Talk:Stone (unit)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Weight vs. mass (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deprecated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stepping back for a moment (deprecated)

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

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

I hear you. I agree that this is problem.

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

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

GaramondLethe 00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede changes - 30 July 2012 onwards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the topic of this article?

Possibilities include:

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

And so on and so forth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

errors in conversion table

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weights and Measures Act 1837 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reorganisation

Here's the current organisation.

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

The "Conversion" section contains two things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revocation of 4 October 2012

I revoked the changes of 4 October 2012. Even though the use of the kilogram mightg be increasing at the expense of the stone, we need a reliable source to make this statement - personal observations are often restricted to the socio-economic class of the observer. Martinvl (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback available

Just stumbled across this.[1]

Might be worth thinking about putting the conversion more prominently at the top.

GaramondLethe 01:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked both the version as it existed when feedback was made and the curent version. The issue has been resolved. Martinvl (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, should have checked that myself. Thanks! GaramondLethe 04:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks to all of you for this wonderful article. When weighing myself on a hotel scale a few days ago I got the value 9st:13 3/4 and had no idea what that could mean. Now I know, and learned quite a bit of fascinating cultural history as well. --Remotelysensed (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass or Force?

The article does not make it clear whether the stone is considered a mass or a force. It is compared to both pounds (force) and kilograms (mass). The historical use of an actual stone on a balance would suggest it is mass, but then it is used in measuring human body weight. Is there any official or legal definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In common with other units such as pound and kilogram, the stone is a unit of mass, but it is also used as a unit of weight. If you want to make the distinction then use "stones weight" for the force, just as you would for "pounds weight". Where did you get the idea that the pound is a unit of force? Dbfirs 16:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had always assumed that pounds were force, because they are used in measuring rocket thrust, torque, pressure, etc. Once again, Wikipedia has educated me. Pound (mass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was misleading, so I've made a slight adjustment. You are correct that pounds-force are used in measuring forces, but the pound itself was always mass, and was traditionally measured by comparing it with a standard mass.

Just to make matters more confusing, we also have the Poundal as a unit of force. Dbfirs 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)