Talk:Metric Martyrs/Archive 1

Odd way of presenting the case
When I started reading this article, I was very confused. Here we have some extremists who plainly refused to use the metric alongside the imperial. However, in the introduction the EU decision to allow continued dual marking was presented as being somehow related, as if it was some kind of "victory" for these guys. These "martyrs" were a few individuals who showed their contempt for the international standard way of measuring and were punished for it according to the law. In other countries, they would be considered crackpots or oddballs, but in the UK, they are "martyrs".--Pieter Kuipers (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They are always known as "Metric Martyrs", but as the article states they were all charged for other things, mostly not using calibrated measuring devices, since the inspectors could not calibrate imperial only scales. The law did not change the EU only extended the period that dual measures could be used... the "Victory" was that they were breaking the law at the time and if they did it now still would be, by not showing *both* measures they were potentially confusing their customers, and by not having scales that could be calibrated they were short selling lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Extremists? For crying out loud. Since when is diversity, liberty, and sovereignty 'extremist'? Is this 2009 or 1009?

Ther eis no 'international standard way' - that is an obstinately monolithic and scarily dictatorial way of thinking you've got there. There are many systems of metric - there isn't even only one metric system. Around the world there are multiple ways of measuring things, and many of those systems are standard. It just depends which country you're in, and which arena you're looking at. God, what a fascistic way of thinking you have.

These people aren't showing contempt for anything. It's the contempt for diversity that the governing institutions are showing that is being fought against. Some of us understand that strength comes from diversity and liberty, not from uniformity and monoculturalism.

These people aren't required to show both measurements - that's the point. You're only required to show the French metric system. Why is there compulsion for ONE system?

Most of the population of the UK understand OUR system. There is no confusion. What would a non-UK person know about UK customs and habits?

Thanks for using Wikipedia to push the propaganda lines, but don't you think enough taxpayers' money has gone into that already? It's other points of view that need space. This article reeks of bias against the people of the United Kingdom. In short, you can't stand anything different, can you? You only have your system because Napoleon overran most of the continent. It's not like you freely adopted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.83.187 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
I've deleted the following passage:

Since they oppose the requirement to use metric units, a more accurate term would be Anti-metric martyrs.

as it's not obviously "more accurate" (you can oppose compulsory metrication without being "anti-metric" per se) and is a matter of opinion anyway. "Metric Martyrs" doesn't imply that the "martyrs" in question were either for or against compulsory metrication.

I'm pretty sure that the main defendant, Steve Thoburn, was on record as saying that he did not dislike metric measures, he simply used imperial measures as his customers preferred them. I don't know about the other defendants. 217.34.39.123 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They always argue that they don't dislike metric but all have been charged with using uncalibrated scales, and/or under-weighing goods and never selling in imperial or not selling in metric lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added an explanation for the origin of their name (MV: 2009-02-06)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I have merged in content from article Steve Thoburn (the reasons for doing so listed on the talk page). I'd appreciate it if someone could cast their eye over the result to see if it presents the case in too favourable (or otherwise) a light. I detected a slight anti-Martyr nuance in this article, and a pro-Martyr tendency in the article on Thoburn, so I'm not sure if this has balanced out properly. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is very easy to be anti-"metric martyr" because they were never charged for using imperial units, but for not using metric as well (and for short changing their customers) nothing ever stopped them from selling and weighing in imperial units? lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 13:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleging that they were short-changing their customers is potentially libellous. Do you have proof to substantiate your assertion? You are making a grave accusation. Do you have an agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.83.187 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The last two changes which were made within a minute of each other had all the makings of an attempt to slip in some text that might jsut go unnoticed. In view of this I reverted both. Martinvl (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Update of 26 November
As far as I can see, the Metric Martyrs are not an organisation per se, not even an organised group. The only linking factors is that all of the original Metric Martyrs were found guilty of similar offences that were heard in the various courts at the same time and one Neil Herron, an avowed Eurosceptic, has organised a fund to pay their legal expenses. Most of the Metric Martyr literature, coordinated by Herron, contains a significant degree of Eurosceptic news. In view of this, I have undone the last set of changes as they give the impression that the Metric Martyrs are an organised group.Martinvl (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They are an organisation which in opposed to the removal of the choice of how units of measurement can be presented. The group is organised in running campaigns and funding legal cases. Just becasue they have a eurosceptic slant in some of their literiture, dosen't mean they are anti-metrication they are purly an advocacy group opposed to EU directives on the metric system being the only system of measurment that can be used. Please see |here for a case where thay are supporting a German brewer in Glasgow using the litre. They do not have membership open to the general public but donations to the group can be made, so there must be a membership of some description to accept the donation. This means the revisions I made improve the accuracy of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute that the Metric Martyrs themselves are an organisation - they are traders who separately fell foul of the law, even though eventually their cases were lumped together. Their backers might be an organisation, but they are not. For this reason I think that your comments were ill-founded.  I agree that further work can be done on the article, but any further work should distinguish between the traders themselves (The Metric Martyrs) and their backers (no known name).  Martinvl (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove 'Regulation and units of measure'

 * ''The following discussion is an archived record of a local proposal for change. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose this section is removed and anything similar re-added without a prior consensus to be removed on sight. Blather about "Time immemorial" and unsourced material about measurement throughout the whole of human history is completely off-topic unless these are quoted as part of the legal defence. Similarly 'see also' links to random general measurement articles should be avoided unless they are about British metrication as protested by the Metric Martyrs. Fæ (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Time immemorial is an English legal term (that is why an article has been written concerning that topic). May I suggest that you read what Time immemorial means. The argument put forward by the Metric Martyrs flies in the face of a practice that has been established for many hundreds of years.  The concept of traders choosing the units of measure was not put forwad in court becasue if they did, they were on a hiding to nothing. Instead, the Metric Martyrs have peddled this idea around on the Internet trying to get support for what is really a WP:FRINGE theory. Would you be happy if the wording was modified to emphasise that this a legal term?  Martinvl (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposition is not just about a phrase being incorrectly used. The section is off-topic. If the term "Time immemorial" were part of a quote from the legal case then it would be relevant but the history of the foot in the Roman Empire is not. Fæ (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Metric Martyrs article cannot be understood unless the case Thoburn v Sunderland City Council has been properly read. What I am doing is putting that case into perspective within the context of the Metric Martyrs article. Martinvl (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - The article can easily be understood as an article covering an advocacy group and nothing more. If the section in not removed it allows junk to be added to the article such as the act of the union nonsence which is nothing to do with the Mertic Martyrs. If the regulation section is necessary then add a see also links section and include it there.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The section on Regulation balances the section on Pardon Campaign. If one section is removed without the other, then, in my opinion, the article will fall foul of WP:POV.  If you look through older versions of this article, you will find a Lack of neutrtality flag and you will also find links to their defence fund. Martinvl (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not need "balancing" and if it does the regulation section is the wrong way to go about it. The pardon campaign is reportin on fact. The campaign is also wholly relevant to this article as it is a campaign to have the convictions recieved removed. I do not see how that needs "balancing". The regulation section is nonsence in relation to this article and gives a historic look at a subject which is not relevant to this advocacy group. the regulation section would be better in the Metrication article. If you have problems with the neutrality of the pardon section and can imporve the section please do so.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lede to the article states "The group states that it believes that vendors should have the freedom to mark their goods with any units they choose". This aim runs contrary to centuries of normal practice in Britain, as is illustrated by the Magna Carta, the Act of Union and dozens of other laws.  In my view, this places the views of this group into the Fringe theories category. The text about the Magna Carta etc is a valid debunking of such a theory.  Martinvl (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are creating your own analysis which would fail to meet No original research. Fæ (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part is my own analysis? Martinvl (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Centuries of normal practice" - you are cherry-picking to support a novel thesis. What about Scottish measures (not always the same as English) or the "normal practice" of selling ale in non-standard sizes of bombards, gaspins, crinzes, whiskins etc. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Fæ are confusing two separate issues: "Which units shall be used?" and "Who decides the units to be used?". User:Fæ is quite right, Scottish measures are different to English measures - but with the Act of Union in 1707 (three centuries ago), English units of measure replaced Scottish units of measure. I agree that until recent years, spirits were sold in a pub units of a fifth of a gill in Scotland and a sixth of a gill in England and Wales - this was not the landlord's decsion though, it was the Crown's decision. Under current legisation (which applies throughout Great Britain), spirits are sold in a pub in units of either 25 ml or 35 ml (the Crown decided on these two measures, the landlord can decide which).  I would furttrmore draw to attention that in 1824 the Government standardised the gallon.  As regards the bombards, gaspins, crinzes, whiskins etc, who defined what was meant by them, and when did they cease to be used?  Martinvl (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was challenging your thesis of "normal practice". Normal practice in public houses in Britain at certain times was to use non-standardized measures and at other times (over the last few centuries) they used standard measures; I dare-say they failed to read the Magna Carta's "one measure for ale" rule. See examples at.
 * Anyway this seems completely off-topic to me and a pointless nitpicker's debate, see WP:NOTFORUM. It has hardly anything to do with the article subject of lobbying against British metrication from the late 1990s AD. Fæ (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found that the crucial sentence in the lede was unreferenced, so I have added a "Citation needed" flag. That sentence was originally added by User:Lucy-marie about a year ago (Lucy-marie has been active here in the last few days).  Maybe she could first find a reliable reference for that statement and we take it from there. Martinvl (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pro-Metrication groups
What is this section doing in the article? Totally against WP:NPOV. Looking at the history, its been there years! I am surprised no one has mentioned it before, which is why I am too scared to be WP:BOLD and just remove it. SpikeTheSpider (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC Regulation and units of measure
This article is about the UK campaign group established in 2001 against the legal enforcement of metric labelling of goods. Does the section Regulation and units of measure within the article covering history of measurements in the UK dating to 13th and 17th centuries give undue weight by showing the 21st century campaign group appear to have similar significance in the history of Britain rather than simply linking to connected articles in the See also section? Fæ (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The second sentence of the article lede states "The group states that it believes that vendors should have the freedom to mark their goods with any units they choose". This is contrary to the practice in England since at least medieval times as is demonstrated by the statement in the Magna Carta.  Anybody with a modicum of legal knowledge and an understanding of consumer protection will realise that the concept of the vendor having the freedom to choose units that they choose verges on being a fringe theory.  Of course, if the RfC proposer can find any authoritative statements that take an opposing view, please present them.   Of course, if the lede is incorrect (it is unreferenced), would any editor who knows better please change it. Martinvl (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The intention of Wikipedia is to create encyclopaedic articles, not to provide a platform for lobby groups. Fæ (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case this article should be deleted. However, since it gets 30 hits a day, one cannot dismiss them as failing to be notable. Therefore any discussion about them should look at their policies.  We have already had a discussion about whether it was appropriate to have a discussion on market regulation and there was no case to have the existing discussion removed. One could of course have a discussion on the concepts of the free market and consumer protection, but such a discussion would inevitably lead to the legal position in England where the Crown has since time immemorial had control of the use of weights and measures.  This in turn would lead back to the Magna Carta.   Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The regulation and units of measure are not really needed but also the main subject is not really notable for an article and should be a para in Metrication in the United Kingdom. Not sure a few people prosecuted for breaking the law and grouping together to pay legal costs needs a standalone article certainly appears to be very little secondary references actually mentioning the group. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Neil Herron, spokesman for the group, is a self-publicist. A search using Google on the strings "Daily Mail" and "Metric Martyrs" gave over 1700 hits. I think that this is sufficient to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability.  One editor described their views about market regulation which, in my view, are unorthodox. I have presented what I believe to be the orthodox view of market regulation, but I have not found any references that support the unorthodox view taken by the Metric Martyrs (other than articles connected with the Metric Martyrs themselves).  If somebody can find any such articles, please summarise and reference them. Martinvl (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of 29-Feb-2012
I have reinstated the material removed by Defacto.


 * Why was the naming of the group removed?
 * Why was the criticism of the newspaper reprots by the Trading Standards Office removed?
 * Why was the background material to weights and measures removed?

Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my edit comments. The article was a mess. Now it, at least, has a sound structure. I've restored my changes as I believe the reasons are clear. However, if you think I've removed something in error please point it out and/or fit it back into the new structure, but please do not revert all the valid changes I made in the process. Let's knock this article into some sort of NPOV and presentable state - together. -- de Facto (talk). 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DeFacto, please do yourself a favour and read the EU directive before you nake commnents about it. May I draw your attention to the first file of WP:V: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. By removing the intformation that I have restored, I will assume that you are deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipeidia and will take steps accordingly. Martinvl (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Martinvl, your wording exaggerates the scope of the UK regs. They may apply to "many" activities but they only apply to "certain" activities. They do apply to "the retail trade", but only to selling activities and then, of course, only if weights or measures are involved. We must try not to give them weight beyond that which actually applies. We need a NPOV here, don't forget. -- de Facto (talk). 12:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regulations
The claim of the Metric Martyrs that traders should have the right to dictate which the units of measure that they use goes against the accepted dating back to antiquity. The section on regulations is neccessary to remind the reader that it is the market authorities (in this case parliament) that sets the units of measure, not the traders themselves. I will regard removal or watering down of this section without consensus as vandalism or WP:POV. Martinvl (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * However, with it being pure OR/SYNTH on your part, with no reliable sources cited to support the syntheses, I believe that it does not belong in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be removed as it doesnt appear to be needed, the lead already says that the group want vendors to choose what units of measurement are used which clearly implies they dont at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the article about?
I still think this is a badly formed and written article it actually says very little about the group and concentrates on some legal cases. Is the group the British Weights and Measures Association or not, clearly Metric Martyrs is not the real name. It really needs a workover or possibly deleting as not being a notable group. First perhaps we need to establish who the article is about, the group or prosecuted individuals. Most of anything important is already mentioned in Metrication in the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Milbourne
 * This is an informal group of market stallholders who were prosecuted for various offences stemmign from their refusal to use metric units. One was prosecuted for using uncertified scales, anith erfor giving short measure etc) The organisation, insofar as it is an organisation, is under the general guidance of one Neil Herron. They are not part of BWMA, though the individuals concerned probably know each other.  Every few months Neil Herron has something to say (in my view very economical with the truth) and releases a press statement.  The Daily Mail gives him space and the other national papers often cheer. We need something for people to refer to when these stateents are made.  Given this background, do you have any suggestions?  Martinvl (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesnt really sound like an independant advocacy group more to do with supporting those prosecuted as its official name is the The Metric Martyrs Defence Fund. Interestingly the BBC refers to it as just a campaign rather than an advocacy group. I take your suggestion that Metric Martys should be explained in a neutral-way but at the moment it delves straight into detailed legal cases rather than anything about the defence fund or campaign. We need to decide if this is about people who have been prosecuted (the so called Martyrs) or the defence fund and its campaign, not the same thing. Clearly need to give a balanced view on the prosecutions and protests but it looks like the group should really be just a small part of the picture. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the term 'Metric Martyr' was originally coined to refer to Steve Thoburn, after he chose to fight against being forced to use metric measures, measures which his customers didn't want. A group grew to support him and the growing number of others who were being prosecuted for similar offences related to selling in imperial measures. That group persisted even after Thoburn lost his appeal to the ECHR (and his life shortly after that), and still supports those being denied the right to choose which units of measures to use, including those who wish to sell beer by the litre.


 * I agree that the subject of this article isn't clear and that it needs work putting in to improve it. -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is closely tied in with Thoburn v Sunderland City Council. Martinvl (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)