated scale might imply the opposite, use a balance instead). — Christoph Päper 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your post, but it contradicts everything else I've ever read on this subject in reputable source—e.g., science textbooks (from all levels of education), various other non-fiction works on the matter, general encyclopedias, &c. The "Weight" article from the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia, for example, reads

Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. The weight of an object depends on (1) the distance from the object to the center of the planet, (2) the mass (amount of matter) of the object, and (3) the mass of the planet.
An object's weight is largest if the object is on the surface of the planet. The weight becomes smaller if the object is moved away from the planet. The object has no weight in space, where the gravitational force acting on it is too weak to be measured. If the object were to penetrate inside the planet, its weight would also be smaller.
The mass of the planet also affects the weight of objects on its surface. If the planet has a mass smaller than Earth's, its gravitational force is also smaller. For example, a man who weighs 200 pounds (91 kilograms) on Earth would weigh only 76 pounds (34 kilograms) on Mars. He would weigh 180 pounds (82 kilograms) on Venus and 516 pounds (234 kilograms) on Jupiter.
Common units used to measure weight are the ounce and the pound. The gram and kilogram are units of mass that are also used to measure weight in the metric system.

Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars.

President Lethe 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The first two quoted paragraphs are correct, but you would have to replace every occurence of “pound” and “kilogram” in the third by “pound-force” and “kilogram-force” (or rather “kilopond”) respectively. It’s the fact that force-measuring devices are commonly used to measure mass and the lax handling of terms that causes the confusion. The final quoted paragraph is utter nonsense, because it’s quite the reverse: ounce and pound have a history of being used for both purposes (“pound-mass” and “pound-force”, when explicitely distinguished), whereas the kilogram-force has fallen out of use, at least in science and engineering. The existence of an alternate term, kilopond, probably helped to reduce confusion in the metric world (it’s too easy to drop the “force” suffix).
Your conclusion contradicts the text you cite, at least you’re more correct.
Of course there are (or were) also things like the slug and the poundal to get coherent modern English systems. There used to be a table in pound (mass), that perhaps got moved to some other article lately. It showed the possibilities for English units, I’m giving it here in edited form.
  Gravitational Engineering Absolute System
Unit of time s Metric and English
Unit of distance m Metric
ft English
Unit of mass hyl kg Metric
slug lb (lbm) English
Unit of force kp (kgf) N Metric
lb (lbf) pdl English
Newton’s 2nd law F = m·a F = m·a/gc F = m·a Metric and English
Weight of an object W = m·g W = m·g/gc W = m·g Metric and English

(g/gc ≈ 1 on Earth.)

The international system of units (SI) is an absolute metric system. The most-used FPS system is probably the engineering one, today. Christoph Päper 09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Christoph Päper.

You said that my conclusion contradicted the text I quoted. I figure that you mean my "Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars." This is exactly supported by what I quoted, which, in its penultimate paragraph, shows that the weight in pounds varies with gravity and that, when used as a measure of weight, the number of kilograms also varies, and, in its final paragraph, clarifies that kilograms sometimes measure mass (invariable with gravity) and sometimes measure weight (variable with gravity).

As I said earlier, I grasp what you're saying—but it contradicts everything else that has ever entered my brain on this subject. Perhaps you can quote some sources that say that the pound really, really, really is a unit of mass and that something's 'pound mass' doesn't change with gravity (and, of course, I would want something more than just a source that says that kilogram weight doesn't change with gravity and then happens to convert the kg to pounds in the same ratio as on Earth). I hope you understand that, in the matter of how human beings use words to define external concepts, when I've had years of receiving one input, and then I receive a contradictory input, I don't just instantly allow the new input to supersede the old—because each input makes sense within its own context.

Unfortunately, almost all of my printed sources are in storage right now. But I found the same encyclopedia's "Mass" article of interest:

Mass is often defined as the amount of matter in an object. However, scientists usually define mass as a measure of inertia, which is a property of all matter. Inertia is the tendency of a motionless object to remain motionless and of a moving object to continue moving at a constant speed and in the same direction. See INERTIA.
The greater an object's mass, the more difficult it is to change its velocity. For example, a locomotive has a greater mass than an automobile. For this reason, it takes more force to stop a locomotive than to stop an automobile if both are moving at the same speed.
Force, mass, and acceleration are related by Newton's second law of motion (see MOTION [Newton's laws of motion]). This law is represented by the equation F = ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.
The unit of mass depends on the system of mechanical units used. Scientists prefer to use the Meter-Kilogram-Second (MKS) absolute system, in which the unit of mass is the kilogram (1,000 grams). Engineers prefer the Foot-Pound-Second (FPS) gravitational system, in which the unit of mass is the slug. One slug equals 14.594 kilograms.
Mass and weight are not the same thing. Weight is the force on an object due to the gravitational pull of a planet or other heavenly body. An object within a planet's pull of gravity weighs less the farther it is from the planet's surface. However, the object's mass remains constant, no matter where it is.
Conservation of mass. The law of the conservation of mass states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. This law has also been called the law of conservation of matter because scientists once thought that an object lost mass only by giving up some of its matter. However, we now know that an object also loses mass when it loses energy and gains mass when it gains energy.
In chemical reactions, the mass changes are very small. For example, when coal burns, it produces heat energy along with carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ash. This reaction results in a loss of only 0.0003 gram for every million grams of coal burned. But nuclear reactions, such as those that occur in a nuclear reactor, result in a huge release of energy accompanied by a significant loss of mass. A million grams of uranium undergoing nuclear fission loses about 750 grams.
Most of the energy lost by burning coal or fissioning uranium is reabsorbed by other atoms and becomes mass again, according to Albert Einstein's famous equation E equals m times c-squared. In this formula, E represents energy, m represents mass, and c is the speed of light. See also E EQUALS M TIMES C-SQUARED.

I also come across this article, in the same source:

Pound is a unit of weight used primarily in the United States. In science and technology, weight refers to the gravitational force on an object, and the pound is used as a unit of force. This unit also appears in the term pounds per square inch (psi), which is used as a measure of pressure. In commercial and everyday use, the term weight is understood to mean mass (quantity of matter), and so the pound is also used as a unit of mass.
In the system of weights called the avoirdupois (pronounced (av uhr duh POYZ) )system [sic], which is used to weigh most objects, there are 16 ounces to a pound. As a unit of force, the avoirdupois pound is equivalent to 4.448 newtons in the metric system; as a unit of mass, 0.454 kilogram in the metric system. In the troy weight system, used throughout the world to measure precious metals, a pound equals 12 ounces and is equivalent to 0.373 kilogram.
The abbreviation for pound is lb. The abbreviation stands for the Latin word libra, which means pound or balance. Libra was the name of a unit of weight used by the ancient Romans, and it was the name for a balance, or scale, that Romans used to measure weight. The symbol # is sometimes used for pound.

... I am becoming somewhat convinced, but only within these "In commercial and everyday use" limits.

Maybe you, I, or someone should edit this Wikipedia article to describe the triple (mass, weight, pressure) nature of the pound (and thus the stone). What think you?

President Lethe 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Does anyone know why the British introduced the stone into the avoirdupois system (and subsequently changed the larger units -- see the avoirdupois entry)? Or why the term is "stone"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.25.30 (talk • contribs) 04:21, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology dictionary: "The British measure of weight (usually equal to 14 pounds) is from 1390s, originally a specific stone." (if that helps at all). I think the rationale behind the stone is to have a unit that is a multiple of seven; a pound of potatoes a day is a stone a fortnight, etc. Changing the definition of units so that they are integer multiples of others is not uncommon; cf. the "statute mile", which was 5280 rather than 5000 feet, and hence was an integer number of yards. —Wereon 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I'd heard once that a stone in the context of body weight had a much more nefarious origin. Consider that if you are weighing potatoes on a balance, a rock of the correct mass (a "stone") is a rapid way to check under- or over-weight. But when does one put a human on a balance (aside from Monty Python's Holy Grail)? When you're going to hang him. That is... I've heard that the origin of giving someone's weight in 'stone' was a way of figuring out how much counterweight you need to keep the noose from slipping! I have been searching unsuccessfully for a citation for this... but if someone can find one, I recommend adding this to the main entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.211.16 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to hang someone you need the weight to calculate drop length. Too short of a drop and the condemmned will simply suffocate (not nice to watch, cruel too), too much of a drop and the head will snap off (not nice to watch either). If the drop is "just right" the neck will snap but the head still stays attached to the body. Anyway, the noose will firmly be attached to a beam (or tree) anyway, so counterweight is not an issue.--Soylentyellow (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The 14-lb stone and 7-lb clove were not "introduced" - they were part of the avoirdupois system from the beginning. Different sized stones were used for different purposes, but the stone that went with avoirdupois weights was the woolstone. As recently as the late 16th century, the avoirdupois pound was known as the wool-pound or avoirdupois wool-pound. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason why we need this ridiculous section? I can't think of a single reason why it would be of interest to anybody. —Wereon 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can think of why it would be of interest to someone; but I don't think it's a strong enough reason to keep it in the article. I wouldn't mind if it disappeared; but, as long as it's here, I'll try to keep it tidy, as I've been doing. — President Lethe 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section, there was nothing worth keeping here. --Xyzzyplugh 15:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not in USA?

I realise that stone isn't used in USA but why not? What I mean is that, historically, a lot of settlers would have arrived there from Britain and thus would probably have used 'stone' to count. So was it used at one point in the long distant past before dying out? Valenciano 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe during their time on the boat they forgot about it? Just as they forgot how to spell. 81.178.254.17 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, actually, many "U.S." spellings are either archaic British spellings such as "organization", which is the preferred Oxford variant IIRC, or variations. However, it is true, there were efforts at simplification by people such as that of Daniel Webster's famous dictionary. Frankly, I'm American, but prefer the British spellings and use them when I can. As for the origins of stone as U.S./Imperial usage, I too, am perplexed that it is not used in the U.S. and also Canada (?), which seems to use pounds unofficially when referring to body weight, which leads me to believe that the current usage of stone as a measurement in the U.K. and in Australia and New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries is relatively new, vis-a-vis the British colonization of North America. And, I always seem to find myself back at this article in an effort to find out why this is. I would be curious to know the usage in other (Pan) American British-colonized countries: Bermuda, Belize, Jamaica, etc. Though their continued close links with Britain would suggest a usage of stone if it was. --Larry G 11:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Webster? I think you mean Noah Webster. 71.205.170.70 (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The 14-pound wool-stone was part of the avoirdupois system from the beginning, i.e., circa 1300. The 14-pound stone was commonly used in the USA in the 19th century. It is mentioned in Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary of American English, as well as Ray's Arithmetic (the math equivalent of the McGuffey Reader). Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a decal?

"(a similar usage persists in Canada, decal)"

This link leads to the article about transferring designs to surfaces. Is it maybe meant to lead to Decalitre? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone is not used in Australia

I should mention that the stone is non-existant in Australia, and has been for well over 30 years. In fact, most people under 40 probably wouldn't know what it is. Many people over 40 even have long forgotten it. Unlike the UK & Canada, kilograms are the ONLY unit of measurement currently used here. It is a similar situation with Fahrenheit temperatures, where it is not only no longer used, but no longer KNOWN by the majority of people. This contrasts with feet and inches, for example, which are still fairly common (TV screens, car tire sizes, and so forth).Davez621 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This has always surprised me (British) a bit. Surely Australians see enough US stuff to know that "it's 110 degrees out there" means "it's extremely hot", even if they couldn't translate it exactly into Celsius? 86.132.137.5 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But 110 is extremely hot in Celsius as well, so what's the difference? The two could be used interchangeably without any knowledge of Fahrenheit. That's a little different then. On the other hand, if you said it's 50F outside, very few people here would know that that means it's cold.Davez621 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well they shouldn't, since 50 degrees F is not cold, it's temperate ;). 32 degrees is the freezing point. 71.205.170.70 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The stone may be out of use in Australia, but it is a historical usage that is known to many living Australians, just as Fahrenheit and Australian pounds are. It's hyperbole to say that people over 40 have "long forgotten" it. Any older Australian who heard it would remember it in a flash, which is a lot different from saying they've "long forgotten" it. 221.222.124.58 (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
50 °F (10 °C) is cold to an Aussie. JIMp talk·cont 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stone is a unit of weight, not mass.

Mass is a measure of inertia and is independent of gravity; the correct and complete term is "inertial mass". Weight is the force exerted by that inertial mass in a gravity field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.127.194 (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pffft! You don't know what you're talking about. A one stone mass is a one stone mass, whether at the equator, at the top of Mt. Everest, at the bottom of a pond, on the surface of The Moon or Mars, or floating in deep space. —QuicksilverT @ 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hold your horses. (All of you.) You must not confuse "mass" in the scientific definition of a physicist and "mass" in the common definition of everyday people. It is NOT the same. Nor would many be able to explain "weight" from a physicist's point of view. In German, this is better: "weight" as scientific term translates to Gewichtskraft, where "Kraft" means "force". "Weight" in everyday use translates to "Gewicht", though. -andy 92.229.108.243 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought that I had settled this argument for once and for all when I dug up and published a reference to the last time that the stone was legally defined in the United Kingdom. On that occasion it was defined as being either a mass or a weight. Since Wikipedia is about verifiability WP:VERIFY, this argument has, for purposes of Wikipedia, been settled (unless of course somebody can find a definition of equal of greater authority). Martinvl (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, people, you really need to get a grip here.

Hydragyrum, there's no need to get all up in Mr. Unsigned IP's face. What he said in no way contradicted your assertion that mass is independent of gravity. So stop being a dickhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.164.32 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

st

I think the abrev. is st? --Diwas (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes of 1 March 2010

I have reverted the two changes made today.

  • There was an edit war going ago on a few months ago as to whether the stone was a weight or a mass. Scientists and engineers say that it cannot be both. However British legislation stated that it was both, which in my opinion, is ridiculous. That is why the [sic] statement appeared.
  • The stone was not used in South Africa in the period leading up to 31 May 1961 (the date on which it left the Commonwealth). I was there at the time and I can vouch for that fact. I believe, though I do not have references to the fact, that this situation also applied to a number of other Commonwealth countries. Martinvl (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of the wording of its legal definition a stone is used for weighing things (primarily people) and as such is converted into other units used the same way. It might bug science types, but that is the pound in some countries, and the kilogram in others. As such I am going to remove the line in the intro about conversion confusion, as there is none in actual use. —MJBurrage(T•C) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stone (mass) (disambiguation)

Stone (mass) (disambiguation), a suppsed disambiguation page, redirects to Rock (geology); what is going on here? — Robert Greer (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Official use

"Thus on a National Health Service website the user may select imperial units,[7] but the law requires that if this information is officially recorded, then such records shall be in metric units.[8]"

I don't care what the citation says - this is a common myth, so prevalent that even some local government bodies have fallen victim to it. There is no requirement in law to use metric units, only to provide a parallel display of the metric quantity in most cases. This myth is more commonly expressed as 'you're not allowed to sell a pound of potatoes/pint of milk any more', but applies just as much here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.107.247 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Pedantic definitions

I have re-instated the so-called pedantic definition as this definition was the only way to stop an on-going edit war as to whether a stone was a weight or a mass. In the view of some, it make the British Government look stupid, but Wikipedia is a repositry of verifiable statements, not truths, so lets reproduce the British Government definition. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead as currently written obscures the simple facts in favor of an unhelpful over-precision. The essential information about the stone that belongs in the lead is: 1) that it is a unit of weight (in the informal sense) equivalent to 14 avoirdupois pounds; 2) that it is usually used in the UK for weighing people (even today). The fact that it was legal for trade until 1985 is not essential because in fact it was not actually used in trade for some time before that; the fact that the legislation defined it as a "weight or mass" is not essential; the fact that "weight or mass" doesn't make sense in physics is not essential -- adding 'sic' to show off the author's erudition, with overlinking to emphasize it, is especially not essential.
The distinction between weight and mass is of course crucial in physics and engineering. However, in the normal everyday context of weighing people, it is uninteresting. People do not distinguish between a person who has a 'weight' of 10 stone (as measured on a spring scale) vs. a person who has a 'mass' of 10 stone (as measured on a balance scale) -- because of course under normal conditions, the reading is the same. I suppose one would say that someone 'weighs 2 stone on the moon', so we can conclude that informally, 'stone' is a measure of weight and not mass. On the other hand, no one would say that atmospheric pressure is one stone per square inch (except for fun).
As MJBurrage says above, there is no confusion in actual use. There may be a place for discussing whether stone is weight or mass, but surely not in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
May I firstly draw to attention that the stone was used up to the 1980's for selling potatoes in the retail industry. Secondly, may I draw to attention that the homepages of both User:Macrakis and User:MJBurrage suggest that they are Americans, not British and as such they might not be aware of political undertones that are associated with the use of stones in the United Kingdom, especially those associated with Euroscepticism - comments made in all innocence in the US might well be intepretted as being a WP:POV in the UK. Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead paragraph of an article should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". In the case of the stone, those presumably include the fact that it's equivalent to 14 pounds (6.35 kg), that it is still widely used in Britain and some Commonwealth countries to measure human weight, that until recently it was used in retail trade in the UK (and elsewhere?) for some items, and that it is no longer legal for trade in the UK. Whether it is a unit of mass or of weight is very important for scientific usage, but I am not aware of the stone being used in science, so does it matter to anyone? Similarly, that the legislative text defining it does not distinguish between weight and mass is an amusing tidbit, but I can't see how belongs in the lead.
As for the distinction between weight and mass, I suspect that the true answer is that there is no consistent definition of 'stone' as mass vs. weight. I imagine (please correct me if I'm wrong) that one would not say that a 10-stone astronaut orbiting the earth weighs 0 stone (though one would say that he is "weightless"), but that one would say that he weighs 2 stone on the moon. The verb "to weigh" seems as much the culprit here as the definition of the unit.... And as with "pound", the context almost always makes it clear.
As for being American, yes, and I am certainly no expert on British usage. But I am not sure what the relevance of that is here. There may well be some political overtones to the use of stone and pounds rather than kg (something like the half-litre/pint comment in Nineteen Eighty-Four), but my edits didn't touch on that issue.
Interesting about potatoes -- the article could certainly be improved to make this usage clearer. The current text reads that they were "traditionally sold" by the stone, but "traditionally" is an awfully vague qualifier. --Macrakis (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Please visit the home page of the British Weights and Measures Association. Look at the first picture on the home page. What has Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament to do with imperial or metric measures. What is the significance of the Brussels phone number? Does this explain the undercurrents that are present? Martinvl (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I get it. There are people attached to traditional Imperial measures. Hard to know how many -- according to Alexa, that Web site has a very small audience. But whether it is a lot or a little, I don't see what that has to do with the edits we're discussing. Could you explain? --Macrakis (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There were two edit wars going on simulatneously on this site - the weight/mass edit war and the metric/imperial edit war. By quoting the most recent legal definition, I was able to put a stop to both edit wars (at any rate in the lede). If you read between the lines, you will probably notice the on-going metric/imperial undercurrent. In my view, rewriting the lede will reignite the flames. Even though the BWMA site has very few visitors, it has a number of enthusiastic supporters. Martinvl (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand that tactics are sometimes important in intervening in article disputes. However, they should not be at the expense of the article's quality: "The operation succeeded but the patient died." --Macrakis (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose I'm going to "weigh" in here. The stone is not, and never was, a unit of mass. Units of mass are a scientific concept, and the stone is not a scientific unit. It is a unit of weight. Vegetables are not sold by mass, and mass-loss clinics are decidedly uncommon. In case anyone is in any doubt, please examine the legislation passed in Britain in 1985. Was there a Masses and Measures Act? There was not. Was there a Weights and Measures Act? Yes, I believe there was. Is that pedantic enough? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Visit the reference and do a search on the wrods "weight" and "mass". You will find that both occur. Martinvl (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

EU Commissioner's statement

I revoked the last change for a number of reasons:

  1. The stone ceased to be legal for trade in 1985, but pound and ounces were legal for a number of years after that. The source only spoke of "imperial units".
  2. The citation does not follow Wikipedia standards.
  3. Pronouncements made by EU Commissioners do not have the force of law - EU directives and regulations do.
  4. The source concerns statements made in 2007, prior to the review of EU directive 80/181/EEC. The reviewed directive came into effect on 1 January 2010.

Martinvl (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The stone is not legal for trade in the United Kingdom - the rest of the paragraph clarifies this. Martinvl (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not make it clear then - and avoid confusion with Ireland which was mentioned in the same sentence. I've fixed it now. -- de Facto (talk). 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As a result of an EU directive, the stone is not legal in Ireland either. I don't know if Ireland passed explicit legislation to stop its use, or if they merely relied on their generic obligations to enforce EU directives. I don't intend wasting time to find out, but if anybody else want to trace how Ireland implemented EU Direcitve 80/181/EEC, I will not stop them. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have now cited the EU directives. I trust that this clarifies the role of the stone in modern-day UK and Ireland.

Move?

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Editors have pointed out that Stone (imperial mass) is hardly apt for the current article since it covers not just the British unit but all the related European ones. It seems harmless to merge Stone (Chinese mass) to Picul, which is a multi-national summary for the Asian units. 'Chinese mass' is not ideal for an article that covers definitions in multiple countries, not just China. Also 'mass' is too scientific for something that is really an old unit of weight. When these changes are made, the name Stone (unit) can limit itself to covering the European units of weight. I am also closing the merge discussion for Stone (Chinese mass) into Picul. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Stone (imperial mass) → Stone (unit) –

First, may I apologise again for having erroneously moved the talk page when of course what I intended to move was the article, and thank Anthony A for clearing up that mess. Yes, of course I checked the disambiguation page. The Chinese unit (a) has only one working reference, in Chinese, without translation (b) is so obscure that it is not mentioned in Chinese units of measurement and (c) is under consideration for merging with Picul. The UK unit is clearly the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. The Chinese unit can be mentioned in a hatnote. As PWGI points out, the stone is not exclusively an Imperial unit, predating the Empire; nor is it in any ordinary circumstance a unit of mass: it is a unit of weight (in the ordinary, not the scientific, sense of that word), and used almost exclusively for measurement of body weight. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Justlettersandnumbers. Martinvl (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Support The article is about the various stones used in Europe not just the imperial unit. Merge the Chinese unit then move this to Stone (unit). Leave a hatnote for the Chinese stone & the general disambig page. JIMp talk·cont 06:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Several of the sections above talk about it as a unit of mass... Though if you merge the Chinese article here, then moving it to Stone (unit) would work out. However, this is current article is like Stone (European unit) since it is of the European tradition, and the weights/masses involved are similar and the Chinese unit is larger. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Much bigger, I might add. So much so that I don't think it would be a good idea to cover them in the same article; I think the same English translation is a mere coincidence. (I would have chosen "rock" instead, if it has to be English, but I guess I'm coming a couple hundred years too late for that.) — Sebastian 08:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it would be sensible to wait for the outcome of the merge discussion of Stone (Chinese mass) into Picul. On the other hand, I hope I have not understood above that there is any suggestion of merging the Chinese unit here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pounds

I hope it's not too much clutter, but I added "pounds" to the list of stone-to-kilogram equivalences, which I thought was very helpful since 14 isn't exactly the easiest number to multiply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.39.43 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2006‎ (UTC)

I don't think the list is of much use at all, because of its overly precise conversions and the fact that the weights of many people, for which stone is used the most AFAIK, are more than 75 kg. Anyone who needs a conversion should use the definition herein and a calculator (some brains feature one). Christoph Päper 14:18, 25 February 2006‎ (UTC)

Reinstatement of the lede

After the various changes that took place to the lede today it has become a little disjointed , so I have reinstated the older version. Points that are made clear are:

  • The stone is not a UK/Irish unit was measure, it dates back to antiquity and in the eighteenth centrury was used across all of Northern Europe. I have seen a stone weight of Roman origin in a German museum.
  • The stone had a variety of values, not just 14 lbs. Before the war, the London meat markets used a stone of 8 lbs. There are probalby a nunmber of old men who, as 16 year-old porters, still remember the 8 lbs stone, so that is "within living memory".
  • The use of the stone in both the UK and in Ireland is very similar and following an EU directive it ceased to be legal for trade in both countries at about the same time.

Please, whoever rushed to delete references to "Ireland", pleasae refrain from doing so in future. I idnetified those references last night. If you wish to make a mark, please use the "citation needed" flag. Martinvl (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How much kilo in a stone?

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

"Buried"? Really? The first paragraph tells us quite clearly that (a) its value has varied by time and place from 3-12 kg; and (b) that the normal value in the UK is 6.35 kg:
The stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measurement that was used in many North European countries until the advent of metrication. Its value, which ranged from 3 kg to 12 kg, varied from city to city and also often from commodity to commodity. In the United Kingdom its value is normally taken as being equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (6.35 kg), though prior to the Second World War it had other values, depending on its use.
The only thing that I'd clarify in the lead is that in modern UK usage, it is primarily used for talking about the weight of humans, something like this:
In modern United Kingdom usage, it is equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (6.35 kg) and primarly used for weighing people, though prior to the Second World War it had other values and uses.
Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You commanding "Comments?" is arrogant. And that is before I dive into the content. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I have reworked the lede which had been the subject of many edits, many due to User:DeFacto who has now been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I certainly didn't intend to be arrogant, simply to solicit feedback. Kindly assume good faith. I look forward to your substantive comments. --Macrakis (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
AGF is for you too. I suggest you reread my original question, and then reconsider your reply. -DePiep (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
I re-read your question and my answer, and am still puzzled. Anyway, I've tried to improve the wording of the lead, which still contains the pound and kilogram equivalents for the modern value -- do you find that any better? --Macrakis (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
No soup for you. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Till now it's been saying that a stone is approximately 6.35 kg. People want to know exactly what the thing is, i.e. that it's 6.35029318 kg. JIMp talk·cont 08:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

5, 8, and 14 pound stones

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

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

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

Reinstatement of the lede - 3 July 2012

Reinsted older version because:

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

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

"st" is the abbreviation for the Irish/British "stone", but is it also the abbreviation for all the other "stones" mentioned in this article? You'll need references to support that assertion. The "stone" has not "ceased" to have a "legal status", its legal status has simply changed. The Irish "stone" is a standardised (14 lbs) version of earlier more locally defined "stones" as described in the article. Where in the article is the pre-WWII variations in the stone described? The use of "informally" is ambiguous in the phrase: "still widely used informally to measure personal body weight". What exactly do you mean? Ornaith (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted again. The Wikipeida policy is that if there is a dispute the original version stays (process is WP:BOLD change, WP:REVERT, WP:CONSENSUS), so please do not re-revert until each of the points has been satisfied.
  • An abbreviation is language-specific, a symbol is not. You can verify the use of "st" as an abbreviation in the English language in the citation given. No further clarification is needed.
  • As regards informal use - this is a summary of what was written later in the article. If this is a fair summary of what appears later, it should stay, if you can improve it, do so, but please remember that the lede is a summary of the article as a whole.
  • The eighteenth century use of stones is certainly pre-WWII. I have seen references to the use of 8 lbs stones in the London meat trade up to 1938, but as they are self-published, I need something more authoritative.
Martinvl (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the dispute here?
  • Do you dispute that there has been more than one defined stone unit?
  • Do you dispute that "st" is the abbreviation for just the Irish/British pound of 14 lbs as described in the referenced OED?
  • Do you dispute that "informally" is the wrong adjective to use to describe usage in formal situations such as the expression of the weight of sports people as the article says: "In many sports in the UK such as professional boxing, wrestling and horse racing, the stone is used to express weight..."?
  • Do you dispute that the stone does in fact have a legal status? The article is very clear about that, it says: '...its use as a "supplementary unit" was permitted.'. That sounds like it has a legal status to me.
  • Do you dispute that the Irish/British stone was standardised to 14 lbs?
  • Do you dispute that the phrase: "Prior to the Second World War, it had values ranging from 8 to 16 pounds" suggests that something changed between 1939 and 1945 to the definition of the Irish/British stone? Yet there is no discussion of any such change in the article.
Please clarify your the objections to my changes in relation to each of those points. Ornaith (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
My responses:
  • The stone (singular) has multiple definitions - that is the language used in both Encyclopeadia Brtiannica (1772) and the Concise Oxford Dictionary. (Both are on my bookshelf and I double-checked today)
  • The abbreviation "st" is an English language abbreviation. The OED is silent as to how widspread it is (or was). It should be noted that the Germans stopped using the stone in the 1870's (shortly after their unification). Today "st" is an abbreviation in German for "stuer" (tax). I do not know whether or not "st" was used on the Continent for the word "Stein" or "Steen", but I have seen documents showing it to mean "stuiver" (a small coin - the Dutch nicknamed their fl 0.05 (€0.022) coin) coin (one stuiver) until 2001. So, in response to your question, apart from English language use, no comment.
  • You are welcome to use an alternative word for "informally", but remember that the stone has no legal status in the UK, Ireland or, as far as I am aware, anywhere else in the world.
  • A term "supplementary status" does not confer any legal status. All that it means is that you are permitted to use it alongside, but not instead of metric units. The "supplementary unit" rule permits the weight on a bottle of jam to be stated as "450 g (1 lb)". For the record, when South Africa went metric, that would have been illegal - the weight would have to have been stated as "450 g".
  • The self-published reference that I found stated that in 1935 the weights commissioners in London were instructed to stop stamping 8 lb weights as "one stone" and their use was prohibited from 1938. I am currently looking for a reference that carries more authority
  • I would be happy to use the word "redefined", but one needs to clarify what is meant by that word and also by what action (and therefore date) it was standardised. The date of 1935 that I used above applied only to the United Kingdom (as you are probably aware).
I think that this answers my position on all of your questions.
Martinvl (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What you say does not provide any explanation of why you dispute what I wrote.
  • My wording "The stone is any one of a number of units of measurement..." (with "stone" singular) supports your definition, it doesn't contradict it. In addition it is explicit that there are indeed multiple definitions. Your wording ("The stone ... is a unit of measurement that...") does not even allude to the multiple definitions, so could be misunderstood.
  • Do you believe that "st" is the abbreviation for each and every definition of "stone", or just the 14 lb stone?
  • Are you similarly saying that because hair colours have no legal status that we should say that "blonde is used informally to describe a hair colour"? That is, or course, ridiculous. Why, even if stone has no legal status (see later), should a description be qualified by the adjective "informally" (or similar)?
  • Why exactly do you mean then by "legal status" (define it using other words) when it is clear from the text that the stone can be legally used in Ireland and the UK? Your SA example supports my understanding of legal status - it is not illegal, so is by default legally allowed in the situations described.
  • If, as you appear to agree, there is currently no support in the article for the pre-WWII statement, how is it currently justified?
Please be explicit and try to avoid ambiguities. Ornaith (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
My responses
  • The references that I cited (one of which is reproduced in the article) used the singular word "stone" to describe various usints quantities called the stone. Since Wikipeida is about verifiability, not truth, we should do likewise.
  • My belief is immaterial - what matters is what appears in the citations. One might need to consult a pre-1935 earlier reference (eg a dictionary) to find out.
  • EU directive catalogues the units of measure that my be used for ... (see next point). I have not seen any legislation that catalogues how one describes hair - have you?
  • Article 2a of the EU direcitve (before 2010) states "The obligations arising under Article 1 relate to measuring instruments used, measurements made and indications of quantity expressed in units of measurement, for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes". Since 1 Jan 2010 the EU directive has been extended to include all aspects of the internal market. In practice this means that if you advertise bananas at 25p/lb without the kg price being at least as prominent you can be charged for false advertising.
Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we agree on the first one then.
How about adopting this wording to add clarity to the introduction: "The stone is any one of a number of units of measurement...". It satisfies your demand for "stone" singular and in addition it is explicit that there are indeed multiple definitions (as you also stated above).
Is there anything in that wording that you dispute? Ornaith (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
As there was no challenge to this, I have done it.
Now let's look at the next one.
As the introduction should be a summary of the rest of the article, and there is no mention of any stone definition changes around the time of WWII anywhere else in the article, shall we remove the unsupported mention of that from the introduction? If, at some time in the future, a supported account of such a change is added to the article, then we can add it again to the summary. Ornaith (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I've restored the previous content because you did not explain your reasoning for each change. Also, when adding new content, please be careful not to undo the work of others without first discussing that here. Ornaith (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
And restored again following your further unexplained reversion. Ornaith (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have undone your reversion (which you have since reinstated without at least having the courtesy to wait for me to post my reasoning here. The text that follows is what I was about to post). I assume that you are objecting to me replacing "is any one of a number of units of measurement" with "is a unit of measure". The Oxford Concise Dictionary (1964) states "Stone ... 6 Weight of 14 lb. or of other amount varying with the commodity". Please note that the word "weight" is singular so all that I have done is to align the text with the source. If you revert again I will ask that you be banned under the WP:3RR rule. If you try to use this rule against me, I will use the defence of vandalism on your part. Please back off and check any sources that you might have at your disposal, but do not try to usurp the role of published authoritative works. Martinvl (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Your reasoning about the "stone" is flawed there. The article text does not contradict the dictionary definition. In fact it correlates with it. The stone has multiple definitions, each is a different unit of weight. Let me explain: the 14lb stone does not eual the 8lb stone, they are 2 different stones - but they are both stones nevertheless. Does that help you?
With regard to the 3RR rule, I'll think you'll find that I have not broken it. You on the otherhand have. Do you want me to give you the opportunity to test your theory that my well reasoned improvements are actually vandalism, or are you going to participate in the discussion so we can stabilise this article's content? Ornaith (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I checked the wording of the definition of the "gallon" in the Oxford dictionary of Weights, Measures and Units. It stated "gallon volumeThe reference unit for most volumentic measurement ..." The definition went on to describe the difference between the imperial gallon, the US gallon and the US dry gallon. Please note that the word "reference unit" is singular even though many different gallons were described. Since the stone, like the gallon, has many different values depending on commodity, locality, era etc, it too should be singular. Martinvl (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
We clearly have a deadlock. I believe we need to convey the notion that the one name is used with multiple definitions in the summary. Let's try to come up with an alternative wording that satisfies the needs of us both. How about: "is a unit of weight with a variety of definitions dependent on usage context"? Ornaith (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it appears that the only area of discussion is how to word teh lede, I have reinstated the earlier version. Meanwhile I invite you to to write out your proposal for a revised lede in full. I see no reason to remove the additional material that I added regarding detaisl of the 20th century history of the stone. Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, I'd like to see your proposed lede as well. You might want to see how this problem has been resolved at foot (unit) and meter. GaramondLethe 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring these requests, I plan to offer something on this soon, but am busy with other jobs at the same time. Ornaith (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries. GaramondLethe 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Finally I found time! Please see the new section, and tell us what you think. Ornaith (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On additional citations

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

You are right, I'm the fool who didn't realise that wasn't all of it! Thanks for your intervention, and apologies to all concerned. Have you read it all and can verify that it supports what it needs to support? I'm not prepared to pay $25 to read it, so we'll have to accept the word of the contributing editor for it. I wonder if Martinvl can confirm the details for us. Ornaith (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I do have it and hope to carve out some time later tonight to give it a close reading. Based on the conversation I saw at the wp:teahouse you should have a copy as well; let me know if that doesn't work out and I'll send you the pdf that I have. GaramondLethe 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Although I have accepted the offer made in the tearoom, I haven't yet received a copy of the said document, so am still none the wiser. I notice too that in the meantime, Martinvl has added another reference. Ornaith (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've sent you an email so that you'll have my email address. Respond to that so I can have your email and I'll send the pdf along. GaramondLethe 00:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I finally got the chance to read the reference, and as I feared it did not support the assertions attributed to it at the time. A new reference has since been inserted though, so that may cover it all. Thanks for your help with this. Ornaith (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes from Kisch (1956)

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

  • A common ("not too rare") form of Roman weights is a segment of a sphere.
  • Fifty pound weights are unusual, as are weights of the form of a segment of an egg.
  • The imperial Roman pound was 327.45 grams.
  • Karl Pink published a monograph in 1938 of Roman and Byzantine weights in Austrian collections, a copy is available at UCBerkeley and a few other libraries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GaramondLethe 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

US is officially metric - or is it?

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

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

  1. Almost all people in the UK still measure distance in miles, not kilometres. Miles are shown on road signs, not kilometres, and speed limits are stated in miles per hour.
  2. In the US, the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 did direct federal agencies to convert to using metric units, and in pursuit of that aim it created the United States Metric Board, but Ronald Reagan abolished the Board in 1982. In 1992 the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was amended to require consumer goods to be labelled in both customary and metric units. Moonraker (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
In the UK, the motorists sees signs that show imperial units, but the specification of the signs themselves are given in metric units (eg 600 mm by 500 mm). Go into a British supermarket and everything is in metric, go to a pub and beer is sold by the [imperial] pint, but whiskey in 25 ml and 35 ml glasses and wine is 125 ml, 175 ml and 250 ml glasses, motor car handooks are metric (apart from wheel sizes). In short, the UK is mostly metric, especially those parts that are hidden from the man in the street. For more information, please visit Metricaion in the United Kingdom.
BTW this artcile is about the stone, so please do not continue this thread.Martinvl (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The law actually states that metric units must be used and that supplementary units (for example imperial units) may be used alongside the metric units, provided that the metric version is the more prominent. The law also states that in most cases, prices must be quoted per kilogram (not per 454 g). Martinvl (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Even before 1985 the stone was not much used in retail trade, that is, in shops selling things to the general public, although it was used in wholesaling. Moonraker (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede is misleading

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

I offer the following alternative lede wording for discussion:

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

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

Very quickly, as I'm heading out the door....
  • Did you mean to say "is ...now used predominantly..."? Do you have a citation in mind for that? Wording like "...is still used in Ireland and the UK..." falls on the right side of WP:OR (at least in my opinion) because it can be attested to with a handful of citations. "Predominantly" sounds like you've surveyed many reliable sources and, based on that survey, come to that conclusion, and I think that will have WP:OR problems. There may already be a cite that backs up "predominantly" in the article, but I didn't see one after a quick skim.
  • As to "Northern Europe", there's the concept of "the community uses a particular stone for weighing things" and "stone embodied as a particular unit in national law" with a lot of murky history in between. Do you have any sense of whether this happened in Southern or Eastern Europe as well? Further afield? I'm just concerned that mentioning Northern Europe in particular means that we've found a cite that limits the range of this particular article to that geographic area, and with the Roman material I'm not sure that's the case.
  • Do you have a cite in mind for "widely used to express body weight"? As per above, "widely" might be problematic without a cite.
  • "commodity that they were used for" can probably be shorted to "commodity".
Overall, though, Looks like a good start!
One other note: I'm sure you used "misleading" in the strict technical sense, but it might have come across as a claim of bad faith. (If I had written the lede, I might think you were suggesting that I had been deliberately "misleading", especially if I read that before my morning caffeine.) This kind of misinterpretation is rarely a problem, but when it happens it's usually a pretty big problem. Something like "Improving the lede" or "Aligning lede with the text of the article" are, respectively, more bland and more wordy, but they are much harder to inadvertently misinterpret. So take that for whatever it's worth....
GaramondLethe 18:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A number of comments:
  • The wording "unit of measure" bypasses the awkward weight/mass argument. In modern language, the stone would be described as a "mass", but since it has ceased to be legal unit of measure, the legal eagles are not too concerned. In the past, thhere have been endless edit wars over that wording.
  • The wording "although the legal status of the stone changed " is a very wishy-washy way of hiding the word "ceased". The wording reminds me of the 14 year-old who was a "little bit pregnant".
  • All the dictionaries that I have seen use the singular for the word "stone", not the plural when noting that the stone has different values, depending of commodity etc. Please refer to Guy's note at Kilometres per hour.
Martinvl (talk)
@Martinvl, comments following your comments:
  • The dictionaries call it a unit of weight. If it's good enough for them, then why not for us? We need to be specific, not woolly.
  • For the leagal status: "changed" is more accurate, it didn't "cease". The latter sounds like it became illegal to use, which it did not.
  • My wording starts with the singular - the current stone. It had multiple definitions in history, it would be grammatically and logically incorrect to refer to them other than in the plural.
Ornaith (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, quick responses to your quick comments:
  • By "is ...now used predominantly..." I was summarising my undersanding of the rest of the article and meant it isn't used much anywhere else.
  • The same for "Northern Europe" that's what the article detail says. I didn't check whether it is all suitably referenced.
  • The article says "... the stone remains widely used in Britain and Ireland for human body weight...". I was adding that to the summary.
  • Yes.
Rest assured, my comments were aimed solely at the article content, not at the motives of previous contributors. Ornaith (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, I think you're safe if you drop "predominantly" and "Northern". The two may be justified, but not (yet) justified by what's in the article. GaramondLethe 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - You were not involved in the edit wars over whether the stone was a weight or a mass. I was. If you reinstate the word "weight" you will cause an edit war. Do you really want that?
@Ornaith - The stone was explicitly removed from the list of weights and measures that could legally be used for trade in about 1985. It is not authorised for any use for any legal purpose. In view of this, the lede shoudl clarify in one way or another that the stone has no legal standing - this can be done by inserting the word informarmally. If you know better, please tell me the purposes for which it is legally authorised and please quote the relevant legislation. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we need to be specific - it is a unit of weight. That it is a unit of "measure" is a useless generality.
In Ireland (and I suspect in the UK too) the stone is legal for weighing anything you like. Why would the Dáil be interested in legislating against the use of our bathroom scales do you think?
Ornaith (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You might like to read Metrication in the United Kingdom#Weighing machines, it will save me repeating it. The EU directive on weighing machine explicitly mentioned the use of weighing machines for purposes of trade and for use by an expert witness when preparing to give evidence in court. Both Parliament and the Dáil have (or should have) made provision to ensure that scales used for these purposes meet certain standards, not only in respect of accuracy, but also in respect of what units of measure may be displayed. Your bathroom scales are probably not legal for trade (accuracy not guaranteed, costs a lot less than scales used in trade), so they are not governed by Weights and Measures legislation. Martinvl (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice response (much better than hinting at edit wars). GaramondLethe 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, you are evading the point. I'm not talking about "trading" I'm talking about "weighing". There may be rules that say you must trade in kilos, but where are the rules that say I can't weigh (whatever I wish to weigh) in stone? We can't say that weighing in stones is illegal, because it isn't. Ornaith (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

If you go to the text of the Weights and measusure Act 1985, Schedule I (Definitions of Units of Measurement), Part VI (Definitions of units which may not be used for trade except as supplementary indicators), you will se a section headed "Measurement of mass or weight" and the stone catalogued in that list. It follows therefore that in the Unted Kingdom the stone was legally defined as a "unit of mass or weight" when it ceased to be legal for trade. BTW, this is one of the references used in the article.
I don't know what either Gramnond or Ornaith were taught at school, so I hope that you don't mind me suggesting that you read this article which describes the difference between "mass" and "weight".
The following sentence appears in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." [my emphasis]. The point to start a legal analysis is the legal text itself which is what I have given here. Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I don't find that a very convincing reading of the statue. Second from the bottom in "Sch. 1 Pt. VI substituted (1.10.1995) by S.I. 1994/2867, reg. 6(5)(c)" is "metric ton" which is definitely a unit of mass. The quintal (never heard of that before) is defined as a unit of mass as well. Both of those are relatively recent metric units so it's not surprising that they're defined in terms of mass rather than weight. "Stone" is much older and would have been initially defined as a unit of weight; I'm not aware of any redefinition taking place. So anyway, the heading "unit of mass or weight" appears to have the plain meaning that some units (metric ton, quintal) are units of mass, and some (stone) are units of weight.
I think we can be a little more rigorous than the "math is fun" url. From section C.7.2 of IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997:
The weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that provides the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame. The the SI unit of weight is the newton (N). In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" is often used as a synonym for mass, for which the SI unit is the kilogram. The verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of." Nevertheless, in scientific and technical practice, the term "weight" should not be used to mean mass.
So that's all well and good, and if we like we can say the "stone" is a unit of Newtons. That's not particularly interesting, though; people who defined and used the concept of "stone" were wholly innocent of the concept of "Newton", and they defined the term as a unit of weight. (By the by, several other reliable sources define "stone" as a unit of mass; I don't have a sense of that literature yet and I'm curious to see if that was a simple confusion between mass and weight or if they thought they were redefining the term as a unit of mass.)
To bring this to a close, I'm curious how reference works such as Wikipedia handle the evolution of technical language. This is exactly that kind of problem (the km/h discussion is another example).
GaramondLethe 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Revised proposal for a new lede section

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

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

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

Perhaps this would run a little more easily and not trip over the weight/mass distinction?
In the UK, prior to 1939, there were stone definitions of various weights ranging definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it had weights of varied from 3 kg to.... NebY (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
@NebY, yes, I like it. Let's see it all as we now have it:

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

Is this good to go with now? Ornaith (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this can be tightened up a bit:
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg). Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade. In both Ireland and the UK the stone is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe the stone varied from 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
Thoughts? GaramondLethe 20:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It's good for me, but I think most of Europe metricated (and thus lost the stone) in the 19th century. It wasn't until the 1980s that Ireland and the UK introduced metrication legislation (related to EU membership) which changed the legal status of the stone for them. Can we get that nuance back into the wording neatly? Ornaith (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm....
"Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication, a process that began in FOO in 18?? and completed with the EU membership of Britain and Ireland in 198?, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade."
If that's not too wordy for you go ahead and fill in the blanks --- you might be able to get the dates from one of the annexes of the SI pdf. GaramondLethe 09:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

"used in several European", unless by is better.
I like it. GaramondLethe 21:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I am happy with the wording "used in ...". Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deprecated? Deprecated by whom, and for what purposes? It may be "deprecated" by EU bureaucrats, but why should their opinion be given such prominence (first line of lede) amongst all the opinions of it. Its use isn't disapproved of by those who use it daily without question. I don't like the "multiple" in "Multiple values of the stone were in use in the United Kingdom until 1937" either. If we can drop the first use of "deprecated" (the second is fine) and replace "multiple values" with "More than one value" I'll accept that. Ornaith (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, would "Several values" work for you?
As to "deprecated", my understanding is the sense of the word does not mean "forbidden" or "unused" as much as it means "no longer official" and, perhaps, "obsolete" (or at least "intended to become obsolete"). I think the "no longer official" sense is accurate but, based on what you're saying, the term is not "obsolete". "Unofficial" might be better than "deprecated", and "colloquial" might be better still. Martinvl, your thoughts? GaramondLethe 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - Deprecated by the UK and the Irish governments in their respective areas of jurusdiction. In the UK NHS hospitals are forbidden to have scales that show anything other than kilograms. About 20 years ago there was a tragic case where a baby died because midwives did not pick up a loss of weight because one midwife used imperial units and the other used metric units when filling in the baby's record card. The coroner had quite a bit to say about that.
@Garamond - I am happy with any of these terms. What I am trying to get across is that the term "stone" should not be used in any official or legal document - in the case of the baby that I mentioned above, the midwife concerned would now be held accountable for failing to do her job properly. Martinvl (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, it's only deprecated by governments then and only in certain circumstances. That either needs qualifying that way or dropping. We cannot mislead the reader into believing that it does not or should not carry on in general use as usual. Your tragic tale is not related to the stone , but to hospital procedures. Ornaith (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word "deprecated" - it effectively means "legally struck off". Since the stone was only ever legally defined for use in trade, and it has since been stuck off teh use of units that can be used for trade, it is deprecated. Until about 1980 the Government never sought to regulate what units of measure could be used for medical purposes - in 1986 UK and Irish legislation was aligned with EEC directives and the units of measurement that might be used for medical purposes catalogued - the stone was not one of them. Martinvl (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, in general use "deprecated" means disapproved of. As it is only disapproved of by certain bureaucrats, then the unqualified use of that word could be misleading. We need to be clear, the stone is an everday unit of weight, and is not disapproved of, other than by government bureaucrats for some government controlled activities. It certainly isn't deprecated by our local weight watchers club, it is their bread and butter (so to speak). I cannot see why this is such a sticking point, do you disagree? Ornaith (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

I chose that word carefully, as we're dealing with a language issue as opposed to a legal or scientific issue. To answer your question, the "formal" word for "stone" would be "kilogram". I think we've also agreed that the informal use of "stone" is limited to Great Britain and Ireland. I don't know that this is enough to make the word "stone" a colloquialism, but as an informal, geographically-limited term I think it's a good candidate.
So, being just slightly playful with words here, I'd like to recommend labeling the stone as a "colloquial unit of measurement". It's informal, it's geographically limited, and there's no negative connotation as that might be attached to "deprecated" or "unofficial". If that's too much playfulness for your taste, "informal" would do as well.
GaramondLethe 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am more than happy with the word "informal". Martinvl (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"Informal" still sounds a bit murky and below board. I'd be happy with "conventional", "popular", "traditional", "established" or even "customary". They are all more apt. Ornaith (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
None of these words are more apt - all are Weasel words. The word "Customary" is a total no-no - it has a specific meaning in the United States. Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, yes some probably are, but no more so than "informal" or "deprecated"! What is the "specific meaning" of "customary"? Which are the least weasel? How about "conventional", "traditional" or "long-established", they are fairly safe, and unlikely to be misunderstood. If we can't agree on one, we'll have to drop that idea and go back to the more verbose version. Ornaith (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - The words "informal" and "deprecated" both alert the user to the fact that there are circumstances where the word "stone" should not be used. The article itself will enlarge on the restriction. The word "deprecated" is not a weasal word - the text of [[ISO 31-1] uses the word "deprecated" against the definitions of the foot, inch, yard and mile - See Deprecation for more about this word. My own view is that the word "deprecated" is the better word to use, but I am happy to use the word "informal". Martinvl (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, in a legal context "deprecated" may be good, but otherwise, as in this article about a normally uncontrolled unit of weight, it is not accurate without additional qualification. "Informal" doesn't really sit comfortably - we don't informally wash or brush our hair, how can we be said to be informally weighing ourselves? It seems that we have reached deadlock on this, unless we can think of another word. What was your objection to "traditional" and what is special about "customary"? How about "commonplace", "familiar" or "well-known"? Ornaith (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

An editor who is uninvovled with this discussion modified the lede last night. I have therefore replaced his/her changes with my proposal. If we want to change anything we can continue debating it here. Martinvl (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, I'm not understanding your objection here. If you search for "formal weighing" and "informal weighing" on google I think you'll see there's a reasonably broad consensus in how the two terms are used. (See "formal measurement" and "informal measurement" for a large sample size). As to washing and brushing hair, I certainly can dress formally or informally, dance formally or informally, walk formally or informally, sing formally or informally, and yes, measure formally or informally.
As to your other suggestions:
  • traditional: This can describe ideas that are old and yet still legally defined (e.g., Christmas).
  • customary: Invokes United States customary units
  • commonplace: I'm not sure how this distinguishes the stone from the kilogram, which must also seem pretty commonplace by now.
  • familiar: Kilograms are familiar as well, and the lede should make the distinction that the stone has a different status than other familiar units.
  • well-known: Ditto.
And now I'm going to ask you to think about how much time you're willing to invest if you declare this to be a deadlock, how much this article will be improved if "traditional" is eventually chosen over "informal", and how much you could improve other articles in the same amount of time. Have a look at this: the wikipedia article for Aam (unit) doesn't even exist yet. Want to write it? (I'll help!) And there's a whole list of potential articles here.
The best is still the enemy of the good. I completely respect that you want this entry to be as great as it can be, but it looks like you're investing a large amount of effort for what (to me) seems to be an incremental improvement. It's your call, of course, but Aam (unit) would be fun, too.... GaramondLethe 05:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, yes an editor who had not been involved in this discussion modified the lede last night. Fair enough, we could have reverted it back, giving a polite explanation in the edit summary, and invited the other editor to join this discussion. But no, you chose to attempt to gain an advantage from the situation, and replaced their contribution, not with the original, but with your own favoured version that you have been advocating here, and with no edit summary at all to expalin why. Extreme bad faith I would say after all the effort we have jointly expended here to attempt to get a balanced and agreed text. Ornaith (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, we must remember that this article is about the stone, not the kilogram. The stone can be used for both formal and informal weighing, and according to the article, it is used in boxing, wrestling and horse racing - presumably that is for "formal" weighing. The stone isn't illegal for either formal or informal weighing, in Ireland at least (I'm guessing the same would be true of the UK), although it is probably no longer legal to actually advertise the price of goods per stone without the metric equivalent also being given. Whether it could be used in official government documents I don't know, as it probably never was much used there anyway. In Ireland the stone is probably in more common use than the kilogram, particularly for weighing yourself, and you'll find people there who have no idea what a kilogram is. Here are a few recent Irish instances demonstrating some of what I am saying: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], ... the supply is endless. We cannot assume that because it has gone out of fashion in the rest of Europe that it is no longer the main unit of weight used, for some purposes, both formal and informal elsewhere. It isn't an "informal" or "deprecated" unit of weight in Ireland. Ornaith (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith: If you read Schedule 4 in this document - which part of Irish Law you will see "Units of Measurement which cease to be authorised". The stone is included in that list and is therefore a deprecated unit. QED.
Martinvl (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, please don't be so combative, you risk making a fool of yourself. Your quote doesn't address the points in contention, that the stone is still in common usage, your reference just shows that the stone isn't "authorised" for the few things that it needs to be "authorised" for. That doen't affect its status for its other traditional uses. To concentrate on its status in just one of its roles, and to give it such a prominent position at the start of the lede, would be to give it an unduly heavy emphasis. So please replace your inflammatory outburst with this: "QED still not proven". Ornaith (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, any choice is going to be problematic. Out of the choices I've seen so far "deprecated" is best and "informal" is my second choice (with an honorable mention for "colloquial"). You didn't answer my question, though: how much better will this article be with a word other than "deprecated" versus how much time you're going to have to invest to make the change? GaramondLethe 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, I would find the article unacceptably misleading, and to be giving unwarranted emphasis to the EU bureaucrat view with the word "deprecated" in the first sentence. If we can't agree on the appropriate word for there, what about going back to the "Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure..." version without the extra word. "Deprecated" is misleading because it only applies to the limited circumstances in which a "legal status" actually applies, the sale of spuds or whatever, and falsely implies that ALL of its still current uses are somehow disapproved of. We have seen that it is still used for both formal and informal weighings, so "informal" is a non-starter. "Colloquial" is literally incorrect, because, charming as that would be, "stone" is NOT the colloquial word for kilogram, but the formal word for "stone"!
@Martinvl, where are you with this now, can you manage without the controversial adjuncts? Ornaith (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith, well, as I said, it's your call. If I might, let me make a few observations on how you might make your argument a bit more effective. Piling up web pages that use the word "stone" isn't going to be that persuasive: "deprecated" does not imply "uncommon". Instead of a newspaper article, can you find (or request) the newspaper's style manual and determine if "stone" is preferred or accepted? Can you track down the association rules for horse racing, wrestling, etc. where weights are mandated to be reported using stone? Are there any other areas where stone is used officially? Once those citations have made it into the article you'll be much better placed to argue for an addition to the lede, along the lines of "The stone is a unit of measure that has been deprecated for most official uses but is still the preferred unit of measurement in horse racing, .....". To get you started, you might find this helpful. GaramondLethe 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, "deprecated", in the general context, and without further qualification, literally means "disapproved of". This unit isn't disapproved of, other than possibly by the bureaucrats. The lede should reflect the content, which does give examples of UK usage in boxing, wrestling and racing. I haven't checked the voracity of that. I gave those references to demonstrate unfettered (as opposed to deprecated) use in all walks of life Ireland. I'd be happy with "officially deprecated for some regulated uses", but nt in the first sentence of the lede, maybe as the last. It isn't the most important thing to say about it, it is relatively insignificant in its consequences to use. How about:

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

I put "today" in recognition of the fact that the definition hasn't always been 14 lb.
Ornaith (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I see there have been no comments supporting me here, was this a figment of my imagination too (as it apparently was in Kilometres per hour), or was Martinvl disruptive in those actions? Please explain why no action. Ornaith (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't plan on editing here again until your SPI process completes. GaramondLethe 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For me, Ornaith's draft is fine on the main issue, but I don't agree with "it was used [in] several European countries and had values ranging from 5 to 40 local pounds", because to me the English-language "stone" is not the same unit as the German-language Stein and so forth. If we were to say "Similar units with names meaning "stone" were used in several European countries..." then for me that would be better. Moonraker (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The SPI process just lurched forward (thanks for the shove, Martinvl) and once we get a decision back from CU we can resume the normal discussion/editing process. I'm hoping it'll be less than a day from now. GaramondLethe 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
@Moonraker - Please look at this French publication and this German publication. In them you will find the British stone discussed in exactly the same way as the stone of any other European country. Martinvl (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stone_(unit)/Archive_1&oldid=1137206940"