Talk:Metrication in Jamaica

Use of Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures in Jamaica.

At the moment the article states: "In 2007, Jamaica still employed the Fahrenheit scale." However, attempts to update with current information have been deleted on the ground that "Including this is, in and of itself, disallowed interpretation because it implies that this is a general trend." The wording objected to stated:

but in January 2012, the Jamaica Observer gave temperatures only in Celsius while the Jamaica Gleaner gave the temperatures in both scales, with Fahrenheit first.

The wording was not intended to imply any general trend, but simply to note the usage. Would the following wording meet this objection?

According to one writer, Jamaica employed the Fahrenheit scale in 2007 and in February 2012, the Jamaica Gleaner gave the temperatures in both Fahrenheit and Celsius, with Fahrenheit first. However, another newspaper, the Jamaica Observer, gave temperatures only in Celsius.

Michael Glass (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Because you're still, on two separate occasions, inferring a policy for an entire newspaper from a single instance of usage. And because you're still effectively claiming (by including the point in the first place) that the results of such inference reflect the state of metrication in Jamaica. Particularly noting that this is very clearly a primary source, the evidence provided is not even close to sufficient to back up either claim. This is pure original research.

The only way for this not to imply a general trend is for it not to be included at all. There is simply no reason for us to give comparisons of individual instances of usage by newspapers unless we're trying to make a wider point by it. And that wider point is not backed up by the sources provided.

The first point is sourced to (what appears to be) a reliable secondary source, so the words "according to one writer" are an unnecessary qualification. Pfainuk talk 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your argument about a single instance of usage would hold more water if this was something that happened on just a random page in the newspaper. However, when it occurs on the main page of the newspapers concerned I would regard that usage as reflecting the papers' policies. It is simply too prominent to be random.

Your second point is that this is original research. I think it's a bit of a stretch to regard something that can be confirmed with a single mouse click as original research. The policy does say, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I think that mentioning that Newspaper A gives Fahrenheit and/or Celsius temperatures in its weather forecast on its front page is simply a straightforward descriptive statement.

Your third point is that the passage still implies a trend towards using Celsius. I agree it possible to infer a trend towards Celsius from the data but that is different from implying a trend. I don't believe that the wording I suggested above implies a trend.

I noticed you consider "according to one writer" is an unnecessary qualification. However, there is no page reference, and the information seems to be at variance with the comments from Lennox Salmon from the Jamaica Bureau of Standards. [1] This suggests that the weather agencies have been giving reports in metric units since either the 1970s or the 1990s.

A 2004 article in the Gleaner, written by a veteran reporter, stated that the meteorologists were giving the weather forecasts in Celsius while people continue to talk about temperatures in Fahrenheit. [2]. This might also be an interesting source of information for the article.

As several sources give information on the metrication of weather data in Jamaica. It would be better to use more than one source. Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What makes you assume that the papers even have policies? Not all newspapers do, no evidence has been provided that these ones do. Your suggestion that the newspapers necessarily have policies on units, and that these instances of usage necessarily reflect those policies, stretches WP:PRIMARY far beyond any reasonable limits. You have no evidence on this point.

And on implying a trend, the wording you picked doesn't matter so much as the fact that you make the point at all. If the text wasn't trying to make any kind of point about metrication in Jamaica then there would be no reason to include it. Simply including the comparison makes a point. And that point is original research.

On the other issue, I remain of the view that it is unnecessary to qualify the reference to the book in the way you propose, though I would not oppose explicitly stating that weather forecasts often use metric units based on the sources provided. I note that the Jamaica Gleaner one appears to be an editorial and thus probably less reliable than a newspaper article. Pfainuk talk 18:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Woops. "Policy" was a bad choice of words. People don't have a spelling policy, but they strive to spell correctly. The usage in the two papers might be just conventions that they follow. Anyway, I don't think that is the main issue. The fact is that one newspaper gives weather forecasts in Celsius and the other gives the forecasts in Fahrenheit. That is all.

Your next point seems to be that just mentioning this fact is making a point. Sure! It makes the point that one newspaper does one thing and the other one does something different. If that's original research, then just about everything is original research!

On our third point I've checked out the reference in Ian Whitelaw's book. This is what it says: " It [Fahrenheit] was to remain the temperature standard in most English-speaking countries until the 1960s, when the Celsius scale was phased in as part of the process of metrication. The Fahrenheit system is still in use in the U.S. and Jamaica." This is a broad brush picture of the change, but it is easy to shoot holes in it. Air temperatures in Australia were converted in September 1972 [3]. in Canada it was 1 April 1975 [4]. So though it might at a first glance pass muster as a reliable source, its information is rather less impressive when examined in detail.

So let's leave aside the areas where we clearly disagree and discuss the two references that could provide valuable information of use for the article. I refer to the comment by Lennox Salmon from the Jamaica Bureau of Standards. [5] and the opinion piece by Dennie Quill [6]. I feel that both of these sources could be used to add valuable information to the article. How do you feel about them? Michael Glass (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy is precisely the right word. You're claiming that they have a policy on units and this is what it is. But you have no evidence of this.

If you're arguing that the only point it makes is "one newspaper does one thing and the other one does something different", then why are you arguing that it belongs on the article? If there is no point to be made on metrication in Jamaica, then this plainly doesn't belong in the article. And if it is making a point on metrication in Jamaica (which is how it appears to me), then that point is original research, and still doesn't belong in the article. It almost doesn't matter in which way it doesn't belong in the article: it doesn't belong in the article regardless.

In terms of the other sources - I note that the first, aside its obvious bias, does not seem entirely reliable. Certainly its British section is not really accurate in terms of emphasis and uses various terms like "January" without making it clear which January it refers to. The second seems ironically more neutral, but its accuracy is still not ideal. So, I'm not convinced that they're either really appropriate. Might be a good idea to take them to WP:RSN first. Pfainuk talk 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the question of sources please note that I referred specifically to what was written by Lennox Salmon from the Jamaica Bureau of Standards and not to what was written about Britain.

On the question of the usage in the newspapers, I think this is relevant because it demonstrates the mixed usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in the media. Also, because it is easily verifiable with a couple of mouse clicks and is in any case a straight description, I can't see the problem with it.

The text at the moment depends on just one source of information, and as I have shown above, it gives a broad-brush picture of metrication of temperatures, which is quite easy to shoot holes in. Using this source to establish usage in Jamaica is risky. On the basis of the evidence, usage of Celsius in Jamaica is more widespread than in the United States, so the phrase "still in use" about Fahrenheit implies that Fahrenheit is the standard. And, with the weather bureau issuing information in Celsius, this is no longer the case.

Your suggestion about RSN may be a good idea. I'll think about it. Michael Glass (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you are trying to make an OR point about metrication in the Jamaican media. Your claim that usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in the media in Jamaica is mixed is not backed up by these primary sources without heavy interpretation. For all we know, every other instance of a temperature in the media could be in one system and you're just citing the single exception in the other. Fact is, we're simply not allowed to interpret primary sources in this way. You make other claims in the above about "the evidence" which similarly rely on disallowed original research.

And on the other point, you're arguing that one source isn't appropriate because (you argue) it gets its facts wrong when discussing areas outside Jamaica, but another is appropriate when even though it gets its facts wrong when discussing Jamaica. That's a bit of a double standard, don't you think? Pfainuk talk 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I really do find it puzzling that you claim that saying that paper A uses Celsius only on its front page for weather forecasts [www.jamaicaobserver.com/] while paper B uses Fahrenheit followed by Celsius [7] is Original Research. This may be confirmed by two mouse clicks. How heavy is that interpretation? Remember, we are not talking about what is in this article or that article in either newspaper, we are talking about what appears on their front pages!

On the question of Ian Whitelaw getting his facts wrong. I ask you a simple question. Is the 1960s the 1970s? If the 1960s are the 1970s, then he didn't get his facts wrong; if the 1960s are not the 1970s, then either he got his facts wrong or he expressed himself rather carelessly. In either case, it is unsafe to base the text on what he wrote in this instance. You made some point about another source, but as the syntax was confused, perhaps you would like to rephrase your point so that I could understand it. Michael Glass (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Either you are:

• Not making any relevant point about metrication in Jamaica (either explicitly or implicitly). Instead you are merely quoting the temperatures on the front pages of two Jamaica newspapers. In this case, as no relevant point is being made, the text does not belong in the article. Just as we would not add a discussion of the Angolan tourist industry to the article
• Attempting to make (either explicitly or implicitly) a relevant point about metrication in Jamaica. As any such point is based on two individual instances of usage - in other words, it relies on original interpretation of primary sources - this is disallowed original research.

In your above message you argue that you're doing the first. In the message before you argued that you were doing the second. It can't be both: you cannot make a point without making a point. So, are you trying to add irrelevancies to the article or are you engaging in original research?

On the other point. Your argument appears to be:

• Whitelaw gets facts wrong with respect to countries outside Jamaica. Therefore it is unreliable when discussing Jamaica.
• The other source gets facts wrong with respect to countries outside Jamaica. But it does not follow that it is unreliable when discussing Jamaica.

Again, you can't have it both ways. One or the other, please. Pfainuk talk 11:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pfainuk,

• the temperatures in the two newspapers were about Jamaica, not Angola.
• I note your belief that referring to the units used in the weather forecasts on the front pages of the two Jamaican papers is original research. I don't agree with it.
• If Whitelaw got his facts wrong it suggests that he may not be as reliable as we might hope.
• I referred to what Lennox Salmon from the Jamaica Bureau of Standards wrote. I did not comment on what other authors wrote on that website, you did.

Michael Glass (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The temperatures are indeed Jamaica. But if (as you have claimed) you are not attempting to make any point by including them they are as relevant to the article as the Angolan tourist industry. That is to say, not at all.

In the second, what you airily dismiss is a major problem with your edits and I believe that you would do well to pay attention to it. Individual instances of units are not noteworthy. However much you would like them to be. Inferring points from individual instances of units is original research. However inconvenient that is for your argument. You need to use actual sources that make actual points about this subject.

And you repeat your claim that even though both make mistakes with respect to countries outside Jamaica, one of is necessarily reliable but the other isn't. That you don't like this still doesn't mean you can have it both ways. One or the other. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pfainuk, I note your interesting belief that the weather forecasts in Jamaican newspapers have as much to do with the usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica as the Angolan tourist industry.
• The use of Fahrenheit and Celsius on the front page of two newspapers is more than individual instances of the use of the units.
• Ian Whitelaw's mistakes, which I note that you now accept, do call into question his accuracy. Lennox Salmon is not responsible for the accuracy of comments made by others even though they were quoted on the same web page. Please look again at the web page [8]. You will observe that the comments made about other countries were made by other authors.

Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are now trying to make a point about "the usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica". Previously, you said you weren't. But this is a primary source, and any point that might be made about "the usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica" is original research. If we draw any form of conclusion, or invite the user to draw any form of inclusion, from these usages, then we go beyond a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The sources do not say anything about "the usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica".

That you do not like the fact that you are trying to base this point on two individual instances of usage does not change the fact that you are trying to base this point on two individual instances of usage.

The website is responsible for the accuracy of its comments. You are not citing Lennox Salmon, you're citing the United States Metrication Association, and you might as well be honest enough to admit it. The website has errors with respect to other countries. You say that Whitelaw has errors with respect to other countries. And yet you treat them inconsistently. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lennox Salmon is quoted by the USMA, just as they quote comments by Joseph Reid and others. You have claimed more than once that there are errors with respect to other countries, but have not bothered to document this assertion. If there is an error, please demonstrate that this is so. Finally, your second comment immediately above is confused in its syntax. Perhaps you might like to consider revising it so that it makes more sense. Michael Glass (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That you do not like the fact that you are trying to base this point on two individual instances of usage does not change the fact that you are trying to base this point on two individual instances of usage. The point is clear. The syntax is not in any way garbled. But when it comes down to it, if you're not willing to even try to understand the reasons for my objections, I can't force you to do so.

Your text fails WP:NOR and you have failed to get consensus for it. And at this stage, it seems to me that we are best off saying that that is the end of the matter. Pfainuk talk 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My objections to Whitelaw and your objections to other sources have both found support on WP:RSN so the best course of action at the moment is to remove the present statement. If information on the use of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica that is deemed reliable can be found, it will then be appropriate to add it to the article. Michael Glass (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metrication in Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724200113/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)