Talk:History of measurement

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ‹See TfM› Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Miles, Unified theory of ancient measurements, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6

Friends: I would like to suggest that this entire article be merged into the History section of the Metrology article currently in work. Metrology is, after all, the overall science of measurement. This section, if left here, will be redundant of that in the history section of Metrology. I would like to hear your feedback on this request. --David.c.h 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Metrology tidied up a bit first. However, I'm not sure that these should be merged. I don't agree that this section will be redundant when Metrology is completed. It seems to me that the subject matter here & there is different enough to justify keeping them seperate. Jimp 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimp: I agree with you that the article on metrology needs to be cleaned up a lot. However, I wonder why you believe that the History of measurement is significantly different from or not an integral part of metrology. Metrology is the science of measurement. It is fundamental to all other fields of scientific study. That science not only incorporates how measurements are made and agreed upon by society, but also how measurements and measurment science have developed over time. The article as now written does not in any way fall outside of the realm of metrology in my opinion. However, I am amiable to cutting and pasting this article into Metrology and also keeping it a separate article if you think it best. Please give me your feedback on this. Oops, I forgot to sign and date this input. Sorry, --David.c.h 07:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong disagree on Move/Merge concept. A brief synopsis with a cite over in Metrology "See Main Article History of measurement" would be the least work and most flexible approach. Secondarily, but more telling, people need titles that make sense to them to search, and a history of title will be specified and wanted, not to mention found far more frequently than Metrology which is difficult to spell if you aren't into the fields arcana. It's a specialists term, and deserves article space, whereas History of... articles may be entered by a whole host people having very diverse circumstansially derived possible rational reasons. Keep this as the more esoteric, and less friendly to the casual user, and I'll get back Metrology to dumb it down for the average reader. I placed that task on my to-do list moments ago for just that sort of edit. I seem to have a talent being a generalist for such. (I just can't wait, looking at the preceding and the Talk: Metrology!) Well, I guess fools still rush in where Angels... (Sigh!) FrankB 23:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way too short. It should include more about the realationships between the systems and also why there is a realationship. -from greek to roman to english. The history of measuring for humans in an encyclopedia would include a lot of more facts than this. Also there should be linked to the roman system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.148.20 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ungrammatically named stub is up for deletion - it certainly needs improvement. Can anyone help? Johnbod 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it ungrammatical? The plural form would have the apostrophe after the "s" but not the singular. Or am I missing something? Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever an attempt to achieve standardization prior to modern times that was not dependent upon some reference copy?

For example, did ancient Greeks, who had an idea of the earth's circumference attempt to use this as a basis for measure similar to the metric system?

When was it first possible to get a standard second for time measure? Could this then have been used to measure length by determining the distance traveled by a stone in such a standard second?--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a direct answer to any of your questions, but I remember reading that the idea of translating between length and mass by means of cubic containers and water goes back to antiquity. I think your questions are basically what the 17th/18th century science called metrology was about, and a lot of ideas in this direction were discussed in that era. While somebody might have proposed your method for translating between time and length at the time, I guess this wasn't practical. I think what people did consider was defining the second in terms of the day, and then using pendulums to derive a length unit. But I don't remember the details or where I read this. In any case there are some old metrology works in English and French available as scans on the web. Unfortunately I don't have any pointers ready. Hans Adler 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization began with the Letter of Nance. The idea was that measures were legal definitions of property so every time you changed one somebody made money and somebody lost money. Obviously this made them somewhat resistant to change to the point where the original definition of abomination in the bible is illegitimate standards of measure. Genesis 14: discusses this in Akadian as regards orla omer in the time of Hamurabbi and Rim Sin. First came body measures, fingers, palms, hands, feet, cubits; then agricultural measures, feet, yards, rods, cords, furlongs, navigational measures, yards, fathoms, furlongs, miles, degrees; then measures of symetry and proportion; then combinations of time and space such as a days sail which was commonly taken as one geographic degree of 75 Roman miles.

A Mesopotamian hand was 100 mm, a foot three hands or 300 mm and a cubit 500 mm or one half meter, a great cubit was 2 feet or 600 mm and 2 cubits was one meter. That was a sexigesimal system. The Egyptian system was septenary. An Egyptian palm was 75 mm, a foot four palms or 300 mm, and an ordinary cubit 450 mm while a royal cubit was 525 mm and a nibw or elle was 2 feet or 600 mm As discussed by Herodotus in the Histories Book II, The Greeks and Persians followed the Mesopotamian system and the Romans the Egyptian system.

Investigations into the seconds pendulum began with Galileo (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642)about 1581 and were incorporated into Queen Elizabeth I's decree of 1593 making the English Mile 8 furlongs of 660 feet replacing the Myle of 8 furlongs of 625 Roman feet or 185 meters which was a myle or Roman milliare of 1000 paces or 5000 feet with a new mile of 5280 feet such that there were defined twice as many seconds in a century as inches in the circumference of the earth at the Equator. 142.0.102.8 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Google Books image of Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, appendix B. This article must be re-written since it is nearly a word-for-word copy of the book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this is not a copyvio but 'just' plagiarism that can be fixed by saying explicitly that part of the text is based on that appendix. Works produced by the US government are generally not subject to copyright. Public Law 90-396 defines specific exceptions that apply to much of NIST's publications, but does not appear to apply here. A historical overview over measuring and units is certainly not "standard reference data", which the law defines as "quantitative information, related to a measurable physical or chemical property [...]".

I am not a lawyer, but my analysis is supported by the fact that the 1995 edition of the NIST Handbook (the only one I have looked at) does not appear to have a copyright notice. Since 1989 copyright notices are no longer required in the US. Unfortunately I couldn't find an earlier edition. Also worth noting: The latest edition can be downloaded from NIST in PDF and Word(!) formats. [1]

By the way, the quality of the text is an entirely different matter. The article may have to be rewritten because most of it is substandard or severely outdated, including the plagiarised paragraphs. Hans Adler 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not legally a copyvio, it's exceptionally scummy practice to lift text wholesale from another source without acknoledgement. This must be fixed or reverted a long way back to a prior non-infringing version (around 2005 is when this text was dropped in). --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text is already in the first version that is part of the present wiki. I don't know if earlier versions can even be imported, and I doubt it would be helpful. If I am right about the copyrights, we need only add {{NIST-PD}} at the end of the article, the same kind of thing we do with EB1911 text. That's the good thing about 'mere' plagiarism from PD sources when compared to copyvios: It's much easier to fix. See here for a long list of articles that presumably do this correctly. This is just going to be another one. Hans Adler 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost true; here [2] is where an earlier version was overwritten by the NIST text. True, the first version is no FA contender either. But at least it's not stolen. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that I am aware we do have the relevant history, I have researched it further. This was the explanation on the talk page at the time, and this was the relevant section of Units of measurement before Jimp moved the material here. At the time the article listed NIST Handbook 44, Appendix B as the only reference. That was still plagiarism, but at least with a proper citation to the plagiarised source.

Anyway, if it's just plagiarism of a PD text there is no need to hide the text and use that enormous template. All we need to do is add the attribution template. But we must be sure that it is correct.

At some point I would like to rewrite the entire article from scratch, but that's very hard and I certainly don't have the time right now. Hans Adler 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is the timeline:

• 12 September 2005 – The material sits at weights and measures (later merged), more or less properly attributed as follows: "The above is based on Appendix B of NIST Handbook 44, 2002 Edition."
• 20 September 2005 – Bobblewik moves it to Units of measurement. It's still attributed.
• 24 September 2005 – Jimp apparently misunderstands the text attribution as a malformatted reference to a source for the information, and changes it accordingly.
• 27 September 2005 – Jimp moves the material here and forgets to include the reference. At this point this is a natural mistake because it has been separated from the text. Hans Adler 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bibliographical quote should be better specified, as "Baber, page 23" does not mean anything. Please at least post a more precise indication of this work (book?) on this discussion page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effeeffe (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I strongly suspect that the author's Surname (Baber) is wrong: there's a scholar who deals with standardization and measurements whose name is John Barber --Effeeffe (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. More refs needed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the references for the article? The one link included doesn't link where it references. Bh7pb (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We read "The point, which is a unit for measuring print type, is recent. It originated with Pierre Simon Fournier in 1737". This is dubious on two grounds: first, the point was not a unit for measuring print type, but a unit for measuring length, equal to one-sixthtwelfth of a ligne, which in turn was a twelfth of a pouce (which was not an inch), which in 1737 was probably one-twelfth of a pied du Roi, which was not a foot. Secondly, it was in use before 1737. To take just a single example which I happen to have to hand, Louis-Léon Pajot, comte d'Onzembray in his Description et usage d'un métrometre, ou machine pour battre les mesures & les temps de toutes sortes d'airs of 1732 gives an exhaustive table of pendulum lengths calculated in pouces, lignes, points and fractions of a point. It may be of course that Fournier was the first to describe the use of the point in measuring fonts; if so, perhaps that should be specified? And referenced? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to a newly added reference, Fournier's point was part of his new system for measuring length and area of type. Only fifty years later did François-Ambroise Didot define the unit in terms of the ligne. This doesn't invalidate Fournier. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As must be obvious, this is not my field, so I have neither the knowledge nor the library to distinguish between the typographical Truchet point, 1/1728 of a pouce-du-roi, and the ordinary point-du-roi, 1/1728 of a pouce-du-roi. I was struck by the blatant anachronism, that's all. This topic probably needs some attention across several articles, and this may not be the place for some of what I have inserted in the hope of clarifying it here. The evident conflict between the few sources available online does not help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit comment by User:Wtshymanski, who removed part of the caption I had placed on the "Vitruvian man" image. However, anything you read on Wikipedia can be challenged, and if not verifiable, removed. There is no method for challenging the content of an image (Commons does not have verifiability criteria). With all respect to the author of the image, it makes assertions or implications which are unreferenced, unverified, incorrect and/or deceptive, such as "18 handsbreadths = 1 fathom" (18 hands, or 24 handsbreadths, perhaps; but when and where?) or "1 fathom - 1 cubit = 1 French ell" (which fathom? which of the many cubits? which of the dozens of different French aunes or ells?), I believe the correct course is to remove it, which I have done, per "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed", replacing it for the present with another. There is discussion of this image (or rather, a template that contains it) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Vitruvian Man measurements.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject-- We should try to get to the bottom of it

I am a retired Engineer and come to this subject as one who has used accurate measurement all his professional life

It is inconceivable to me that trade, taxation, or the building of great engineering monuments could be based on someones foot or arm length.

I have prepared a paper for publication which i hope will shed some light on how these standards could have been develkoped

It will also show how many of the differeent standards would have then been related.

I would appreciate any help in finding the EARLIEST date the well known atandards of the ancient world were used.

For example the Mesopotamian cubit, step, cable,and foot were before 3000 BC but how much earlier ?

The Egyptian royal Cubit, standard cubit, Reman, and foot must have been established before the pyramids but when

The megalith Yard and minoan foot are directly related but which came first ?

The moundbuilders in the south eastern USA used a standard of 1.666 meters ( two megalith yards ??) who brought this over and when

The Olmec used a standard of 1.54 meters - this is 1/20 arc second along the polar circumference of the earth OR 5 attic feet of 0 308.4 mm. WHY ?

I intend to make a start at answereing SOME of these questions when my paper is published

Rolandfly (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of references but one stands out from all the others HISTORICAL METROLOGY BY A.E.BERRIMAN PUB E.P.DITTON & CO 1953

the last two-thirds of paragraph two are almost pure junk, as is the entirety of paragraph three.Adavies42 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect (talk · contribs) was banned in 2005 from all articles dealing with weights and measurements and after frequent violations indefinitely blocked. He has come back recenty editing from two accounts and several IP addresses. Those accounts are now blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is that where the current mass of UNDUE/FRINGE/LIE material on inches and modern Indian architecture deriving from Harappan yardsticks came from? Is it ok for someone to take an axe to it? — LlywelynII 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting to add this sentence to the section "Metric conversion": As of 2019^[update] the only countries not officially using the metric system are Myanmar (also known as Burma), Liberia and the United States.^[1]

The current official usage of the metric system seems like relevant information in this section and the CIA World Factbook like a trustworthy source. Two versions of the edit reverted by DeFacto stating "That's still inaccurate". What part of it do you see as inaccurate and can you point to some other trustworthy source giving other information on the legal status of the metric system in those and other countries?Ws1920 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ws1920: the problem with this wording is that it is inaccurate, so very misleading. The US made the metric system 'official' in 1866, so to say that they do not use it 'officially' is wrong. Another problem is that the UK 'officially' use the imperial system (and not the metric system) for many applications, so implying that they only use the metric system 'officially' is also inaccurate and misleading. You need to read Metrication in the United States and Metrication in the United Kingdom and see the sources used by those, and try to phrase the addition so that it is clear and accurately reflects the reality. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: The word 'official' is what the reference (CIA) uses:

At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry.^[1]

Going into the legal details in over 100 countries is a major task, so I suggest we trust CIA in this question. I'm aware that that US have metric as their preferred system and that UK are only half way thru their metrication process and that specific sectors globally are using non-metric units. Still, this quickly become to much details for this short section, so we can rather link to more information. Updated suggestion for edit: "As of 2019^[update] the only countries that have not adopted the metric system as their official system of weights and measures are Myanmar (also known as Burma), Liberia and the United States. The legal status and actual usage differs in some countries." -- Ws1920 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ws1920: it depends on whether we want the article to reflect reality, or whether we want it to reflect a narrow, and very misleading, point of view. The CIA summary does not reflect the reality - read this article from Time which was re-published in December 2019 - "[t]he metric system is, quietly and behind the scenes, now the standard in most [US] industries, with a few notable exceptions like construction. Its use in public life is also on the uptick, as anyone who has run a “5K” can tell you.". Do you think that saying that the US doesn't officially use the metric system fairly reflects the reality, or hides it? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: We shall aim to reflect reality by referring to trusted sources. So you state that the CIA cannot be trusted in regards to the legal status of measurement systems in the US? Updated suggested edit: "As of 2019^[update], the metric system is mandatory by law to use in trade and commerce in most countries, with exceptions for specific industries and items. According to the CIA World Factbook the only countries that have not adopted the metric system as their mandatory legal system of weights and measures by 2019 are Myanmar (also known as Burma), Liberia and the United States.^[1] Also in those countries, there are trends of increased use of the metric system.^{[2] [3][4]}" Ws1920 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ws1920: the CIA source is problematic because (for whatever reason) it understates the progress that metrication has made in the US and overstates the progress it has made elsewhere, and specifically for the UK. I wouldn't use it for that reason. It isn't that it isn't "trusted", it is a reliable source for its opinions, but those opinions are not necessarily facts - and should not be presented as such. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the linked main article Metrication the same discussion took place 10 to 15 years ago (Three countries in 2006, again 2006, again 2010, UK 2011 and DeFacto 2011). In the main article the referenced claim from CIA is present, so I retract my suggestion to add the statement and reference in this article. @DeFacto: Thanks for validating my change suggestion and pushing for high reference quality. (As a last comment, in the main article there is also a questioned claim without reference that "The United States [...] officially use US customary units". Maybe something for further discussion in that talk page.) Ws1920 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the "Sources of Information" section, ironically, contains no citations. Also, It reads like a paragraph from the middle of a separate essay on the topic. 97.118.208.160 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need history about East Asia units. Trinhhoa (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]