Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1

Early text

In Britain this is usually referred to as the 'Lockerbie disaster'. I was tempted to move this page to that but, i'm wondering if it is usually referred to as 'Pan Am 103' in the US?

Lockerbie at the moment redirects to this page, which means the reference to Lockerbie found on this page refers to itself. I plan to make the page listed as Lockerbie have some brief information about the town and refer to the disaster. Is this acceptable to US readers? Mintguy 17:10 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

The little TV news reporter in my head is saying "Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988". Certainly the particular phrase "Lockerbie disaster" is unfamiliar. --Brion 16:21 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

I've always known it as "Pan Am 103" too. A redirect from from Lockerbie disaster would be appropriate. --Stephen Gilbert 00:42 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

It's usually "Lockerbie bombing" rather than "Lockerbie disaster". (The linked Google searches confirm this.) --Zundark 09:45 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)

I'm suprised by this. Putting site:uk into the search reduces the differential, but it still puts Lockerbie bombing ahead. Mintguy

It's called The Lockerbie disaster by the Edinburgh Law Review. [1] Mintguy

There was no bombing in Lockerbie and the largest disaster occurred on the plane itself, not the ground. The bomb was on the plane and my American ears have never heard the event called the Lockerbie disaster or bombing. Lockerbie was where (most of) the plane happened to crash. It was just an extra bonus for the terrorists that it crashed into a populated area. --mav

Mav that's actually quite offensive! 11 Lockerbie residents died! Mintguy

The whole event was quite offensive. BTW 259 people died that were on the plane. --mav

I'm well aware of that. I was referrng to your comment before you cleaned it up with an edit. I'm glad you did that. Mintguy

could we somehow rewrite the opening to mention the alternative name, Lockerbie disaster please. It really is known as "lockerbie" in the UK, mav -- Tarquin 13:01, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters, the memorials in Lockerbie (of which there are at least 3) call it the Lockerbie Air Disaster 2 in the cemetary[2] [3], and large stone in Sherwood Crescent where many of the local victims lived (I can't find a decent picture of this, but I've seen it on TV). Plus what appears to be a bench with the words "Lockerbie Air Crash Disaster" from a BBC report [4] Mintguy 14:33, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I never doubted what this event is called in the UK. And you could have edited this article mentioning the alternate name in fewer words that it took for you to complain. This is a wiki if you recall. ;-) Alas, I did the work for you. --mav

I have never, ever heard the phrase "Pan Am flight 103" in Australia. I'm very surprised that this is at such an uninformative and obscure title. Tannin

So you are not familiar with the downing of that fight then? In the US it is known as "Pam Am flight 103" and that is where the article was originally. Thus in order to respect our American/British usage rule, the article stays where it is. --mav 23:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course I'm familiar with the Lockerbie disaster. You'd have to live in an iron lung not to have heard of it. The B/A usage rule is a good one, but I wonder if it's appropriate here - the event did taker place in the UK, after all. But in the interests of peace and quiet, and in the knowledge that there will never be an answer to this one to satisfy speakers of English and American languages, I guess we are stuck with it, unfortunately. Tannin

the reason I didn't make the edit mav is that I could see how to put it in where it now is, but I was *convinced* there was a way to recast the first paragraph to give both names in the opening sentence. I just couldn't see it though. :( -- Tarquin 23:13, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As the relative of two of the ground victims, I didn't even know the flight number until I was poking around here - every calls it Lockerbie in the UK and Ireland. Although I see this debate did end ages ago... Kiand 18:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page moved back. All our air disaster entries in Wikipedia that I know of are named after the flight name. There is no need to add "disaster" to that unless we want to disambiguate a full article about the flight from an article about the disaster. I don't foresee us ever having a full article on the flight, so there is no need to have the longer name. Keep it simple. --mav 21:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why I am again amending the article

User:SlimVirgin continues to remove any reference to the bomb causing catastrophic structural failure to Pan Am Flight 103, saying investigators called (it) a "catastrophic systems failure". I'm not sure which particular investigators he means, but whatever, the logical sequence has to be catastrophic structural failure and any consequent/coincident developments. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch produced Aircraft Accident Report No 2/90 (EW/C1094), the report on the accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988. You can read the report here.

Nowhere does the report mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure". But is does state the following:

• "The combined effect of the direct and indirect explosive forces was to destroy the structural integrity of the forward fuselage".

• "The problem of reducing the vulnerability of commercial aircraft to explosive damage ............. those damage mechanisms which appear to have contributed to the catastrophic structural failure of Flight PA103 are identified"

• "The indirect explosive effects produced significant structural damage in areas remote from the site of the explosion".

• ".....it is therefore essential that means are sought to reduce the vulnerability of commercial aircraft structures to explosive damage"

• "There were no indications that the crew had attempted to react to rapid decompression or loss of control or that any emergency preparations had been actioned prior to the catastrophic disintegration."

I say again, nowhere does the report mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure"

Therefore, I am again amending the article to include the fact that the bomb caused a catastrophic structural failure That's why it fell out of the sky and everyone died, including the pilots. If all the systems in the world had been available and had not failed, everyone on board would still be dead because their aircraft had totally disintegrated. But of course they did fail, as a result of the aircraft suffering catastrophic structural failure. Subsequent gyrations and odd behaviour of bits of the aircraft are exactly that, subsequent to the disintegration. They have absolutely nothing to do with the loss of control.Moriori 09:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Moriori, I believe you are wrong about this. If you read the air accident report, you will see that the explosion put pressure on the control cables. It was the movement of control cables that caused the aircraft to start lurching around, and it was THIS that caused the process that began the aircraft's disintegration.

My version explains why and how the disintegration occurred. Yours does not. You say simply that there was an explosion and the plane disintegrated. You don't explain why it disintegrated. It was a very, very small improvised explosive device. Had it been placed anywhere else on the plane, it would not have caused the destruction of the plane.

I feel you should not keep editing this section because your version has less explanatory power than mine. Also bear in mind that there were a large number of technical reports completed on PA 103, not just the air accident report, and they are not all online. They DO mention catastrophic systems failure, and this is how Pan Am and the pilots described the sequence of events.

If you have specialist knowledge about this disaster and how it unfolded, I will not re-edit the piece, but then please explain the process by which such a small bomb could destroy a Boeing 747. But if you do not have specialist knowledge of this, I feel you should leave the entry alone. Slim

Slim, I can read. I HAVE read the Air Accidents Investigation Branch report which I quote above. I thought by now I wouldn’t need to repeat that the report DOES NOT mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure". But it DOES mention "catastrophic structural failure of Flight PA103".

I must comment on your statement above, namely "You say simply that there was an explosion and the plane disintegrated. You don't explain why it disintegrated. It was a very, very small improvised explosive device. Had it been placed anywhere else on the plane, it would not have caused the destruction of the plane". I thought I had made it pretty clear why the plane disintegrated. A bomb caused catastrophic structural failure and disintegration. Your claim that being a very small bomb it would not have destroyed the plane if placed elsewhere on the plane is refuted by the accident report which says "indirect explosive effects produced significant structural damage in areas remote from the site of the explosion".

Can I also point out something else you say above -- the explosion put pressure on the control cables. It was the movement of control cables that caused the aircraft to start lurching around, and it was THIS that caused the process that began the aircraft's disintegration. Slim, the THIS you mention shows that the control system was still working as the plane was breaking up. The investigation report goes even further, saying (the aircraft's subsequent manouevres were) probably as a result of inputs applied to the flying control cables by movement of structure. Quite so, the structure was disintegrating, and as the report says, between 2-3 secs of the bomb blast the nose had been torn off the fuselage.

OK, no-one would say there weren't various associated failures. But they resulted from a bomb compromising the structural integrity, not the other way round. No system can prevent the destruction of a structure already destructing. Anyway Slim, you obviously want the article to be accurate, as do I. I am not going to get in an edit war over it. Mentioning rapid consequential developments such as system breakdown in the article is fine by me, but it should be made clear they were consequent and not the cause. Moriori 02:21, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Moriori, I have rewritten the systems failure section, using the phrase "catastrophic systems and structural failure" as a compromise. I have also expanded a little on the way the plane is believed to have disintegrated.

You say that the control cables moving the plane shows that the cables were working as the plane was breaking up. True. But it was a systems failure in the sense that the pilots had no control over the cables, and the automatic pilot had no control over them. This is what is meant by a systems failure. All the back-up safety features designed to prevent or correct violent movement failed, because the electronic cables were moved by the force of the blast and the warping of the section of the plane that contained the cables. There is a British investigators' video of the way the plane broke up. It shows the violent side-to-side movements, almost a twisting of the plane, that led to the cockpit breaking off. These violent movements were caused by the control cables being shaken by the blast, thereby causing the plane to twist to the left, then to the right, then to the left.

My point is that there were two separable causes of the disintegration: the movement of the flight control cables and the Mach stem shock waves. I hope my revision has made this clear without being long-winded.

Bear in mind that the British air accident investigators don't actually know how or why PA 103 broke up. Their Mach stem shock wave hypothesis is just that, and it is a controversial one. There were several official reports on the destruction of PA 103. The British air accident investigators' report is the only one that has been made public, to my knowledge, and so is the one most people refer to, but not all the specialists agrees with it. The disagreement over exactly how the plane fell apart is, in part, why so many other theories continue to do the rounds, including one theory that says there was no bomb on the aircraft at all, but only a systems and structural failure triggered by (as I recall) a door swinging open in flight. These alternative theories have been fought off by, among others, the aircraft manufacturer, for obvious reasons. I haven't gone into any of these theories because they are highly controversial and would make the article very long. Slim

Slim, I am no longer interested in your theorising, I am interested only in facts. I have amended the article to REPRESENT THE FACTS. It REPORTS FACTS and references the official report which contains information gleaned from all known facts. You obviously believe you know better than the official report of the British air investigators, who you say don't actually know how or why PA 103 broke up.. There was an explosion, the explosion caused the aircraft to disintegrate as the official investigation clearly states, and even if EVERY system had still been intact the aircraft could not have survived the explosion. I have never ever been in a long revert war on wiki, but believe me I am determined to defend this article against your theorising. Moriori 09:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Moriori, When I joined Wikipedia, I understood their policy to be that all users should assume that other users are acting in good faith, and should be reasonable and polite. Editing disputes are supposed to take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Changes should not be made in an arbitrary manner.

You are not acting in good faith, and you are not assuming that I am either. You are making things up as you go along -- for example, that the people in the cockpit died as soon as the explosion occurred. There is no evidence to support this. Quite the opposite in fact: One flight attendant was found alive inside the cockpit.

I am only interested in the facts and the facts are all that I have added. The issue between us is whether the stress should be on systems failure or structural failure. I therefore wrote up a compromise between us which expanded on both, and which laid equal stress on both, showing how the two issues are related and how the systems and the structural failure both contributed to the rapid break-up of the plane. The British investigators' report, which was intended for public consumption, does say that both issues (the control cables moving and the Mach stem shockwaves) contributed to the break-up. There are other more extensive reports, like Pan Am's, Boeing's, the FAA's. They all talk about systems failure and the movement of the control cables. The nose would not have started to pitch and yaw if the control cables hadn't moved it. The control cables would not have been able to move the nose if the automatic pilot had worked. It didn't, because there was a systems failure. If the control cables hadn't moved the nose, the cockpit would not have snapped off the way it did. The reason there is only a split second of noise on the flight recorder/black box is because there was a systems failure that cut off the power supply to the black box. Similarly, if the pilots did attempt any evasive action, it was not recorded because there was a systems failure.

When I say that no one knows exactly why or how the plane disintegrated, I am not theorizing. If you talk to or read the work the investigators, that is what they will tell you. Commonsense will tell you the same thing. All the investigators can do is make educated guesses, because the break-up of a 747 in that way was unprecedented. In order to obtain information about the sequence of events, I know they had to blow up at least one old 747 in a controlled explosion to try to reproduce the devastation. The air accident report you have read is in part based on inferences from these experiments. It isn't an exact science. There are too many variables. Slim

no one was found aliveGeni 23:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong, Geni. A female flight attendant was found alive by a farmer's wife -- alive in the sense of appearing to breathe and have a heart beat. Her injuries were such that she could not have lived for long, and she stopped breathing after just a couple of minutes. Slim

Do you have a source?Geni 00:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I will find you a written reference and will post a link back here. As a matter of interest, what is the etiquette about replying to queries like this? Am I putting the answer in the right place? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm new to this. Also, is there a way to insert the time other than doing it manually? user:SlimVirgin

Normally an extra indentation is used to signify a reply. To get the date after you name you use ~~~~ ie use for tidemarks Geni 02:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Geni. You can find an online reference to the flight attendant who was found alive at here -- in the last paragraph in the Cause of Death section. This is a website that has a few errors in it, but I know the information about the flight attendant is true, although I don't think she lived as long as 10 minutes as the website says. There is also an article here about the information supplied to Scottish police by an American forensic pathologist who studied the PA 103 autopsies. The pathologist believes the pilot may have been alive and conscious on impact because of a thumb indentation that indicated he was hanging onto the yoke of the plane. This article also makes reference to testimony at the Scottish public inquiry into PA 103 describing how a flight attendant was found alive. There are other indications that passengers may have been alive when they landed: for example, two friends were found holding hands and a woman was found holding her baby. Other passengers were found holding crucifixes. It's an issue that's not often discussed publicly out of respect for the families.

Further references to the surviving flight attendant can be found in The Fall of Pan Am 103: Inside the Lockerbie Investigation by Steven Emerson and Brian Duffy; On the Trail of Terror: The Inside Story of the Lockerbie Investigation by David Leppard; Their Darkest Day: The Tragedy of Pan Am 103 by Matthew Cox and Tom Foster; and I believe it is also referenced in Pan Am 103: the Bombing, the Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice by Daniel and Susan Cohen. Thanks again for the information about how to write these replies. Slim

Detroit?

The first sentence reads: "Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan Am's regular Frankfurt-London-New York-Detroit flight." However, two paragraphs later, you have, "... was operating the final London-New York leg of the route." Wouldn't NY-Detroit be the final leg? --Golbez 15:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Pan Am Flight 103's final destination was Detroit. The Boeing 747 that took off from London was bound for New York, where it was to have connected to a Boeing 727 flying from New York to Detroit (See main story in The Washington Post [5] for details). --SNIyer12

Price/Rifkind

To the editor who added this: "On the night of the bombing, Scottish Secretary Malcolm Rifkind and the U.S. ambassador in Britain, Charles H. Price II, toured the wreckage in Lockerbie. Rifkind gave the first indication that the plane exploded. He told reporters on the scene after touring the wreckage: "The aircraft clearly experienced some form of explosion, which has resulted in many parts of the aircraft falling in many different locations--that we know. But what might have caused that to happen, I'm sorry, I could not even speculate." Price also agreed with Rifkind that the plane had exploded."

How does mentioning what politicians thought on the night add to the article? SlimVirgin 05:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm currently doing a rewrite of this article to expand it and to improve the writing, the narrative flow, and the use of references and photos. I'm doing this on a user subpage, then inserting the improvements as sections are completed, so any changes made while this is going on may be overwritten until the first complete draft is on the page. I'll make a note here or in the edit summary when that is. SlimVirgin 04:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. military personnel

SNIyer1, can you supply a reference please for your recent edit: "There were U.S. military personnel on board, many of them flying home from their bases in Germany for Christmas," showing that the U.S. military personnel you refer to are different from the ones I name in the subsequent paragraph? SlimVirgin 20:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

27 Years

I don't know if this is the right place to put this but could somebody tell me why the Lockerbie Bomber only got 27 years. Shouldn't the many murders resulted in a huge sentance?

Good article

Nice work, this article is in pretty good shape. Definitely "featured article" material. Mirror Vax 02:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback, MV. It's much appreciated. There's still some work to be done on the court case and the appeal, but it's starting to shape up. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Lockerbie residents paragraph

SN, thinking about the paragraph and the source you provided, I'd suggest something like this:

Despite being advised not to travel to Lockerbie, many of the passengers' relatives, most of them from the U.S., arrived there within days to identify their loved ones. Volunteers from Lockerbie set up and manned canteens, which stayed open 24 hours a day, where relatives, soldiers, police officers, and social workers could find free sandwiches, hot meals, coffee, and someone to talk to. The women of the town volunteered to wash, dry, and iron every piece of clothing that was found, so that as many items as possible could be returned to the relatives. The BBC's Scottish correspondent, Andrew Cassel, reported on the tenth anniversary that the townspeople had "opened their homes and hearts" to the relatives, bearing their own losses "stoically and with enormous dignity," and that the bonds forged that day continue to this. [6]

When I've linked to an article in the text like this, I then go to the References section and add a full citation, which in this case would be:

• "Lockerbie, 10 years on: Reporter's reflections" by Andrew Cassel, BBC News, December 21, 1998

Let me know what you think of this. By doing it this way, we're giving a bit more factual information, and we're also attributing the positive opinion of the residents to the BBC, rather than saying it ourselves. If you agree with it, feel free to add it, or change it a little, as you see fit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- SNIyer12

Gadaffi's daughter

Hi ProhibitOnions, regarding your edit that the little girl who died in the 1986 raids may not have been adopted by Gadaffi: he said she was, and this was published as fact and not disputed, so we run with it. Otherwise we'd have to insert "as claimed" after every sentence in this article, as we haven't personally verified any of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Umm, no, he's a public figure and a dictator known for his use of propaganda, so some skepticism is in order. Fact is, despite Gadaffi's being in the public eye as leader of Libya for (then) 16 years, the girl was never mentioned anywhere until after the attack. This may have been "published as fact" but in a controlled society this proves nothing. (As I recall, the initial Libyan statements at the time said his baby daughter had been killed; this was easy enough to fact-check, and later statements added the "adopted.")

The likelihood that this may have been propaganda warrants a qualification, such as "claimed to have been adopted," even if the AP printed it. --ProhibitOnions 10:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Sorry, PO, I just saw your reply. We have to go with what the credible, published sources say, and I haven't read anything indicating that she wasn't really adopted by him. I take your point about a controlled society, but even so: it would seem churlish to add "as claimed" to this relationship and not to any other. I don't think there's any doubt that a little girl died, and I'm not sure it particularly matters what her relationship with Gadaffi was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

SI units

This article desperately needs SI units. I am not thrilled that the good conversion work of one editor gets reverted by another, without as much as a edit summary and even marking it as a minor edit (which it clearly wasn't). For what it's worth, that revert even reintroduced a typo that had been fixed with the unit conversion. A dozen edits later, the typo's still there. Rl 07:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not say what the typo is, RI, or fix it? As for metric conversions, Bobblewik reverted to a previous version without so much as an edit summary, so I hope you'll leave a note about that for him, too, as he's been asked many times not to do it.

I can't say why, given that a) you have already scolded Bobblewik and b) despite your claims, he did write an edit summary which clearly said what he did (clearly enough for you and me, anyway). Bobblewik has also been commended by various people for his work on SI units, most complaints are about specific instances or particular units, not his SI unit crusade in general, so it is entirely appropriate for him to be bold and improve articles accordingly. Rl 12:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He has also been criticized, and recently lost an adminship vote because of it. It is not appropriate to be bold when the editors on the page are asking him to stop, or at least discuss it. He does neither. Anyway, this is not about him, but about the edits, so let's stick to that issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you feel it desperately needs SI units? The Manual of Style says that the usage of the country the article is about should prevail. This article is somewhat ambiguous because it was an attack on the United States, which took place in Scottish airspace, and which involved the deaths of people from 21 countries. The Manual of Style states that, where such an ambiguity exists, the article should retain the style used by the first major contributor. In this case, that is not metric units. In addition, because there are so many measurements in this article, the flow of the writing is hampered by the constant parentheses. The quality of writing must take priority over metric conversions, because these articles are being written in order to be read. The writing can't be allowed to suffer to satisfy single-issue editors wanting to make political points about measurements.

Interestingly, for all the many times Bobblewik has tried to introduced metric conversions to this article, he has never left a single post explaining his position on this talk page or on the talk pages of any of the editors. Thank you for making the effort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Very, very few editors leave a note on the talk page of every article they improve. You seem to believe that SI units are controversial enough that editors are required to justify their edits. That, however, is your problem, not ours. Rl 12:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very, very few editors keep on inserting material they've been asked not to insert over months, without making A SINGLE EDIT to the talk page of the article in question. These conversions are your problem as you're the one who wants to add them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

You were the one who reverted the fixing of the typo already, User:SlimVirgin. It is quite appropriate to ask you to pay attention to what it is that you are reverting. I know damn well you did not do so when it came to reverting my edits, so it is unlikely that you did so in reverting Bobblewik's edits either. It is also quite appropriate to ask you to fix it now.

Much of the rest of your comments I've already dealt with below.

Note specifically that you already have three editors saying that SI conversions are appropriate in this article. In some cases, the SI measurements were likely the original measurements; in those cases, it is the English measurements which could be omitted, if we only want to go with one measurment.

Please explain what you mean by this. The original measurements were not in SI. For example, the cruising altitude of 31,000 feet: the aircraft's squawk reported it at 310. This is 31,000 feet. Not 9,000 meters. Same goes for all the other measurements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

In other cases, the original measurement may well have been a nonmetric measurement different from the one used in this article. In those cases, too, the original measurements should be restored, and metric conversions added. Gene Nygaard 10:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying metric units should be added. But why? You never say why, and you don't say which policy or guideline you're following. Please do, then we'll have something more concrete to discuss. As for the typo you keep referring to, please tell me what it is, or fix it. Don't play games. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Replies to Gene

User:SlimVirgin, will you please stop jacking around with my editing of this article. Stop acting like this is your personal domain, some article which you "own" for some reason or another.

Put back in all the wikification of dates which I did.

You are wikifying dates that have already been wikified? Why do you want dates to be wikified several times? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, duhhhh!!!!! It's because that's how we make preferences work. You know, that little tab between "my talk" and "my watchlist" when you are logged in as a user. I don't want to see November 13, 1991. I want to see 13 November 1991, the way I have my preferences set. Gene Nygaard 11:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you continue being so rude, I'll stop answering your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is explained quite clearly at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates. Go read it. Gene Nygaard 11:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read it. Go and read the main MoS page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here's what it says at dates and numbers: "Both day-month and year must be linked for the preference to work correctly. Other date forms such as year only (e.g. 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance." So your wikifying December 21 in the absence of the year makes no difference to your preferences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, SlimVirgin. Just go set your preferences to "15 January 2001" and then come back here and see for yourself what that December 21 without a year looks like. Then if it bothers you that the explanation in the MoS didn't quite hit the nail on the head, go fix it there. Gene Nygaard 15:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please put back the unit symbol corrections I made. And please reinstate my metric conversions, or those previously done by User:Bobblewik as User:RI has also said should have already been done, and then there wouldn't have been so much for me to do in the first place.

Read what I wrote to RI above. Where there is ambiguity about the national usage, the style used by the first major contributor applies. Read the Manual of Style. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Read what I said below. This is not a "national usage" issue. There is no "first user" policy involved here. You are claiming inapplicable rules. Just go read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Gene Nygaard 11:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Gene, this is an instance where the national usage can't be determined and the first major contributor guideline therefore applies. Also bear in mind that MoS isn't policy. It's a guideline. There is nothing mandatory about metric conversions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's where you are totally, completely, absolutely wrong. This is not a flavor of English issue, except in a very peripheral way. Kilograms, for example, are very much a part of American English, and they are very much a part of British English, and they are very much a part of any other flavor of English.

Similarly, "km" is every bit as much a part of American English as it is British English or any other flavor of English. The only national usage and therefore the only first user issue involved here is thus the question of how this unit is spelled when it is spelled out: Is it kilometers or is it kilometres? Similarly, is it litres or is it liters, if we use those units? Those is absolutely the only questions for which either national usage or first user have any relevance with respect to the current discussion. Everything else, as far as the Manual of Style goes, falls under the purview of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Gene Nygaard 01:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gene, I don't know what you're talking about. As other editors have made clear on this page, miles are as much a part of American and British English too, and that's what we're using. We're going to follow the style of the Federal Aviation Administration, as this is an article about a flight that followed their regulations, so we say 31,000 feet because that's what the aircraft's responder said, that's what air traffic control said etc. Whatever measurements they used with reference to this flight, that is what we'll be using throughout the article, which is exactly in accordance with the MoS. I'm having to type everything at least twice here for your benefit, but I won't keep on doing that, so please read what people have written. Do not delete referenced facts from the article. The link is, as I recall, to a Washington Post article, and the 100 tons is taken from there. Look up how the word 'ton' is used in the States if you like at Ton. But don't replace it with some. You're coming close to trolling now and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Copying the above comment below, so other editors can see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

P.S. As far as "kg" go, even the British have largely abandoned the kilogramme spelling; however, if someone chose to use that archaic spelling in an article written in British English, I couldn't say it was flat-out wrong, and I would not change it to kilogram. Others might have other ideas about that, however. Gene Nygaard 01:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note further that when it comes to the question of British English or American English or Canadian English or whatever, the question then becomes a determination of who the first user actually was. Who was the first person to use any distinctive flavor of English, outside of quoted material? Could you please point that out to me and everyone else, by pointing to the date and the specific edit which you would claim to be the earliest such use? Was it by me? Or perhaps it was GraemeLeggett sneaking in some British spellings? It wasn't likely by Bobblewik, I'm fairly sure of that. Gene Nygaard 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing the British English/Canadian English/American usage policy with something entirely different, the measurements policy. This isn't a "national usage" issue. It isn't a first contributor issue, especially when it is just adding conversions without removing the measurements which were originally there. Gene Nygaard 11:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no measurements policy that I know of. Please show me where it says that metric conversions are policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

On my talk page, User:SlimVirgin wrote:

Gene, please don't add all these metric units to this page. There are too many measurements and it interferes with the quality of the writing. These conversions are not policy, and this is a predominantly U.S. topic, particularly as the measurements were mostly determined by forensic investigators in the U.S. In any event, the Manual of Style if just a guideline and it clearly states these conversions need not be included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note that most of my additions and corrections had to do with other things than the adding of SI conversions, which also was an important part of my editing.

This is by no stretch of the imagination solely an "American" article; and even if it were, some of the measurements given here would still have been originally done in metric units, and it is actually fairly likely that some did come from U.S. sources and were originally in metric.

Read what I wrote above, please, so I don't have to keep repeating it. As for the measurements "would still been originally done in metric units," what do you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is an act of international terrorism, which took place over the airspace of the United Kingdom, with the pieces fallig to the ground in the U.K., blamed on Libya and with defendants from there (and also from Lebanon, wasn't it?), with the trial taking place in the Netherlands.

No defendants from Lebanon. You might want to try reading the article you're so keen to intefere with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above! Where there is ambiguity about which national usage should apply, the first major contributor rule holds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are also not really a whole lot of measurements in this article. Especially if you don't have to tell us 97 times that it was at 31,000 feet. There are a great many Wikipedia articles which are much more measurement intensive, and which include measurements in dual units.

There are a LOT of measurements in this article, with several sentences containing several measurements, which is my main objection: that it disturbs the flow of the writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Conversions to SI are always in order; we don't really need any special reason to add them.

Who says? This is a wiki. You don't make up the rules as you go along. The only applicable thing here is the MoS, which is only a guideline, but it does say the first major contributor rule applies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, in this case, you've already had three of us editors telling you implicitly or explicitly that they should be added to this article. The Wikipedia articles which only include measurements in one system of units are almost always those which use only SI units.

Show me some evidence of that, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, even when you or some other editor whose work you did not change as you did mine and Bobblewik's included a couple of metric measurements, you botched that up royally, too:

• You didn't identify the tons as metric tons in at least one case.
• You used a totally unacceptable symbol "mms" for millimeters in another case. Symbols for units of measure should remain unchanged between singular and plural, never adding things like a language-specific "s" in the plural.

Furthermore, there are many problems with the English units used, totally apart from the fact that after SlimVirgin's playing like he/she owns this article and reverts additions of SI conversions.

• The symbol for degrees Fahrenheit is °F, not F.
• Several of the "miles" should be identified as either nautical miles or as statute miles, since this is a context in which nautical miles are often but not always used. Furthermore, I am reasonably certain that both types of miles are in fact actually used in this article. Note, of course, that this is one specific case in which an inclusion of SI conversions does at least partially accomplish this identification, so that if the numbers of kilometers are wrong because the miles have been improperly identified, then some other editor can come in and properly identify those miles.
• Even though the Fred Flintstone units, unlike the metric units, are no longer supported and updated, the proper rules for the use of their symbols mirror the explicit rules for their use in SI. Just like the mm for millimeters, the oz for ounces and the in for inches and the lb for pounds should remain unchanged in the plural.

The article is undergoing some major edits at the moment. All these copy-editing details will be sorted out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Another of the rules for units is that in running text like this, it is improper to mix superscripts with spelled out units. Use the symbols if you are going to use superscripts, or spell out "square" or "cubic" or whatever if you are going to use the spelled out words.
• There is supposed to be a space between numbers and units of measure, according to Wikipedia MoS and all the modern rules by the professional metrologists (some style guides, perhaps including that of The Times, a U.K. newspaper, still state the rule of closing them up, but that format never was used in the United States—significant in light of your viewing this as an "American" article—and it is contrary to the rules of the National Physical Laboratory, the U.K. national standards laboratory. The one instance of that which I corrected was also, of course, inconsistent with all the other measurements in this particular article.

I think there are still other, different changes I made which I have not commented on here, so if there is anything else in particular you want to bring up, point it out. I just remembered one of them—why did you revert my change of the spelling of the German word fuer to für?

I reverted your metric conversions. Anything else that got reverted along with them wasn't the target of the conversion. In any event, what difference is there between fuer and für such that you would want to change it?

I'm going ask you nicely to go back and reinstate every one of the edits which I made. Then if you want to quibble about any specific change, make an edit to that change and discuss the reasons either here or in a simple case in your edit summary, and we can hash it out. Gene Nygaard 09:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gene, why don't we do it the other way round? If you want to make a specific change, why don't you discuss the reasons here first? I have laid out my arguments and I'm basing my position on the MoS.

Before we go any further, please say which policy document or guideline you are basing your position on.

Three final points:

Don't use headers to make personal attacks. Bear in mind that I'm trying to improve this article in several substantive ways, and it's unhelpful and time-consuming to have single-issue editors bearing down on me, who otherwise make no substantive contribution to the article. And finally, I'd appreciate it if you would change your tone and be civil. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

MoS

From the MoS: For units of measure use SI units, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so. I'm sure there are other places that say something else, but I consider that a good enough base to ask that the SI units be kept if added to an article. For this particular article, there may be some reason for keeping imperial units, but having imperial units only makes the article considerably less useful for the better part of the world. Rl 12:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(1) This is not policy. (2) There are compelling pragmatic reasons not to do so. It seriously disturbs the flow of the writing. (3) The original measurements were not in SI. (4) The first major contributor rule applies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

RI, which parts of the world don't understand feet and miles? Even in Europe, where metric is used, people know what feet and miles are. In the UK, most people still use them. In the context of this article, the pilots use them. The air traffic controllers use them. I think you're putting ideology before facts here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Which parts of the world don't understand km and m? Even in the US, people know what metre and kilometre are. And even though they are not used to them, they also benefit from the fact that they are easy to convert, unlike the imperial units which don't even pretend to be a system. I usually don't feel strongly enough to add SI units myself (although I do so occasionally), and I am used to read miles and feet, but quite frankly you lost me with ounces. Rl 13:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't know that a pound is 453g? And 16 oz is one pound? Maybe you should wikify ounce to avoirdupois then? That would resolve the problem for those like you who do not know the imperial system, without destroying the flow of the writing. Grace Note 03:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is the "flow of the reading" that we are trying to address by adding conversions. For everyone, not just the small minority of people in the world who normally use English units. When well done, using dual measurements does little to interrupt that flow; most people just ingnore one or the other of the two measurements given in each case. Even those of us who know quite well that we no longer have any independent standards for our avoirdupois pounds, and that they have been defined as exact fractions of a kilogram for 112 years in the United States, and that they have been defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, worldwide, for over 45 years, should not have to do our own conversions to be able to understand this article. Especially when many of the figures presented in ounces were likely originally measured in grams in the first place, whether these numbers come from Czech sources or from the FBI laboratories. Gene Nygaard 11:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fuer

As a matter of interest, what do you feel is wrong with the Bundesamt fuer Verfassungsschutz? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing

You're acting like bullies, trying to impose a British/European perspective on this article, which is not appropriate, and which I will resist. There were people from 21 countries on board; it was an American flight; the target was American; it exploded over Scottish airspace; the investigation was largely American; the prosecution case was largely American; most of the victims were American; the trial was held in Holland; the alleged bombers, one of whom may be a victim of a miscarriage of justice, were Libyan; the original measurements given by the police were not in SI. It is therefore not appropriate to force this article into any nationalist pigeonhole. The first major contributor rule applies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, that does it. I don't think I act like a bully, but frankly I find the idea of counting nationalities of people to enforce one flavor of units in an article sad. I'm taking this page off my watch list. Enjoy. Rl 13:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I, in turn, find it sad that a very small number of editors attempt to force metric conversions (or any other ideological issue) into articles regardless of the subject matter, regardless of the effect it has on the writing, and regardless of the opinions of the people who are actually writing the material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

MoS

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures:

"The issue of whether all units should be metric (SI), Imperial, or American units is being debated at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate.

"In scientific contexts, such as physics and chemistry, use SI units. Unless there is an important historical or other reason to use one style over another, editors may choose whether to use Imperial or metric units. It may be helpful to readers to offer the Imperial and metric equivalents, but this should not be done if it reduces the flow of a sentence or otherwise interferes with the quality of the writing." This is not a scientific context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I, myself, can only think in metric, so it's really annoying for me to read otherwise, but hey, tough break for me in those instances. We can't add metric conversions for every piece of measurement; there are too many and it's a recepy for stylistic convolution. El_C 13:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that anyone able to read and write in English can't understand feet, ounces, etc. I'd also venture to suggest that most British people still have some difficulty with most metric units, and their implementation in official contexts is partial at best. The issue here, though, is twofold: the Manual of Style, and the readability of the article. Both point to not including metric translations throughout the article.

My preference, though (and I seem to remember that there was consensus on this, but I can't remember where) is to use full terms rather than abbreviations ("ounces" rather than "oz", etc.). It avoids ambiguities and makes the writing clearer. I also prefer to see numbers under 100 written out as words; that's not insisted upon by the MoS (which only demands that numbers under ten be so treated; other style guides prefer 100 as the cut-off), but again, it helps to make articles look more like proper writing and less like newspaper stories. Any thoughts?

My only other comment is that at least one editor here needs to calm down a little, and try to interact more politely with others. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that you yourself found it necessary to wikify November 13, 1991—something which I had already done not just once but twice before—tell you anything about why I have good reason to be upset about these inappropriate reversions? Gene Nygaard 02:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't mean I fail to understand it, only that I can't (intuitively) think outside the metric. :) El_C 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree about ounces rather than ozs, and I'll look at changing those when I do the next copy edit. I'll have a look at the numbers under 100 too. It's the stylistic convolution I'm trying to avoid, where the reader's eye gets caught by the measurements in brackets, and loses the flow and meaning of the sentence. Even as the author, I had to read some of the sentences more than once to take them in properly once all the conversions had been added. Only some sentences contain lots of measurements, but the problem is you can't convert some without converting them all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

At last, something in which I can claim to have some measure of authority without El C's sneering at me. Numbers under ten. Under a hundred is too much. Abbreviated terms are fine for measurements -- it's almost odder to write them out in full and my instinct would be to correct them to abbreviations. If you do change them, take care to change them all. Grace Note 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

Perhaps this article will benefit from being mentioned on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

Moved from Bobblewik talk page: Bobblewik, I see you've once again added your metric conversions to this page, though you've been asked not to several times, and the issue was raised during your adminship vote. You decline to answer the queries, yet continue to add your conversions — even changing the amount of Semtex in the bomb! — as though other people simply don't exist. (If you would raise the issue on talk, you would learn why the source you picked for the amount of Semtex is not the best source.) Please make an argument for your additions on the talk page, or stop making them. You made a note on this page that, following your nomination, you would try to find a more collaborative editing approach. I urge you to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this article will benefit from being mentioned on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik, you've finally commented on the talk page, which I'm pleased to see. Perhaps you could address the issue of the flow of the writing being disturbed? Take this sentence in particular:

At 19:02:57 UTC, almost 38 minutes into the flight, and minutes after

the aircraft had entered Scottish airspace at a cruising altitude of 31,000 ft, around 12-16 ozs of plastic explosive was detonated in the forward cargo hold underneath the business-class cabin, triggering a sequence of events that led to the rapid destruction of the aircraft. Winds aloft of 100 mph scattered passengers and debris from the flight

along an 88-mile corridor over an area of 845 miles².

The writing quality is seriously affected by the addition of a metric conversion in brackets after every single measurement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik, please stop re-adding your changes without discussion on talk. Your edits have been objected to, and reasons have been given, by several editors on this page. Therefore, the onus is on you to discuss them, and not keep adding them. What, for example, is wrong with winds of up to 100 miles per hour? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please respect the inuse tag. I'm adding substantive new content, so minor changes are likely to be written over inadvertently. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't an inuse tage there at the moment — should there be? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I've just checked the History, and have seen that somehow I clashed with your edit, overwriting it. Sorry; it was completely inadvertent, and when I started there was no inuse tag there. My edit means that it's gone. I'd better leave it alone, and let you put it back. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry, Mel, I've put it back now. There's some weird editing going on here. Changes for the sake them by Bobblewik and his friends. I had: "Winds aloft of 100 mph scattered passengers and debris from the flight along an 88-mile corridor over an area of 845 square miles." They changed it to: "Winds of up to 100 knots (190 km/h) scattered passengers and debris from the flight along 130 kilometres over an area of 845 square miles."

(1) what's wrong with an 88-mile corridor? (2) why change the wind to knots? (3) 100 mph doesn't equal 100 knots so far as I know; (4) Why give 130 kms, then 854 sq. miles?

Another of Bobblewik's friends changed Calder Hall nuclear power station to Sellafield, as though they're the same thing. This is reaching the point of needing dispute resolution, because I'm trying to add some serious content, and keep having to spend time correcting these stupid mistakes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it's not at all clear who's written what: I've just noticed one of my edits is now attributed to someone else in the history. Well done, boys, you've managed to mess up the edit history and waste a lot of my time. It would have been nice if one of you could have said, thank you SlimVirgin, for expanding this article and adding so much detail, but instead it's edit warring about measurements not being metric and dates not being wikified. It's childish and dispiriting, especially given the subject matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The The WP manual of style is clear on metric/SI vs. US/Imperial: "Speed should be given in m/s by default, but in km/h, mi/h, or mph when this is conventional (speed limits, etc.)." The convention in US aviation is for speed to be stated in knots and distance in nautical miles. Since this is an aviation-related article covering a US registered aircraft, we should be using standard FAA units of measurements, i.e.; knots and nautical miles. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I can see why the wind speed would be changed to knots, to match the aircraft speeds, but not the rest. The messing up of the edit history might be Wikipedia's fault (it's been doing some odd things today). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it could be WP's fault, but it probably doesn't help that people are trying to make one edit after another to prove a point. I wasn't including you in "boys," by the way. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The other issue for me here is that I feel that since objections have been raised it's unacceptable for editors to add conversions without seeking a consensus on the talk page. That, and that unit conversions should not intefere with the quality of the writing, which they do in this case. These editors need to to come to the talk page and seek a compromise and stop making these blanket additions. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAA measurements

To settle this issue, I'm going to use whatever measurements the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses. See here and here for examples. The aircraft and crew were FAA registered; FAA rules governed both the flight and every aspect of Pan Am's security arrangements, and the rules about interline baggage, all of which is crucial to this article; and most of the forensic investigative work was done by the FAA (e.g. blowing up aircraft and baggage containers to simulate the explosion). This makes them the only authority we have to defer to. I'll go through the FAA documents and will start changing my measurements tomorrow to whatever the FAA uses. I don't know what will have to be changed at the moment. I know, for example, that the 31,000 feet altitude came from the aircraft's transponder, and was also the measurement used by Shanwick Oceanic Control in Scotland, so that one seems to be universal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gene, I don't know what you're talking about. As other editors have made clear on this page, miles are as much a part of American and British English too, and that's what we're using. We're going to follow the style of the Federal Aviation Administration, as this is an article about a flight that followed their regulations, so we say 31,000 feet because that's what the aircraft's responder said, that's what air traffic control said etc. Whatever measurements they used with reference to this flight, that is what we'll be using throughout the article, which is exactly in accordance with the MoS. I'm having to type everything at least twice here for your benefit, but I won't keep on doing that, so please read what people have written. Do not delete referenced facts from the article. The link is, as I recall, to a Washington Post article, and the 100 tons is taken from there. Look up how the word 'ton' is used in the States if you like at Ton. But don't replace it with some. You're coming close to trolling now and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's not even disputable. The source gives a figure and we repeat the source. That's what Wikipedia does par excellence. The article uses imperial units, which is not only appropriate given the subject of the article but is the unit of choice of the originating editor, which the MoS suggests we respect. Repeatedly changing these units without consensus is disrespectful to your fellow editors, not to mention that it uglifies the article, and I ask Bobblewik to stop doing it. Gene, please don't troll SlimVirgin any more -- she's worked hard to improve this article and doesn't deserve it. It's of no account which "ton" Havel meant. He wasn't using a precise figure, clearly. He didn't tot up the manifests and come up with an exact weight. The difference in amounts among the different types of ton/tonne are of no account either, because the figure simply goes to show that the Czechs transferred a large amount of Semtex. Whether it was 995 tonnes or 1010, or anywhere in between is entirely immaterial. The Washington Post, for obvious reasons, has a particular measure in mind when it uses ton. If you don't know what it is, I refer you to the article linked, which makes it clear. Grace Note 02:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this particular example, Grace Note, your addition of quote marks in making it "a thousand tons" in those quote marks, was actually totally false and misleading, and not in accordance in the principle of citing your sources. Why? Because the only source referred to in the text of this particular article is Vaclav Havel. The Washington Post is not mentioned as a source in the text of the article, and only appears in a footnote link to a supporting source. To use this as a direct quote, without specifically identifying that what is being quoted is not Vaclav Havel but rather a Washington Post paraphrase of whatever he said, is a totally improper use of those quotation marks. Of course, the fact that the Washington Post said those exact words is not a fact that has any real bearing or significance on this Wikipedia article in the first place. You yourself have found better sources; just add them to the references at the end of this paragraph, and disambiguate those tons in the text of this Wikipedia article, something we in fact have been able to do as discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Gene Nygaard 11:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fix it yourself if you have a problem. You excel at bullying other editors but don't seem to be much of a hand at actually doing what you demand of others. Those are, in fact, the exact words Havel used but we are quoting the Washington Post. I'm happy that they should be sourced to the WP article, which is more useful in this context than articles that quote Havel himself. If you want to find a direct quote of Havel and replace it with that, go for your life. It would be more useful than haranguing editors who actually are working to improve the article (although, frankly, marginally so, since there is no need to source Havel's words -- it's not as though there is any dispute that he said it, or over what he meant by it). Grace Note 01:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, Gene keeps referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as though it backs him up, but that page says clearly at the section called "Style for numbers, weights, and measures": "In scientific contexts, such as physics and chemistry, use SI units. Unless there is an important historical or other reason to use one style over another, editors may choose whether to use Imperial or metric units." This is not a scientific context, so we may choose what to use, and the first major contributor, and others, have chosen Imperial units, which is what the FAA and Scotland used in their dealings with the flight, and also what all the sources use (books, articles). I've posted this same information a couple of times on the talk page, but for some reason, it's making no difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read that too, and I must admit, I'm utterly mystified at what Gene's basis for changing the units is. He might want to take issue with the MoS or with the way things are done here -- that's his prerogative -- but this is not the place to do that and wherever he does it, he'd be well advised to put his case with a bit more courtesy. Grace Note 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[moved my comment from another section--Gene Nygaard] Note that there is now only one country in the whole world where official weather reports ever report temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit (or maybe two countries, seems to me I remember something about Jamaica in this regard). In any case, relevant to SlimVirgin's FAA usage nonsense, even in those one or two countries, including the United States, aviation weather reports have been given in degrees Celsius rather than degrees Fahrenheit for several years. Gene Nygaard 13:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous tons

In reverting my edit, Grace Note added this editorial comment "Rv to SlimVirgin. A ton is a ton. This article uses imperial measures and so does the source."

But she has no better idea than I do what units the cited source was using in this instance. The source is only a timeline summary, which includes an indirect statement by a non-American, Czech President Vaclav Havel, who probably did not make the original statement in English in the first place. Two likely possibilities present themselves here, even not allowing for the fact that this article might have been filtered through some other source such as the BBC which might have used a third type of ton. It might be short tons, units often used in the United States without particularly identifying the tons being used. But it might also be metric tons, the units in which Havel would most likely have expressed whatever number he used in the first place. So did he really say 900 metric tons, or did he really say 1000 metric tons? Who knows?

Note in particular that there are other instances in which the Washington Post routinely uses metric tons, whether ([7]) or not ([8]) they are identified as such. In the cited examples, and any other case dealing with international production or sales of grains such as wheat, if tons are used by the Washington Post, they are always metric tons. If English units are used, the units of mass which the Washington Post uses in these examples are bushels ([9]). Gene Nygaard 03:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to engage in original research. We publish material already published by reputable sources. The Washington Post is one such source. They say Gadaffi was sold 1,000 tons of Semtex. We repeat those words, and link to the source. End of story. Getting into what language Havel was speaking is completely irrelevant: remember that the criterion for entry into WP is not truth, but verifiability. We publish what others publish. We don't research it independently. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is not "original research" to point out that what was reported in this Wikipedia article was ambiguous, and to replace it with an appropriate, ambiguous statement. It doesn't matter if you have a "good" source for an ambiguous number. An ambiguous source is no more helpful than no source at all. Gene Nygaard 11:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do actually encourage Gene to find out what the Washington Post meant by tons in this particular insance (or attempt to obtain any other evidence shedding light on this; but I caution: concrete evidence, not conjecture as the above strikes me to be), but until he has verifiable proof one way or another, said reference to this as is is sufficient, this potential discrapency and ambiguity notwithstanding. El_C 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't matter what they meant by it. Havel wasn't giving an accounting of how much Semtex the Czechs gave to Libya. Grace Note 04:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because he has obviously taken an interest in it, might as well do it an empirically-grounded fashion. El_C 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be better off employing yourself in discouraging him from trolling on this point altogether, rather than egging him on? Just a thought. Grace Note 05:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am currently limiting myself to your trolling, Grace Note. I could not care less what Gene researches, if he does it well. El_C 06:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If by that you mean dogging my edits and making a prick of yourself, you're doing a bang-up job of it. It's not very constructive but you seem to be enjoying it, so I'm happy for you. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed the suggestion that the Washington Post might conceivably discuss bushels of Semtex. Very nice. In any case, the Post said he said a thousand tons. We're quoting the Post. End of story right there. Grace Note 04:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bushels of Semtex. LOL! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Havel meant metric tonnes. (This is clear because he goes on to say that 200 grams is enough to destroy an airliner.) He was using a round figure though for rhetorical purposes, not producing an accounting. Grace Note 05:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sure. I would'nt know, makes sense. Whatever. El_C 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Grace Note, for your kind admission that your claim that these are "imperial tons" was made in error.

I never claimed any such thing. I said that that is what the WP means when it says tons. I said it was immaterial what tons Havel meant and explained why. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you don't know that that is what the Washington Post meant, do you? They weren't identified as "imperial tons" (whatever that means) in the Washington Post, were they? They also were not identified as short tons, or as long tons, or as metric tons in the Washington Post, were they? I used to read the Washington Post every day. I know quite well that they often use metric tons, without identifying them as anything other than "tons", in some contexts—for example, when talking about grain production or sales, something I am interested in. I am also quite certain that they sometimes use long tons without identifying them as such; in case you don't know it, we do actually use long tons for some purposes in the United States (however, nobody in the United States thinks that hundred is written in digits as "112"; we never use the long hundredweight, even if we do sometimes use the long ton). Gene Nygaard 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The exact wording that Havel used, in any language, isn't all that significant, and is no more deserving of being a direct quote than whatever the Washington Post actually said, even if the quote were identified as being from the Washington Post in the text (which it was not). What is important is the number he used, and whether or not that number agrees with the number given in the Washington Post story; was it 900, or was it 1000? That is important because it tells us whether or not the Washington Post made any conversions of the original measurement to different units. As you have already pointed out, if his statement was ambiguous, we can use the rest of the context in helping us to disambiguate what he meant. This is something we all do every day, in interpreting both things which people say to us, and what we read. We don't have to become blathering idiots, and pretend that we are unable to understand what he meant, just because taking a couple of words out of context might leave you with an apparent ambiguity in the statement. There is no serious doubt here that he was using metric tons. As you have already pointed out, it is quite reasonable for us to assume a consistent set of units, and that if as part of the context of this statement he also talks about 200 grams of Semtex, then when he talks about tonnes or tons, they are the metric variety equal to one megagram or 1,000,000 grams. Furthermore, he lives in a country which has long been metric, talking about production in the factories of that country, something long measured in metric units, and being sold to another metric country. Just as you have already admitted, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt about the fact that the "tons" being used were "metric tons". Gene Nygaard 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, if you would be kind enough to add your source which provides support for the conclusion that these are in fact metric tons (and the use of grams to measure the same commodity in the same "statement" is indeed such support), I would appreciate it.

No. It's easily found on Google. It's immaterial to this article. There is no dispute whatsoever that Havel said a thousand tons. It's a round figure, not an accounting, so it's of no account which kind of ton he's talking about. The point of his quote was actually that there had been so much exported and you only needed a little per bomb. Look it up, Gene. Maybe you can add it to the article on Semtex, instead of trolling here. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the number he used was 1000, and not 900, then the Washington Post made no conversion of the original number. What the Washington Post called just by the ambiguous word "tons" were "metric tons", not "imperial tons" as you claimed in error in your edit summary. Gene Nygaard 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the term "imperial tons" almost always refers to a ton of 2,240 lb (1016.04 kg). The short tons are most often used in the United States and Canada, and we rarely if ever refer to them as "imperial" tons. Of course, the people who think that "hundred" is written in digits as "112" are so proud of their silliness in using twenty of those hundredweight to make a ton, that they would never use there own "imperial" designation to apply to the short ton either. Gene Nygaard 11:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what? I'm well aware Americans use a different ton to the UK. I don't care what you personally refer to them as. Why should I? That's also of absolutely no account to this article. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People in the U.S. don't call a short ton an "imperial ton". People in the U.K. don't call a short ton an "imperial ton". So who does call a short ton an "imperial ton"? Or are you claiming that the Washington Post was using long tons, the units which might be called an "imperial ton" in the U.K., of Semtex? Gene Nygaard 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who meant what; it's what they published that matters, so long as we source it, and we have. We can't get into authorial intention. If people want to telephone the W/Post reporter who wrote the story to ask him what he might have meant by the word "ton," good luck to them; it'll make no difference unless the reporter clarifies in print. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not by a long shot, SlimVirgin. What the Washington Post actually published is totally immaterial to this story. In fact, this article doesn't even mention the Washington Post in connection with these claims. All that really matters is what Vaclav Havel's actually admitted to.

He wasn't making an "admission"! It's common knowledge that Czechoslovakia exported Semtex to Libya. He wasn't revealing a state secret. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What that reporter meant has no relevance; it is what Vaclav Havel meant that matters.

He wasn't making an accounting. I'd like you to show some evidence that he was. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he wasn't at least giving us a reasonable estimate, then the whole discussion has nothing to do with this story. There is then no relevance to this particular Wikipedia article and it should all be thrown out.

Both the actual number and the actual units he used are relevant, of course, in giving us some sense of the precision of that estimate or accounting or whatever we choose to call it. Note that if less than half a kilogram can blow up a large passenger airplane like this one, then the difference between 1000 short tons and 1000 metric tons is quite significant—it's enough to blow up about a quarter of a million airplanes. Gene Nygaard 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have some screwball notions about what "citing your sources" means. There is no reason whatsoever to single-source each paragraph, or each sentence, of an article. If one source is ambiguous, another source which helps to resolve that ambiguity can be cited as well. That can and should be done even if you actually use a direct quote from the first source, but that consideration is also inapplicable in the current case because there was no direct quote from the first source cited. Gene Nygaard 11:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. Havel gives a round figure. It doesn't matter what type of ton he means by it. You must produce evidence that it does, Gene. The point is that Czechoslovakia exported a lot of Semtex, not that it exported a particular amount. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Why do you feel the need to be so aggressive? Your manner is that of a rather arrogant adolescent; whether that fits you or not, you might find other editors responded to you better if you at least tried to act more like an adult who was brought up with reasonable manners.
2. I've reverted your peculiar change of the accurate quotation to your own interpretation. note also that the link you provided was to metric ton; you might check that before adding it anywhere else. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, where did you get the silly notion that there is something improper about using redirects? That's exactly why we have them in first place. It is quite proper to link to [[metric ton]] just exactly like that. There is no need for me to use [[tonne|metric ton]] instead, and there is no need for me to use anything other than the proper American English name of this unit, and there is no need for me to use a word tonne which is just as ambiguous in French as ton is in English, nor to disambiguate it by specifying metric tonne as many people do.

That's demented. You should avoid double redirects. If our page is titled "tonne", link to that, whatever you put in the text. It doesn't matter what "tonne" means in French. In English it means a metric ton. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is totally improper to claim that this is a direct quote, implying that it is what Vaclav Havel said, without identifying the fact that what is being quoted is not Vaclav Havel, but rather a Washington Post paraphrase of what he said. Gene Nygaard 13:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't do any such thing. You're mistaking quotation marks that show a quotation from another work for quotation marks that show dialogue in a novel. Easy mistake to make, but in this instance all it shows is that is what the WP wrote. Grace Note 01:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see; I take it that that means that you're unwilling or unable to lose the aggressive adolescent whine in your dealings with others. So be it; parents those in secondary education have probably become inured to it; the rest of us will have to put up with it, I suppose — either that or open an RfC on you, which I for one would support).

The "silly" idea comes from the Manual of Style: "A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect." As for impropriety, if you can show that the quotation isn't from Havel, then it's perfectly proper to make that clear in the text; what isn't proper is to guess that it isn't a direct quotation, then guess at what he really said, and include that in the text. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gene, you've misunderstood the policy of citing sources, as well as the way journalists work. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. The W/Post says one thousand tons. We quote that, and link to the source. The W/Post counts as a good source for WP. No one would question that.

That's all we do. We don't investigate whether they were directly quoting Havel. We don't telephone Havel and demand to hear a tape of the interview. We don't contact the reporter and insists he clarify in a later edition of the Post what he meant by "ton." Above all, we don't guess. And why does it matter so much that we find out exactly what the Post meant? You seem to be expending an enormous amount of energy on this single issue of units. Also, I would endorse what Mel wrote about tone. It isn't acceptable to address people in the tone you're using. You'll find people more receptive if you don't call them or their ideas "silly" and "screwball."

As for your comment about double sources, I have nowhere said each claim should only have one source. By all means, if you can find another reputable source showing how much Semtex Gadaffi was sold, add the source after the sentence, or modify the sentence to reflect the source; just make sure it's reputable and authoritative in some way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Metric units must not be used in this article

I would just like to say that I respect SlimVirgin for paying so much attention to this article. The determination to make this a good source for readers is welcome.

Thank you, Bobblewik. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

However, other editors are entitled to make changes. The fact that an editor is prepared to make an edit does not mean that an editor is being disrepectful to contributions of other editors. This article is not owned by anyone. If good raw data is available, then it can and should be used. SlimVirgin has made repeated assertions that this article must have US units only. I have not addressed this assertion before because I thought it was just a rant. But I will address it now because this falsehood is being repeated so frequently that it is in danger of becoming a widespread belief. The airspace over the United Kingdom is controlled by the UK CAA, not the US FAA.

Please explain why this is of any relevance. Grace Note 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It landed on Lockerbie in Scotland, not in the US. The investigation was carried out by the UK AAIA, not the US NTSB. The murder enquiry was done through the Scottish court system, not any court system of the US. There was a lot of US involvement (US aircraft, US citizens, enemy of US foreign policy), but the suggestion that this article should not have metric units because it is a US only article is not true.

That's not my position. My point is that it's an international story, so there is no need to use the British/European system of measurement. We should use what the sources say, what the FAA says re: the plane, and what the first major contributor used. Above all, we shouldn't have these constant conversions as they interrupt the flow of the writing and, with respect Bobblewik, the way you have often done them has not been quite right anyway. But the point is, for example, that the plane was flying at 31,000 feet as tranmitted by the plane's transponder, and as stated by the Scottish air traffic controller. As all parties are agreed on that, there is no need for you to change it to 9,000 meters or to add that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

That's what strikes me. These are the units used by the people involved. Bobblewik's position seems to be that his choice of units should take precedence over the choice of those involved. Grace Note 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor is it acceptable that edits improving accessibility for metric readers should be removed simply because some non-metric readers prefer not to see metric units.

Furthermore, I note that metric measurements from respectable sources have been replaced with non-metric measurements from less respected sources. For example, the AVE container size was falsely quoted as five cubic feet. More accurate measures were inserted but were reverted more than once. Similarly, the measure of wind at altitude was corrected to a value in knots by using a respectable source. For some reason this was repeatedly reverted to a value in miles per hour from an unknown source.

The AVE container was 5 ft by 5 ft by 5 ft, as I recall. The wind was 100 mph (this, again, is from memory); someone changed it to 100 knots per hour, which is not (I believe) the same thing as 100 mph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Supplementary units in parentheses have been regarded as acceptable for duplicate non-metric units but unacceptable when making the article accessible to metric readers. For example, 31,000 feet (six miles). This is presumably to compensate for difficulty in converting between the many forms of non-metric units of length. However, when a metric value is added in parentheses, this is regarded as unacceptable. The difficulties of non-metric readers in converting within the non-metric system are regarded as important yet the difficulties of a metric reader are regarded as unimportant. Bobblewik  (talk) 11:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I added six miles, to give people an idea of how far a fall that is. But I'm not wedded to keeping it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I took the six miles thing out. The reader knows 31,000 ft is high up! They can work it out for themselves if they're really interested. Grace Note 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik, stop deleting posts from your talk page. That's one of the reasons people have a problem when dealing with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

OK, I know this makes me look a lazy git but I say it on every RfC/3o I respond to - could the two (or more) sides in this debate write a short, clear statement giving the reasons for what they want to do? I find this helps crystalize people's arguements, and makes sure I (and anyone else who comes here) understands what's going on. Dan100 17:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik: My understanding of the issue and what I would like

A fair point Dan. I hope that I can be clear.

• My understanding of the issue is:
  • Editors including myself have been adding metric units. In many cases, this has been taking existing non-metric values and converting them into dual unit values. This has included efforts to find and use good data sources.
  • Other editors have been converting them back to non-metric only. In many cases, this has simply involved reverting to data of inferior or unknown quality.

• What I would like:
  • I would like it if metric units were permitted to stay in this article.
  • I would like it if values taken from respectable sources were not replaced with values taken from sources of unknown quality.

Bobblewik  (talk) 22:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some useful policy and guideline refs

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Style_for_numbers.2C_weights.2C_and_measures
• Wikipedia:Measurements Debate

Bobblewik keeps referring to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Style_for_numbers.2C_weights.2C_and_measures as though it supports him, but it doesn't. It says: In scientific contexts, such as physics and chemistry, use SI units. Unless there is an important historical or other reason to use one style over another, editors may choose whether to use Imperial or metric units. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As for my opinion of the whole issue, it is simply this: Solve It In Software.

(via the RfC) JesseW 22:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JesseW very strongly. And I ask Gene and Bobblewik to please ease off. Unless I'm missing comething crucial, it seems to be an enormous expension of energy over what is for our pruposes, relatively minor and trivial. If you want to research this on your own, fine. But you are needlessly slowing down Slim's thrust over this, which I find to be rather unfair. El_C 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what's very annoying about this, and why I see it as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm trying to write an article about a long, complicated, unpleasant business, which killed 270 people directly; which was triggered by attacks on Libya or Iran, and possibly both, which killed hundreds; which indirectly led to the deaths of many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Libyans, because of UN sanctions against Libya, which led to things like planes crashing because of the lack of spare parts; and which may have led to a miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years. Not to mention that it was the UK's largest and most expensive criminal inquiry ever, America's second deadliest attack against civilians, and the only UK trial that I'm aware of to have taken place on foreign soil. All big issues.

And yet I'm having to spend all my time on it discussing what a ton is, and whether people know what miles are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

One of the most significant problems is that User:SlimVirgin does not know what miles are "whatever measurements the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses." In particular, she does not know what Alan Topp (an air traffic controller) actually knew when " Topp knew [each square] represented one mile of airspace." She does not understand that an FAA "mile", and as well the "mile" of an air traffic controller in Scotland not under the jurisdiction of the FAA, is normally 1.852 km, not 1.609344 km.

But the bigger problem is that, without specifically identifying the miles and without including metric conversions, nobody else knows for which miles are being used in any particular instance. We don't know if it is really normal FAA usage, or something that has been dumbed down and replaced with different miles before being presented to the general public. Gene Nygaard 21:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question - have people been trying to replace imperial units with metric ones? Dan100 17:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Answer from Bobblewik. The short answer is: no, I have not tried to replace imperial units, merely supplement them.

Where a better source (Scottish Court, Ordnance Survey, container spec) has a different value, the value from the better source becomes primary. For example a wind value in 'mph' became 'knots (km/h)' because the UK AAIB vertical wind profile is in knots.

Anyone can easily examine what has been done. Look further down this talk page at the example histories for Container size, Wind, Debris, McKee, Fragment size, Temperature. I posted it just a few hours ago. The removal war has, unfortunately, spilled over into removal of my contributions on this talk page. So I can't guarantee that my posting will be available to read. If it isn't, please look at the raw data in the article history.

AlanBarrett and Gene Nygaard have also attempted to place metric units in this article. I can't speak for them but I think they have acted in a similar way to me. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I'd also like to ask Slim to outline why she feels metric units shouldn't be in the article? Dan100 18:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

British English or American English

User:SlimVirgin has conceded that this is not a "topic specific to a particular English-speaking country" so that the question, under the guidelines of the Manual of Style, of which of the "national varieties of English" should be used should be determined on a first-user basis.

Therefore, the question becomes: Who is that first user, and what is the usage established by that first use?

Here it is: Revision as of 19:55, 12 Jan 2003 Hotlorp (Talk | contribs):

• "A commission from the Organisation of African Unity criticised the basis of Al Megrahi's conviction."

Note that prior to this, the article was only a stub, and that User:Hotlorp was indeed the first user for the purposes of the rule stated in the MoS:

• "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

The name of the organization is not relevant to this issue. However, the use of the spelling "criticised" rules out American English.

Note also that there never has been any consensus here to change that proper, original user usage. Therefore, this article should be written in British English, unless we want to try to come to a consensus to do otherwise. Gene Nygaard 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That text doesn't show anything about the initial use of English, as it's a link to an article that uses that spelling. Your argument therefore fails. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My argument does not fail at all.

The spelling used in the source is not in any way determinative of the spelling used in a Wikipedia article, unless there is good reason for including a direct quote here.

This is not a direct quote, Mel. Or it shouldn't be, because it is not presented as such.

Even setting that aside, that would only make the issue we are checking in the history unresolved on this talk page so far; nothing more. Assuming for the sake of argument that you could establish that this in some way is not a real instance of first use by a significant contributor, who would be your candidate for first user, and what would that first use be? Be specific. Gene Nygaard 11:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Let's see if I can capture that particular snotty adolescent patronising tone that you seem to feel most commfortable with:] Er, what? Why are you stupidly talking about quotations? Can't you read? I was referring to a Wikilink to another article, which (unsurprisingly, because other editors understand Wikipedia policy about links even though you obviously don't) was spelt in the same way as the article to which it led. As for your petty obsession with the style of English used, as I don't share it (having both a life and more important editing tasks to get on with) I'll leave it up to you twiddle and fiddle with it. [Was that all right? It probably wasn't quite rude or patronising enough, but I promise that I'll get better with practice.] Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Mel. You are the one not paying attention. There was no wikilink, and it wouldn't matter if there were because if there had been, it still could have been written with a pipe to the proper spelling, in this case [[criticised|criticized]] (criticized). But that wasn't linked, as you can probably figure out from the redlink here, and I already conceded in my original message in this section that the spelling or Organisation was not relevant to this question. Note that that has nothing to do with the fact that it was part of a wikilinked name, and everything to do with the fact that it is part of a proper name using the spelling Organisation of African Unity. Gene Nygaard 01:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck? SlimVirgin has written the overwhelming majority of this article. It was crap when she came to it, and she made it good. She writes in American English, and it didn't occur to her that rather than being praised for her hard work in making a good article, she might be called to account by some guy who has written pages of accusations and trolling on the talkpage but barely a word in the actual article for not writing it in British English. It's unconscionably rude. Still, if it really upsets you that an editor should create enormous amounts of content in a style they are comfortable with, just rewrite it in British English instead of whining about it. Grace Note 02:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from the quote above from the MoS, the applicable rule is "first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article". It is not "wordiest recent contributor".

I don't want to see it in British English, so there is absolutely no reason for me to rewrite it in British English. What I want to see is that the rules for respecting the original user's choice be honored. That first use should not be set in stone, but more importantly it should not be up to the whim of some later contributor such as SlimVirgin to unilaterally decide that it should be changed. Such usage should never be changed without good reason, and there is absolutely no reason to make such a change here where the article deals with a truly international incident.

BTW, you might want to count up how many of your own contributions have consisted of coming back in and making the very same corrections which I had already made earlier, and which had been reverted by SlimVirgin. The contributions of copyeditors and those of us who can help resolve the confusion of the units of measures which are used (and misused, as in changing "5 ft x 5 ft x 5 ft" to "5ft³", which is totally incorrect; it is a "five-foot cube" but it is not "five cubic feet", and it should have been 5x5x5 ft³ or 125 ft³) are also significant contributions to the development of Wikipedia articles. Gene Nygaard 02:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask editors to keep a bit cooler please? Exchanges like this don't really help anyone. Dan100 22:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've already decided to go with the FAA usage, as they supplied most of the material that the authors and journalists (who are my sources) used as sources. And the Scottish air traffic authority seems to agree with it, so it's the most obvious authority. This was agreed with Felonious Monk, and the others on the page who responded - El C, Mel, Grace Note - seem to agree too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Gene, you are right on the edge of what can be considered good faith. Slim has made enormous contributions to this article; you've mostly added mud to the water. Slim writes American English and is comfortable with that. Personally, I write UK English but I don't mind copyediting in American mode. I don't see any problem whatsoever in this article being in US English, given that the major contributor -- who has much more to add -- is comfortable in that mode. If you plan to make substantial additions, Gene, then you have a case for having your way. Since you don't seem to have that plan, then I don't think you do.

The rule you cite says if all else fails. All else hasn't failed. Given the scope of her contribution, I say that pure courtesy dictates that we use SlimVirgin's choice. It's just utter rudeness to make an issue out of it.

As for the metric units, I'm not in favour of putting them in. The article reads nicely and we should not sacrifice that to Bobblewik's crusade. The MoS does not require it, and, I think, for good reason. The distances and speeds and so on are not crucial to understanding the article (as they might be in a scientific text) and I cannot see that anyone has actually argued that they are. Anyone who does not understand what the units are can readily find out. If you really, really want the metric units, why not put in an endnote with a set of conversions? That way you have what you so badly want and SlimVirgin has what she very much wants. Grace Note 00:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing preposterous about this, Grace Note. After all, these are the rules SlimVirgin claims to be applicable. All I am doing is showing where those rules lead us.

Note that SlimVirgin is many generations removed from the "first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article". It has been 2½ years since this was last a stub only. There have been other major contributors as well as the first one in the intervening time period.

The "if all else fails" refers to all the other suggestions above it; SlimVirgin has already claimed, however, that we have to go to the first-user rule, so why are you getting so upset about applying that rule?

Just where do you come up with this notion that SlimVirgin is now somehow able to claim "ownership" of this article just because of her long-windedness in making some recent edits, and to have total control over what appears in it, just based on whatever her own whims are at the particular moment? Gene Nygaard 11:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're just chasing your tail, Gene. You add 30K of material to the article and I'll start caring what version of English you think it should be written in. Grace Note 12:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this right, then. The rules don't go into effect until after SlimVirgin starts editing? Is that correct?

Note that I don't really care whether this article is written in American English or Australian English or British English or whatever. I'm merely trying to establish two very important facts:

1. The rules apply to SlimVirgin, just like they do to anyone else.
2. The choice of a national variety of English to use in this article has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that metric units should be included here. Gene Nygaard 19:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Every measurement given could be repeated at the end of the article with the metric equivalent. That way, the conversions wouldn't break up the text, which is my main concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the metric conversions should be in there even for British English use. British children have been educated in centimetres, metres, kilos and Celsius for a long while now. Not every conversion is required - but some should be there. GraemeLeggett 08:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no consensus here to make that change, Graeme. However, Grace Note's suggestion of adding the conversions at the end of the article is a good one. I hope those editors wanting it will accept that compromise, so we can stop spending our time on this, as there are more substantive issues related to this article that need to be dealt with and, in fact, written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keeping metric units out of this article: events

Compiled by Bobblewik from article history as at 22:53, 13 Jun 2005

Why are you doing this? What point are you trying to make? No one is disputing that you have had a slow revert war with SlimVirgin, in which you refused to communicate with her on this page. You've also demonstrated that instead of making sure that the measurements were correct -- which would have been of value to the article -- you have served to bugger them up. Well done. Grace Note 00:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the most important things to note, Grace Note, is that your very short and pretty comprehensive list of the measurements used in this article put the lie to the claims by various people that this is such a measurement intensive article that including dual units would seriously interrupt the flow of the text. Gene Nygaard 13:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sigh Of course, no one said any such thing. Your contribution to this page has become absolutely no more than attacking other editors. It's all about what you think you can get away with claiming other editors said. Just trolling, in other words. I've given you enough feed, Gene. Time for you to start starving. Delete list of measurements -- can be found in archiveGrace Note 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reinstating my deleted comments. Gene Nygaard 19:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Height/weight values for McKee

• 23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 6' 5", 270-lb Non-metric only
• 17:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m), 270 lb (122 kg) Dual
• 03:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 6 ft 5 ins, 270-lb Non-metric only
• 13:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m), 270 lb (122 kg) Dual
• 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 6 ft 5 ins, 270-lb Non-metric only
• 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 6 ft 5 in, 270-lb (1.96 m, 120 kg) Dual
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 6 ft 5 ins, 270-lb Non-metric only

Addition (note that times in history must be based on your local time settings; mine are 6 hours off, perhaps sometimes one more one way or the other, from those of Grace Note--Gene Nygaard):

• 00:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Grace Note -> 6-ft 5-in, 270-lb Non-metric only

Comment. Why is it, Grace Note, that in your copyediting you found it necessary to correct a symbol which had already been corrected at least twice before, by both Bobblewik and me? Note also that though the English system is no longer supported and updated, the modern rules for the usage of SI units could properly (but not necessarily, of course, since nobody bothers much in writing rules for the use of the archaic English units) be extended to them—no hyphens when used with symbols, even when used as adjectives. Gene Nygaard 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Estimates of explosive weight

• 06:23, 21 Nov 2003 WhisperToMe 312 gram Metric only

Note that the original was metric.

However, it doesn't take much to figure out that that wasn't the real original. The obvious clue that something is amiss is the three apparently significant digits. It's not like somebody weighed this out precisely when it was brought on board. We know that it is a rough approximation, based a little bit on the constraints from what we know about the containers in which it was brought aboard the airplane, and mostly on calculations based on the amount of damage done and various assumptions made in modeling the effects of a certain amount of explosive.

It is simply a bad conversion from English units to metric units, with the original measurement, which provides us with good information as to the actual precision of the original measurement, had been unwisely discarded. There can be almost no doubt that this was originally 11 ounces avoirdupois. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 05:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> between 10 and 14 ounces Non-metric only
• 18:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) AlanBarrett -> 10-14 ounces (280g to 400 g) Dual
• 23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> around 14 oz. Non-metric only
• 23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 450 grams Second instance of weight value. Metric only (source: UK official DERA data). Article now has mismatching values: metric only and non-metric only

Comment. Mismatching values shouldn't be unexpected. It is likely that various estimates were made by various people, and it is likely that the estimates of some people or groups of people were tweaked and modified over time as more information became available or changes were made in the modeling assumptions. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 17:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik around 14 oz.-> 450 grams (16 oz) Dual. Both values consistent with UK official value
• 21:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 450 grams (16 oz) -> 10-16 ounces One of two instances. Non-metric only. Mismatch between instances re-introduced
• 05:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 450 grams -> 14 ozs. One of two instances. Non-metric only
• 06:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 14 ozs. -> 450 grams Self revert. Metric value reappears
• 06:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 450 grams -> 14 ozs. Non-metric only

Of course, those are not equivalent; neither of them would convert to the other. It might make this number consistent with the number appearing elsewhere in the article, but it might also make one of them inconsistent with the referenced source for it. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 13:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik 10-16 ozs and 14 ozs. -> 450 g (16 oz) Made consistent with UK official value. Dual. Two values in article now match
• 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 450 g (16 oz) -> 10-16 ozs (first value), 450 g (16 oz) -> about 14 ozs. (second value) Article now has two different weight values. Non-metric only
• 07:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 10-16 ozs -> 12-16 ozs (first value) Revision of value
• 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 12–16 oz (0.3–0.5 kg) (first value), -> about 400 g (14 oz) (second value) Dual.
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 12-16 ozs (first value), about 14 ozs. (second value). Non-metric only
• 16:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> about 400 g (14 oz) (second value). Dual
• 18:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> between 12 and 16 ounces (second value). Non-metric only

Addition:

• 00:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Grace Note -> between 12 and 16 oz (second value). Non-metric only

Note that here again, Grace Note is copyediting to the symbol which had already been corrected by me and by Bobblewik, several times, with a different symbol put back in by SlimVirgin on each occasion. Only this time, she is changing a spelled out word, which SlimVirgin had put in to replace here earlier, often-added and different symbols. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Container size

• 23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 5' x 5' x 5'
• 17:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 5 by 5 by 5 ft (1.5 by 1.5 by 1.5 m) Dual
• 04:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 5ft³. Non-metric only
• 13:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 4.2 cubic metre (148 ft³) Dual (actual AVE container size)
• 08:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 5ft³. Non-metric only
• 08:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 5 ft³ (140 L). Dual
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 5ft³. Non-metric only
• 16:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 125 ft³ (3.5 m³). Dual
• 16:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 4.2 cubic metre (148 ft³) Dual
• 06:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Grace Note -> 148 cubic ftNon-metric only

Wind

• 02:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 100 miles per hour Non-metric only
• 17:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) Dual
• 21:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 100 miles per hour Non-metric only
• 13:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 90 knots (170 km/h) Dual (source: UK official accident investigation data)
• 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 100 mph Non-metric only
• 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) Dual
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 100 mph Non-metric only
• 16:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> up to 100 knots (190 km/h) Dual (source: UK official accident investigation data)
• 17:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mel Etitis -> up to 100 s Non-metric only
• 18:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> of 100 s Non-metric only

Length of debris spread

• 00:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Slimv 180 miles Non-metric only
• 22:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) SlimVirgin 130 kms Metric only
• 21:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) SlimVirgin 88-mile (142-km) Dual
• 23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
• 17:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik 88-mile -> 88 mile (142 km) Dual
• 21:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
• 13:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik 88-mile -> 88 mile (142 km) Dual

• 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
• 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 88-statute-mile (142 km) Dual
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
• 17:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 130 km Metric only (source: UK official accident investigation data)
• 17:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
• 17:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mel Etitis -> 81 miles Non-metric only
• 18:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only

Fragment size

• 21:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) SlimVirgin 0.4 inch (10 millimeter) Dual
• 06:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin 0.4 inch Non-metric only
• 13:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bobblewik -> 0.4 inch (10 mm) Dual
• 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 0.4 inch Non-metric only
• 08:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 10 millimeter (0.4 inch) Dual
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> 0.4 inch Non-metric only

Temperature

• 07:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin minus 50 F Non-metric only
• 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> minus 50 °F (−45 °C) Dual
• 08:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin -> minus 50 °F Non-metric only
• 16:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gene Nygaard -> 50 °F (−45 °C) Dual
• 06:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Grace Note -> minus 50 °F Non-metric only

Moved my comment on temperature to #FAA measurements

Archive request

Does anyone else have an objection to my having archived some of this talk page at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1 and Bobblewik's compilation of units at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/units? He keeps reverting both, even though the page is getting long, and could use some archiving. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to archiving. I do object to your removal of my comments. Archive is for removal of old stuff, not a cover for your censorship of recent stuff you don't want to see from those you are in dispute with. I want to be reasonable with you. We are on the same side. We both wish the article to have good data that is accessible to a wide audience. Please, let the debate proceed. Nobody is editor-in-chief of the article and certainly nobody is editor-in-chief of the talk page. I am not your enemy. Bobblewik  (talk) 09:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate about what? Measurements still? El_C 10:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Bobblewik, we are not on the same side, I fear. You say you want to discuss things, but you actually never do. You just keep repeating yourself and reverting. Your edits are opposed by Mel, El C, FeloniusMonk, Grace Note, and myself, but that isn't enough for you. You've put up an RfC, and still won't respect the response. Now you won't allow me to archive, even though the page is too long, and no one is going to read through it all, and I've left the most recent posts here on the page, with the exception of your compilation which, if you'd only realize it, doesn't make you look good. Grace Note made a compromise suggestion. Please read it and comment on it if you want to have a discussion, instead of ignoring whatever anyone says to you. I'm also posting below something I wrote above in case you didn't read it. I am asking you, if you have any decency or respect for Wikipedia, to allow normal editing to resume on this article and on this talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's what's very annoying about this, and why I see it as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm trying to write an article about a long, complicated, unpleasant business, which killed 270 people directly; which was triggered by attacks on Libya or Iran, and possibly both, which killed hundreds; which indirectly led to the deaths of many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Libyans, because of UN sanctions against Libya, which led to things like planes crashing because of the lack of spare parts; and which may have led to a miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years. Not to mention that it was the UK's largest and most expensive criminal inquiry ever, America's second deadliest attack against civilians, and the only UK trial that I'm aware of to have taken place on foreign soil. All big issues. And yet I'm having to spend all my time on it discussing what a ton is, and whether people know what miles are. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see Bobblewik's view on compromising: a footnote with metric conversions at the end of the article. Compromises excite me. Boring, sterile arguments, in which all sides simply yell the same POV over and over, make the days dull. So come on, Bobblewik, excite me, your thoughts on that compromise? And dude, by the way, you're lucky Slim is offering to archive your list of reverts. I'm inclined to straight out delete it. It's not about the subject of the article. It's about your issue with other editors. That's not a fit subject for a talkpage. This page should be for editors to discuss the article in a friendly atmosphere. No indictments, no lists of evidence, no attacks. Friends chatting. User:Grace Note 12:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dan100 has made a very helpful suggestion. He has edited the page doing all the metric conversions, and has edited it again with a version containing fewer conversions, but the ones that would be key for a young British readership. Both versions can be seen in the page history. Dan then reverted to the old version until we decide which we prefer. I'd be happy to accept Dan's version with the fewer conversions as a compromise, as it doesn't break up the text. So we could either go with this, or with Grace Note's suggestion of a footnote at the end containing all the conversions; or we could even have both. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Having seen the RfC, and read through this lengthy talk: page, I fail to see the need for the intrusive unit conversions. If they must be in, I think the least intrusive way possible would be best, whether that is via footnotes as per Grace, or via partial conversions as pre Dan. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of test implementation

Less useful than link to conversion of units

This is totally unacceptable. It is less useful than a link to Conversion of units. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is also less useful than a link to the Google converter, or many other online converters (but many of the other ones are also pretty much garbage, so it would have to be a good one). Gene Nygaard 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interrupting the flow of the reading

This suggestion shows how little concern some editors have for interrupting the flow of the reading, despite their claims to the contrary.

A big part of the reason for including conversions in the first place is to make it so that readers don't have to interrupt their reading to go do the calculations themselves.

But furthermore, let's assume that we instead changed it to give conversions of the actual measurements used in this article, something that would at least be more useful than a link to conversion of units. It still severely interrupts the flow of the reading for many people

Even having to scroll down several screens to find the particular conversion that you want, then having to go back and find you place where you were reading would severely interrupt the flow of the reading. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Precision of the conversions

One of the biggest advantages of doing the actual conversions here is that the converted values can be made to correspond roughly in precision to the original values.

The one conversion which Grace Note did specifically illustrates that problem quite well. The temperature of −50 °F has nowhere near enough precision to get the value in degrees Celsius accurately to the nearest hundredth of a degree Celsius. The exact conversion from an exact temperature of −50 °F would give you −45 5/9 °C. However, that is only half of the conversion process; Grace Note has omitted the most important part, rounding it off appropriately. If −50 °F were an actual reading from a thermometer aboard the plane, it might be reasonable to assume accuracy to the nearest degree Fahrenheit (even though we probably don't quite have that in fact), and round it to −46 °C, and that is the most precision that would ever be possible in this case. But it is more likely that -50 °F is an even rougher figure than that, and the only precision we can really assume from the number as stated is that it is to the nearest 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Since −50±5 °F is −(−45 5/9)±(2 7/9) °C, that leaves us somewhere in the range of −42 7/9 °C to −48 1/3 °C. The most appropriate conversion would be to −45 °C.

Note also that "to two decimal places" is a very poor way to choose to express conversion factors like that, something fairly common among innumerate people. A better indicator of an appropriate size would be the number of significant digits in the conversion factors given here. Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What has this to do with anything? -45F is cold. That's the point. If you want to argue about the technicalities of after-casting and precision of digits, fine, take it to my talk page, otherwise please refrain from hurtling off-topic! Dan100 (Talk) 18:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Missing conversion factors

The list of conversion factors here does not include all the units used in the article. For one example of a missing conversion, see my discussion elsewhere on this talk page of Air Traffic Controller Alan Topp. Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate identification of units as "imperial"

Grace Note originally used "Imperial", and then quickly changed it to "imperial". Either way it is contrary to SlimVirgin's claim that this article is written in American English (a change for which she has not received consensus, nor even attempted to, but that is de facto how the article is written at the present time, using American English).

In American English, the adjective "imperial" with respect to units is limited in use to the new gallon introduced in the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, and its multiples (including the bushel) and subdivisions (such as pints and fluid ounces). The only other time "imperial" is used in this context in American English is to refer to a particular artifact which served as a standard for the yard as the "Imperial Yard".

Note also that, as Imperial unit tells us, even in the British English the adjective "imperial" only applies to units used in Britain and its colonies which remained in use after that Weights and Measures Act of 1824. I know that this act outlawed all gallons other than the newly invented imperial gallon. I'm less certain of the fact that this was the act which threw out the short ton in British usage as well. But nobody in Britain today calls the short ton by the name "imperial ton", do they? Even though this unit has remained in use in some parts of the British Commonwealth, Google only has 22 hits for "imperial short ton" and 10 hits for "imperial short tons". Gene Nygaard 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The international nautical mile, by definition exactly 1852 meters, and the unit of speed derived from it, are also by no stretch of the imagination an "Imperial units". As a matter of fact, U.K. law still defines the nautical mile as the "Admiralty mile" of 6080 feet exactly. See [10]. Gene Nygaard 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For ton definitions go to Ton. The phrase "Imperial" is a bit loose, better to use avoirdupois when meant or just "non-metric" or "customary". GraemeLeggett 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again - this has nothing to do with the article. If you want to discuss the intracies of different systems of measurement, please feel free to raise it on my talk page. Please try and stay on topic here. Dan100 (Talk) 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Conversion tables and calculators don't disambiguate for you

No list of conversion factors or calculator is going to be much help in identifying ambiguous units so that you can apply the appropriate conversion factor, if those ambiguous units are not identified in the text.

Note that inclusion of actual conversions can often serve as that disambiguation, making it less necessarily to "interrupt the flow" by having to otherwise specifically identify the amgibuous units. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)