![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page contradicts itself - "formerly used in Ireland", and "the stone remains almost universal for use in Britain and Ireland" -- Mongboola
no one actually uses stones for weight descriptions. where are you getting this flawed information?
135.214.66.240
23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not true that everyone in Britain measures their weight in stones. I use metric and so do a few people that I know. I have amended the word 'universally used' to say 'widely used'. My sister is a secondary school teacher, who tells me that most of her pupils think almost entirely in metric and would tend to give their weight in kilograms. Blaise 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in, but is there a reason why the weight used keeps changing from 10 stone 1 to 11 stone 4 and back again? Richard B 22:30, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a 32 year-old Canadian, and I'm thankful for this "STONE" information. I was just watching a television program filmed in London, and the dialogue went something like this: 'With renewed energy and more interest in the bedroom, after 8 weeks Christopher lost nearly 3 stone.' I had absolutely no idea what that meant, or that 'stone' meant a measurement of weight. I had to search several places, but 'stone' is such an ambiguous word, and I was getting nowhere until I found this entry here on Wikipedia.
In the AC/DC Song "Whole Lotta Rosie" The lyrics went as follows. Never had a woman, never had a women like you. Doin' all the things, doin' all the things you do. Ain't no fairy story, ain't no skin and bone. But you give it all you got, weighin' in at 19 stone. 24.115.227.252 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Justin
Isn't the stone the Imperial unit of mass? Mass and weight are not the same thing. This should be discussed. Shouldn't this page be Stone (mass)?
I've changed it now. :-) — President Lethe 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's defined as about 6.36 kilograms only under normal conditions at sea level on Earth. The stone is a unit of weight. A unit is a unit of weight if the number of that unit that an object has changes on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in; a unit is a unit of mass if the number of that unit that an object has does not change on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter: Your amount of matter doesn't change if you move from the Earth to Earth's moon; your kilograms stay the same. But how far down you press on a weight-measuring scale does change. Human-defined units of weight and mass are interchangeable only under normal conditions on Earth. — President Lethe 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your post, but it contradicts everything else I've ever read on this subject in reputable source—e.g., science textbooks (from all levels of education), various other non-fiction works on the matter, general encyclopedias, &c. The "Weight" article from the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia, for example, reads
Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars.
President Lethe 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Gravitational | Engineering | Absolute | System | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Unit of time | s | Metric and English | ||
Unit of distance | m | Metric | ||
ft | English | |||
Unit of mass | hyl | kg | Metric | |
slug | lb (lbm) | English | ||
Unit of force | kp (kgf) | N | Metric | |
lb (lbf) | pdl | English | ||
Newton’s 2nd law | F = m·a | F = m·a/gc | F = m·a | Metric and English |
Weight of an object | W = m·g | W = m·g/gc | W = m·g | Metric and English |
(g/gc ≈ 1 on Earth.)
Hi, Christoph Päper.
You said that my conclusion contradicted the text I quoted. I figure that you mean my "Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars." This is exactly supported by what I quoted, which, in its penultimate paragraph, shows that the weight in pounds varies with gravity and that, when used as a measure of weight, the number of kilograms also varies, and, in its final paragraph, clarifies that kilograms sometimes measure mass (invariable with gravity) and sometimes measure weight (variable with gravity).
As I said earlier, I grasp what you're saying—but it contradicts everything else that has ever entered my brain on this subject. Perhaps you can quote some sources that say that the pound really, really, really is a unit of mass and that something's 'pound mass' doesn't change with gravity (and, of course, I would want something more than just a source that says that kilogram weight doesn't change with gravity and then happens to convert the kg to pounds in the same ratio as on Earth). I hope you understand that, in the matter of how human beings use words to define external concepts, when I've had years of receiving one input, and then I receive a contradictory input, I don't just instantly allow the new input to supersede the old—because each input makes sense within its own context.
Unfortunately, almost all of my printed sources are in storage right now. But I found the same encyclopedia's "Mass" article of interest:
I also come across this article, in the same source:
... I am becoming somewhat convinced, but only within these "In commercial and everyday use" limits.
Maybe you, I, or someone should edit this Wikipedia article to describe the triple (mass, weight, pressure) nature of the pound (and thus the stone). What think you?
President Lethe 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the British introduced the stone into the avoirdupois system (and subsequently changed the larger units -- see the avoirdupois entry)? Or why the term is "stone"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.25.30 ( talk • contribs) 04:21, June 7, 2006 (UTC)
I'd heard once that a stone in the context of body weight had a much more nefarious origin. Consider that if you are weighing potatoes on a balance, a rock of the correct mass (a "stone") is a rapid way to check under- or over-weight. But when does one put a human on a balance (aside from Monty Python's Holy Grail)? When you're going to hang him. That is... I've heard that the origin of giving someone's weight in 'stone' was a way of figuring out how much counterweight you need to keep the noose from slipping! I have been searching unsuccessfully for a citation for this... but if someone can find one, I recommend adding this to the main entry. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.93.211.16 (
talk)
17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason why we need this ridiculous section? I can't think of a single reason why it would be of interest to anybody. — Wereon 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I realise that stone isn't used in USA but why not? What I mean is that, historically, a lot of settlers would have arrived there from Britain and thus would probably have used 'stone' to count. So was it used at one point in the long distant past before dying out? Valenciano 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"(a similar usage persists in Canada, decal)"
This link leads to the article about transferring designs to surfaces. Is it maybe meant to lead to Decalitre? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I should mention that the stone is non-existant in Australia, and has been for well over 30 years. In fact, most people under 40 probably wouldn't know what it is. Many people over 40 even have long forgotten it. Unlike the UK & Canada, kilograms are the ONLY unit of measurement currently used here. It is a similar situation with Fahrenheit temperatures, where it is not only no longer used, but no longer KNOWN by the majority of people. This contrasts with feet and inches, for example, which are still fairly common (TV screens, car tire sizes, and so forth). Davez621 ( talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Mass is a measure of inertia and is independent of gravity; the correct and complete term is "inertial mass". Weight is the force exerted by that inertial mass in a gravity field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.127.194 ( talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hydragyrum, there's no need to get all up in Mr. Unsigned IP's face. What he said in no way contradicted your assertion that mass is independent of gravity. So stop being a dickhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.164.32 ( talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the abrev. is st? -- Diwas ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the two changes made today.
Stone (mass) (disambiguation), a suppsed disambiguation page, redirects to Rock (geology); what is going on here? — Robert Greer ( talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"Thus on a National Health Service website the user may select imperial units,[7] but the law requires that if this information is officially recorded, then such records shall be in metric units.[8]"
I don't care what the citation says - this is a common myth, so prevalent that even some local government bodies have fallen victim to it. There is no requirement in law to use metric units, only to provide a parallel display of the metric quantity in most cases. This myth is more commonly expressed as 'you're not allowed to sell a pound of potatoes/pint of milk any more', but applies just as much here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.107.247 ( talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have re-instated the so-called pedantic definition as this definition was the only way to stop an on-going edit war as to whether a stone was a weight or a mass. In the view of some, it make the British Government look stupid, but Wikipedia is a repositry of verifiable statements, not truths, so lets reproduce the British Government definition. Martinvl ( talk) 15:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I suppose I'm going to "weigh" in here. The stone is not, and never was, a unit of mass. Units of mass are a scientific concept, and the stone is not a scientific unit. It is a unit of weight. Vegetables are not sold by mass, and mass-loss clinics are decidedly uncommon. In case anyone is in any doubt, please examine the legislation passed in Britain in 1985. Was there a Masses and Measures Act? There was not. Was there a Weights and Measures Act? Yes, I believe there was. Is that pedantic enough? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I revoked the last change for a number of reasons:
Martinvl ( talk) 06:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The stone is not legal for trade in the United Kingdom - the rest of the paragraph clarifies this. Martinvl ( talk) 19:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Editors have pointed out that Stone (imperial mass) is hardly apt for the current article since it covers not just the British unit but all the related European ones. It seems harmless to merge Stone (Chinese mass) to Picul, which is a multi-national summary for the Asian units. 'Chinese mass' is not ideal for an article that covers definitions in multiple countries, not just China. Also 'mass' is too scientific for something that is really an old unit of weight. When these changes are made, the name Stone (unit) can limit itself to covering the European units of weight. I am also closing the merge discussion for Stone (Chinese mass) into Picul. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Stone (imperial mass) →
Stone (unit) –
I hope it's not too much clutter, but I added "pounds" to the list of stone-to-kilogram equivalences, which I thought was very helpful since 14 isn't exactly the easiest number to multiply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.39.43 ( talk) 00:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
After the various changes that took place to the lede today it has become a little disjointed , so I have reinstated the older version. Points that are made clear are:
Please, whoever rushed to delete references to "Ireland", pleasae refrain from doing so in future. I idnetified those references last night. If you wish to make a mark, please use the "citation needed" flag. Martinvl ( talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. I am here to see what a stone is (into kilo), but I cannot find it, read it. It is buried in text. My Q: How much kilo is a stone? And remind us: I am an editor. Let alone how many WP readers have the same Q and disssappointing non-A. - DePiep ( talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
At some point I would like to add more material about the 5-pound glass stone, the 8-pound butcher's stone, and the 14-pound stone, as these have interesting histories. For example, R D Connor, in The Weights and Measures of England has a wonderful story about the butcher's stone. Apparently butchers refused to sell meat by weight, even when required to do so by several Acts of Parliament. Apparently their reasoning was similar to what would happen if art galleries were required to sell paintings by the square foot. Then, after centuries of paying hefty fines, the butchers finally gave in and adopted the 8-pound stone. A few centuries later Parliament abolished the butcher's stone. Decades later, Parliament abolished it again, and again, and again, to no avail. This explains why the butcher's stone was still in use within living memory. The 14-pound stone has an even more interesting history related to the wool trade.
The reason I mention this now is because there has been some disagreement about what should go in the lede, with both the 8-pound and 14-pound stones being mentioned. My point is that the main body of the article could use some attention precisely on the points in the lede that are the subject of debate. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Reinsted older version because:
Martinvl ( talk) 08:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reworded my previous answer and have added citations for the use of the stone in the UK in both 1880 and 1938. Martinvl ( talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, please don't use edit summaries as a talk page. I don't believe you've read the whole of the cited journal article. Could you do that and then respond here with the additional citations you'd like to see? Thanks. Garamond Lethe 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Taken from this note: Kisch, Bruno (1956). "Two Remarkable Roman Stone Weights in the Edward C. Streeter Collection at the Yale Medical Library". Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences XI (1): 97-100. (I'll be happy to email this pdf to anyone who is interested.)
Pink, Karl. Rbmische und Byzantinische Gewichte in Oesterreichischen Sammlungen. Baden bei Wien, R. M. Rohra, 1938. (Sonderschriften des Osterreichischen archaologischen Institutes in Wien, vol. XII.)
Pink's monograph is cited by (at least) one work in English: Batya Dashti, Avshalom Laniado "A Byzantine lead weight from the port of Iamnia (Yavneh-Yam) and the title ἔφορος" Revue des études byzantines 1993 51:51 pp. 229-235
Two other references that cite Pink are written in German and the third in Hungarian.
Of course, little or none of this may find its way into the actual article, but the joy (for me) is in the digging.....
Garamond Lethe 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states that the US unlike Canada has not switched to metric. That's not really true. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 designated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce, and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system, to the extent feasible, including the use of metric in construction of federal facilities. It also created the United States Metric Board to assist in the conversion.
Most federal agencies including all military braches use metric now as a standard. Many Commercial and scientific interests use metric especially if they work internationally. The reason people assume the US never attempted to switch is that the common public resist changing just like many people in the UK still measure speed in Miles per hour but the measure distance in Kilometers. People in the US measure gasoline by the gallon and soda by the liter. Medications is CC's and ML's food ingredients in OZ's. As the article reports many people in the UK still use the old stone measure despite the switch to metric.
Is this true and accurate? The tabloids would like people to think so, but surely the truth is that it is illegal to trade *solely* in Imperial - you must have the metric equivalent displayed also. You could sell things in bushels and pecks, should you wish, provided you give an accurate conversion in metric measure. The so-called metric martyrs have been prosecuted for not displaying the metric, not for trading in stones, pounds and ounces. Neither the British Government nor the EU (in spite of the rumours to the contrary) have ever demanded that Imperial *not* be used, just that metric measures be available. Indeed, both Imperial and Metric measurements have been accommodated as equivalent systems in U.K. law since the 19th Century. As others have said, many young people in the U.K. use metric all the time; I myself (not a young person)started primary school as long ago as 1967, and I’ve *never* been taught Imperial, although (as is the norm) I'd tend to give my weight in stones, thanks to the bathroom scales being old ones. Jock123 ( talk) 14:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The lede needs rewording. The first sentence of the current lede suggests that the stone is a single unit of measure. This contradicts the body of the article where many different units of measure, all called the "stone", are described. Further on it muddles other facts from the article.
I offer the following alternative lede wording for discussion:
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of weight equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is used predominantly in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different units of weight in several North European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980's due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, there were different stones, of various weights ranging from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity that they were used for. Elsewhere in Northern Europe, when the stone was used there, it had weights of 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
Ornaith ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, Do you have a pointer to the discussion of weight vs. mass for "stone"? I found a half-dozen good sources for "weight" and one for "weight or mass", but I'm not finding anything that says the stone is a "unit of mass". (I'll also point out that the disambiguation blurb at the top of the article refers to "unit of weight".)
I'm not saying that I want to change "unit of measurement" to "unit of weight", but I'm curious as to what sources were used to justify the present version. Garamond Lethe 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, where is the "edit war" over whether the stone is a unit of weight or a unit of mass? It is certainly a unit of weight (the dictionaries verify that), and if it is also defined as a unit of mass then, assuming there are references, we should say that too. We shouldn't be deliberately vague about what it is though, not in an encyclopedia. Ornaith ( talk) 09:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking into account the comments made about my initial proposal, I now offer the following for discussion:
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is still used in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980s, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, there were stone definitions of various weights ranging from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it had weights of 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
I've taken into accout Martinvl's comments about the weight/mass controversy (for now) and singular/plural wording and Garamond's comments about "predominantly", "Northern Europe" and succinctness of "commodity". We can decide about whether it should actually be described as a unit of mass, weight, both, neither or simply of "measure" later. Are we happy to go now with this version as the new lede? Ornaith ( talk) 09:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is still used in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980s, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it varied from 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
I have tried to capture a few of the missing bits (and have introduced the word "deprecated" instead of "ceasing to have a legal status"). Here we are:
I think that I have managed to pack more information into the paragraph without adding to the word-count. Martinvl ( talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - The word "deprecated" is used where standards need to keep a defintion on record for historic purposes, but do not allow it for use in new products. Hospitals are not allowed to used stones and pounds to record patient's weights, manufacturers are not allowed use stones and pounds on safety notices, merchants are not allowed to price good "by the stone". Martinvl ( talk) 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not to interrupt, but Ornaith, are you ok with "colloquial"? If so, I'll leave you two to discuss the nuances of "deprecated"....
Garamond
Lethe
09:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, not really. "Colloquial" is usually an adjective used to describe use of language, not of concept. If "stone" is colloquial, what is the formal word to use when referring to a stone? A stone is a common or garden unit of weight, and invariably used when discussing one's waistline, like the pound (lb) in the US. It isn't slang, it isn't a colloquial way of referring to the weight, it is the normal English word for it. Ornaith ( talk) 09:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Has a law ever neen passed about washing or brushing hair. No. Has a law ever been passed about using stones as a unit of measure. Yes. Therein lies the difference. I stick with my prefered word of "deprecated" (meaning that the law has been revoked) and as a second choice "informal" which sends a warning signal out to the reader. Martinvl ( talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) that is used in Ireland and the United Kingdom, particularly to express personal body weight, although due to metrication it has now been officially deprecated for some regulated uses. Until the advent of metrication (nineteenth century in Continental Europe, 1980's in Ireland and the United Kingdom) it was used several European countries and had values ranging from 5 to 40 local pounds (3 kg to over 15 kg) depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season. Multiple values of the stone were in use in the United Kingdom until 1937 when the last of the commodity-specifc values, the eight pound stone used in the London meat markets was deprecated.
I just had to revert yet another bad-faith attempt to bypass this discussion. @Martinvl, please wait until we have reached agreement here before editing the lede again. Please read the comments above, we are nearly there now. Ornaith ( talk) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl appears to have abandoned the discussion here, and is now resorting, not only to unwarranted reversions, but blatant disruption and what amounts to shear vandalism here now (and at Kilometres per Hour actually), so, as I do not want to be involved with such immoderate behaviour, and frankly have more rewarding pursuits to be getting on with for now, I am going to keep my distance for now, until I find out what can be done to resolve the situation. Thanks for your help Garamond. Ornaith ( talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The SPI process is now complete - User:Ornaith has been tagged as a sockpuppet of [[User:DeFacto]. Martinvl ( talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page contradicts itself - "formerly used in Ireland", and "the stone remains almost universal for use in Britain and Ireland" -- Mongboola
no one actually uses stones for weight descriptions. where are you getting this flawed information?
135.214.66.240
23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not true that everyone in Britain measures their weight in stones. I use metric and so do a few people that I know. I have amended the word 'universally used' to say 'widely used'. My sister is a secondary school teacher, who tells me that most of her pupils think almost entirely in metric and would tend to give their weight in kilograms. Blaise 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in, but is there a reason why the weight used keeps changing from 10 stone 1 to 11 stone 4 and back again? Richard B 22:30, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a 32 year-old Canadian, and I'm thankful for this "STONE" information. I was just watching a television program filmed in London, and the dialogue went something like this: 'With renewed energy and more interest in the bedroom, after 8 weeks Christopher lost nearly 3 stone.' I had absolutely no idea what that meant, or that 'stone' meant a measurement of weight. I had to search several places, but 'stone' is such an ambiguous word, and I was getting nowhere until I found this entry here on Wikipedia.
In the AC/DC Song "Whole Lotta Rosie" The lyrics went as follows. Never had a woman, never had a women like you. Doin' all the things, doin' all the things you do. Ain't no fairy story, ain't no skin and bone. But you give it all you got, weighin' in at 19 stone. 24.115.227.252 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Justin
Isn't the stone the Imperial unit of mass? Mass and weight are not the same thing. This should be discussed. Shouldn't this page be Stone (mass)?
I've changed it now. :-) — President Lethe 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's defined as about 6.36 kilograms only under normal conditions at sea level on Earth. The stone is a unit of weight. A unit is a unit of weight if the number of that unit that an object has changes on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in; a unit is a unit of mass if the number of that unit that an object has does not change on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter: Your amount of matter doesn't change if you move from the Earth to Earth's moon; your kilograms stay the same. But how far down you press on a weight-measuring scale does change. Human-defined units of weight and mass are interchangeable only under normal conditions on Earth. — President Lethe 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your post, but it contradicts everything else I've ever read on this subject in reputable source—e.g., science textbooks (from all levels of education), various other non-fiction works on the matter, general encyclopedias, &c. The "Weight" article from the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia, for example, reads
Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars.
President Lethe 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Gravitational | Engineering | Absolute | System | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Unit of time | s | Metric and English | ||
Unit of distance | m | Metric | ||
ft | English | |||
Unit of mass | hyl | kg | Metric | |
slug | lb (lbm) | English | ||
Unit of force | kp (kgf) | N | Metric | |
lb (lbf) | pdl | English | ||
Newton’s 2nd law | F = m·a | F = m·a/gc | F = m·a | Metric and English |
Weight of an object | W = m·g | W = m·g/gc | W = m·g | Metric and English |
(g/gc ≈ 1 on Earth.)
Hi, Christoph Päper.
You said that my conclusion contradicted the text I quoted. I figure that you mean my "Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars." This is exactly supported by what I quoted, which, in its penultimate paragraph, shows that the weight in pounds varies with gravity and that, when used as a measure of weight, the number of kilograms also varies, and, in its final paragraph, clarifies that kilograms sometimes measure mass (invariable with gravity) and sometimes measure weight (variable with gravity).
As I said earlier, I grasp what you're saying—but it contradicts everything else that has ever entered my brain on this subject. Perhaps you can quote some sources that say that the pound really, really, really is a unit of mass and that something's 'pound mass' doesn't change with gravity (and, of course, I would want something more than just a source that says that kilogram weight doesn't change with gravity and then happens to convert the kg to pounds in the same ratio as on Earth). I hope you understand that, in the matter of how human beings use words to define external concepts, when I've had years of receiving one input, and then I receive a contradictory input, I don't just instantly allow the new input to supersede the old—because each input makes sense within its own context.
Unfortunately, almost all of my printed sources are in storage right now. But I found the same encyclopedia's "Mass" article of interest:
I also come across this article, in the same source:
... I am becoming somewhat convinced, but only within these "In commercial and everyday use" limits.
Maybe you, I, or someone should edit this Wikipedia article to describe the triple (mass, weight, pressure) nature of the pound (and thus the stone). What think you?
President Lethe 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the British introduced the stone into the avoirdupois system (and subsequently changed the larger units -- see the avoirdupois entry)? Or why the term is "stone"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.25.30 ( talk • contribs) 04:21, June 7, 2006 (UTC)
I'd heard once that a stone in the context of body weight had a much more nefarious origin. Consider that if you are weighing potatoes on a balance, a rock of the correct mass (a "stone") is a rapid way to check under- or over-weight. But when does one put a human on a balance (aside from Monty Python's Holy Grail)? When you're going to hang him. That is... I've heard that the origin of giving someone's weight in 'stone' was a way of figuring out how much counterweight you need to keep the noose from slipping! I have been searching unsuccessfully for a citation for this... but if someone can find one, I recommend adding this to the main entry. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.93.211.16 (
talk)
17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason why we need this ridiculous section? I can't think of a single reason why it would be of interest to anybody. — Wereon 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I realise that stone isn't used in USA but why not? What I mean is that, historically, a lot of settlers would have arrived there from Britain and thus would probably have used 'stone' to count. So was it used at one point in the long distant past before dying out? Valenciano 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"(a similar usage persists in Canada, decal)"
This link leads to the article about transferring designs to surfaces. Is it maybe meant to lead to Decalitre? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I should mention that the stone is non-existant in Australia, and has been for well over 30 years. In fact, most people under 40 probably wouldn't know what it is. Many people over 40 even have long forgotten it. Unlike the UK & Canada, kilograms are the ONLY unit of measurement currently used here. It is a similar situation with Fahrenheit temperatures, where it is not only no longer used, but no longer KNOWN by the majority of people. This contrasts with feet and inches, for example, which are still fairly common (TV screens, car tire sizes, and so forth). Davez621 ( talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Mass is a measure of inertia and is independent of gravity; the correct and complete term is "inertial mass". Weight is the force exerted by that inertial mass in a gravity field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.127.194 ( talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hydragyrum, there's no need to get all up in Mr. Unsigned IP's face. What he said in no way contradicted your assertion that mass is independent of gravity. So stop being a dickhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.164.32 ( talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the abrev. is st? -- Diwas ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the two changes made today.
Stone (mass) (disambiguation), a suppsed disambiguation page, redirects to Rock (geology); what is going on here? — Robert Greer ( talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"Thus on a National Health Service website the user may select imperial units,[7] but the law requires that if this information is officially recorded, then such records shall be in metric units.[8]"
I don't care what the citation says - this is a common myth, so prevalent that even some local government bodies have fallen victim to it. There is no requirement in law to use metric units, only to provide a parallel display of the metric quantity in most cases. This myth is more commonly expressed as 'you're not allowed to sell a pound of potatoes/pint of milk any more', but applies just as much here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.107.247 ( talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have re-instated the so-called pedantic definition as this definition was the only way to stop an on-going edit war as to whether a stone was a weight or a mass. In the view of some, it make the British Government look stupid, but Wikipedia is a repositry of verifiable statements, not truths, so lets reproduce the British Government definition. Martinvl ( talk) 15:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I suppose I'm going to "weigh" in here. The stone is not, and never was, a unit of mass. Units of mass are a scientific concept, and the stone is not a scientific unit. It is a unit of weight. Vegetables are not sold by mass, and mass-loss clinics are decidedly uncommon. In case anyone is in any doubt, please examine the legislation passed in Britain in 1985. Was there a Masses and Measures Act? There was not. Was there a Weights and Measures Act? Yes, I believe there was. Is that pedantic enough? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I revoked the last change for a number of reasons:
Martinvl ( talk) 06:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The stone is not legal for trade in the United Kingdom - the rest of the paragraph clarifies this. Martinvl ( talk) 19:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Editors have pointed out that Stone (imperial mass) is hardly apt for the current article since it covers not just the British unit but all the related European ones. It seems harmless to merge Stone (Chinese mass) to Picul, which is a multi-national summary for the Asian units. 'Chinese mass' is not ideal for an article that covers definitions in multiple countries, not just China. Also 'mass' is too scientific for something that is really an old unit of weight. When these changes are made, the name Stone (unit) can limit itself to covering the European units of weight. I am also closing the merge discussion for Stone (Chinese mass) into Picul. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Stone (imperial mass) →
Stone (unit) –
I hope it's not too much clutter, but I added "pounds" to the list of stone-to-kilogram equivalences, which I thought was very helpful since 14 isn't exactly the easiest number to multiply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.39.43 ( talk) 00:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
After the various changes that took place to the lede today it has become a little disjointed , so I have reinstated the older version. Points that are made clear are:
Please, whoever rushed to delete references to "Ireland", pleasae refrain from doing so in future. I idnetified those references last night. If you wish to make a mark, please use the "citation needed" flag. Martinvl ( talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. I am here to see what a stone is (into kilo), but I cannot find it, read it. It is buried in text. My Q: How much kilo is a stone? And remind us: I am an editor. Let alone how many WP readers have the same Q and disssappointing non-A. - DePiep ( talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
At some point I would like to add more material about the 5-pound glass stone, the 8-pound butcher's stone, and the 14-pound stone, as these have interesting histories. For example, R D Connor, in The Weights and Measures of England has a wonderful story about the butcher's stone. Apparently butchers refused to sell meat by weight, even when required to do so by several Acts of Parliament. Apparently their reasoning was similar to what would happen if art galleries were required to sell paintings by the square foot. Then, after centuries of paying hefty fines, the butchers finally gave in and adopted the 8-pound stone. A few centuries later Parliament abolished the butcher's stone. Decades later, Parliament abolished it again, and again, and again, to no avail. This explains why the butcher's stone was still in use within living memory. The 14-pound stone has an even more interesting history related to the wool trade.
The reason I mention this now is because there has been some disagreement about what should go in the lede, with both the 8-pound and 14-pound stones being mentioned. My point is that the main body of the article could use some attention precisely on the points in the lede that are the subject of debate. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Reinsted older version because:
Martinvl ( talk) 08:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reworded my previous answer and have added citations for the use of the stone in the UK in both 1880 and 1938. Martinvl ( talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, please don't use edit summaries as a talk page. I don't believe you've read the whole of the cited journal article. Could you do that and then respond here with the additional citations you'd like to see? Thanks. Garamond Lethe 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Taken from this note: Kisch, Bruno (1956). "Two Remarkable Roman Stone Weights in the Edward C. Streeter Collection at the Yale Medical Library". Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences XI (1): 97-100. (I'll be happy to email this pdf to anyone who is interested.)
Pink, Karl. Rbmische und Byzantinische Gewichte in Oesterreichischen Sammlungen. Baden bei Wien, R. M. Rohra, 1938. (Sonderschriften des Osterreichischen archaologischen Institutes in Wien, vol. XII.)
Pink's monograph is cited by (at least) one work in English: Batya Dashti, Avshalom Laniado "A Byzantine lead weight from the port of Iamnia (Yavneh-Yam) and the title ἔφορος" Revue des études byzantines 1993 51:51 pp. 229-235
Two other references that cite Pink are written in German and the third in Hungarian.
Of course, little or none of this may find its way into the actual article, but the joy (for me) is in the digging.....
Garamond Lethe 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states that the US unlike Canada has not switched to metric. That's not really true. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 designated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce, and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system, to the extent feasible, including the use of metric in construction of federal facilities. It also created the United States Metric Board to assist in the conversion.
Most federal agencies including all military braches use metric now as a standard. Many Commercial and scientific interests use metric especially if they work internationally. The reason people assume the US never attempted to switch is that the common public resist changing just like many people in the UK still measure speed in Miles per hour but the measure distance in Kilometers. People in the US measure gasoline by the gallon and soda by the liter. Medications is CC's and ML's food ingredients in OZ's. As the article reports many people in the UK still use the old stone measure despite the switch to metric.
Is this true and accurate? The tabloids would like people to think so, but surely the truth is that it is illegal to trade *solely* in Imperial - you must have the metric equivalent displayed also. You could sell things in bushels and pecks, should you wish, provided you give an accurate conversion in metric measure. The so-called metric martyrs have been prosecuted for not displaying the metric, not for trading in stones, pounds and ounces. Neither the British Government nor the EU (in spite of the rumours to the contrary) have ever demanded that Imperial *not* be used, just that metric measures be available. Indeed, both Imperial and Metric measurements have been accommodated as equivalent systems in U.K. law since the 19th Century. As others have said, many young people in the U.K. use metric all the time; I myself (not a young person)started primary school as long ago as 1967, and I’ve *never* been taught Imperial, although (as is the norm) I'd tend to give my weight in stones, thanks to the bathroom scales being old ones. Jock123 ( talk) 14:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The lede needs rewording. The first sentence of the current lede suggests that the stone is a single unit of measure. This contradicts the body of the article where many different units of measure, all called the "stone", are described. Further on it muddles other facts from the article.
I offer the following alternative lede wording for discussion:
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of weight equal to 14 avoirdupois pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is used predominantly in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different units of weight in several North European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980's due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, there were different stones, of various weights ranging from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity that they were used for. Elsewhere in Northern Europe, when the stone was used there, it had weights of 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
Ornaith ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, Do you have a pointer to the discussion of weight vs. mass for "stone"? I found a half-dozen good sources for "weight" and one for "weight or mass", but I'm not finding anything that says the stone is a "unit of mass". (I'll also point out that the disambiguation blurb at the top of the article refers to "unit of weight".)
I'm not saying that I want to change "unit of measurement" to "unit of weight", but I'm curious as to what sources were used to justify the present version. Garamond Lethe 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@Martinvl, where is the "edit war" over whether the stone is a unit of weight or a unit of mass? It is certainly a unit of weight (the dictionaries verify that), and if it is also defined as a unit of mass then, assuming there are references, we should say that too. We shouldn't be deliberately vague about what it is though, not in an encyclopedia. Ornaith ( talk) 09:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking into account the comments made about my initial proposal, I now offer the following for discussion:
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is still used in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980s, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, there were stone definitions of various weights ranging from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it had weights of 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
I've taken into accout Martinvl's comments about the weight/mass controversy (for now) and singular/plural wording and Garamond's comments about "predominantly", "Northern Europe" and succinctness of "commodity". We can decide about whether it should actually be described as a unit of mass, weight, both, neither or simply of "measure" later. Are we happy to go now with this version as the new lede? Ornaith ( talk) 09:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) which is still used in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Historically the term was also used for many different unit definitions in several European countries until the advent of metrication. In both Ireland and the UK, although the legal status of the stone changed in the mid 1980s, when it ceased to be a legal primary unit of trade due to metrication legislation, it is still widely used to express personal body weight. In the UK, prior to 1939, definitions of the stone varied from 8 to 16 pounds (3.62 to 7.24 kg), depending on the commodity. Elsewhere in Europe, when the stone was in use there, it varied from 3 kg to 15 kg, depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season.
I have tried to capture a few of the missing bits (and have introduced the word "deprecated" instead of "ceasing to have a legal status"). Here we are:
I think that I have managed to pack more information into the paragraph without adding to the word-count. Martinvl ( talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ornaith - The word "deprecated" is used where standards need to keep a defintion on record for historic purposes, but do not allow it for use in new products. Hospitals are not allowed to used stones and pounds to record patient's weights, manufacturers are not allowed use stones and pounds on safety notices, merchants are not allowed to price good "by the stone". Martinvl ( talk) 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not to interrupt, but Ornaith, are you ok with "colloquial"? If so, I'll leave you two to discuss the nuances of "deprecated"....
Garamond
Lethe
09:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
@Garamond, not really. "Colloquial" is usually an adjective used to describe use of language, not of concept. If "stone" is colloquial, what is the formal word to use when referring to a stone? A stone is a common or garden unit of weight, and invariably used when discussing one's waistline, like the pound (lb) in the US. It isn't slang, it isn't a colloquial way of referring to the weight, it is the normal English word for it. Ornaith ( talk) 09:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Has a law ever neen passed about washing or brushing hair. No. Has a law ever been passed about using stones as a unit of measure. Yes. Therein lies the difference. I stick with my prefered word of "deprecated" (meaning that the law has been revoked) and as a second choice "informal" which sends a warning signal out to the reader. Martinvl ( talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Today the stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds (approximately 6.35 kg) that is used in Ireland and the United Kingdom, particularly to express personal body weight, although due to metrication it has now been officially deprecated for some regulated uses. Until the advent of metrication (nineteenth century in Continental Europe, 1980's in Ireland and the United Kingdom) it was used several European countries and had values ranging from 5 to 40 local pounds (3 kg to over 15 kg) depending on the city, commodity and in one case, the season. Multiple values of the stone were in use in the United Kingdom until 1937 when the last of the commodity-specifc values, the eight pound stone used in the London meat markets was deprecated.
I just had to revert yet another bad-faith attempt to bypass this discussion. @Martinvl, please wait until we have reached agreement here before editing the lede again. Please read the comments above, we are nearly there now. Ornaith ( talk) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl appears to have abandoned the discussion here, and is now resorting, not only to unwarranted reversions, but blatant disruption and what amounts to shear vandalism here now (and at Kilometres per Hour actually), so, as I do not want to be involved with such immoderate behaviour, and frankly have more rewarding pursuits to be getting on with for now, I am going to keep my distance for now, until I find out what can be done to resolve the situation. Thanks for your help Garamond. Ornaith ( talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The SPI process is now complete - User:Ornaith has been tagged as a sockpuppet of [[User:DeFacto]. Martinvl ( talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)