Jump to content

Talk:History of the metre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taking into account observational errors in science

[edit]

I propose to divise the section Early adoption of the metre with a new section Taking into account observational errors in science which could begin with this passage material from the wikipedia articles Observational error and Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero:

  • Observational error (or measurement error) is the difference between a measured value of a quantity and its unknown true value. Such errors are inherent in the measurement process.[1] Scientific observations are marred by two distinct types of errors, systematic errors on the one hand, and random errors, on the other hand. The effects of random errors can be mitigated by the least squares method. Constant or systematic errors on the contrary must be carefully avoided, because they arise from one or more causes which constantly act in the same way, and have the effect of always altering the result of the experiment in the same direction. They therefore deprive of any value the observations that they impinge.[2]
  • In 1841, Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel using the method of least squares calculated from several arc measurements a new value for the flattening of the Earth, which he determined as ⁠1/299.15⁠. His reference ellipsoid would long be used by geodesists.[3][4]
  • The distinction between systematic and random errors is far from being as sharp as one might think at first glance. In reality, there are no or very few random errors. As science progresses, the causes of certain errors are sought out, studied, their laws discovered. These errors pass from the class of random errors into that of systematic errors. The ability of the observer consists in discovering the greatest possible number of systematic errors to be able, once he has become acquainted with their laws, to free his results from them using a method or appropriate corrections.[5]

Then continue with the text of the section paying attention to systematic or random errors. Charles Inigo (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Charles Inigo (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the subject of this article - the history of the metre? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A book by Ken Alder is entirely consecrated to this point. I think avoiding this question in an article on the History of the metre would be an impardonable error. Charles Inigo (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which book by Alder and which pages? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how are observational errors in science related to the history of the metre? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ken Alder, observational errors were not taken into account by Méchain, but were taken in account by Delambre. However, in his book The Measure of All Things. The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the World, Alder missed that when the metre was choosen as an international unit of length this error was obviously not any more hidden at least for scientists. Moreover geodesists at that time choose the metre and promoted the foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as they were making efforts to free their baseline measurements from temperature systematic errors. However this book gave me an invaluable chance to get aware of that and to better understand why Charles Édouard Guillaume was granted the Nobel Prize in Physics and also because of the shortcomings of the book to decide to make the necessary efforts to understand the role of the International Geodetic Association in the foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. However, when looking the derogatory comments on the metre by Wikipedia contibuters, I noticed that Adler probably missed its aim and even contributed in depreciating the metre. Charles Inigo (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell you are challenging the Alder source, claiming is it incorrect. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say that the Alder source supports my idea that the article should have a section intitulated Taking into account observational errors in science in spite of its shortcomings. Charles Inigo (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Alder book has many citations and positive reviews. Absent similar sources contradicting it, in my opinion it should be cited as a reliable source. However it is primarily as source for Meridian_arc#History_of_measurement since the events and the errors discussed relate to the arc and only indirectly to the metre. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes in the article History of the metre. Is that in order for you? Charles Inigo (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main change was to create this sentence:
  • In the second half of the 19th century, the creation of the International Geodetic Association would mark the adoption of new scientific methods which allowed to take into account observational errors in science.
which does not make sense. I'm sure that the members of the Association would be exceptionally surprised to learn their role in history was both limited to issues of errors and expanded to include all of science. Johnjbarton (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look in the article International Association of Geodesy were I displaced most of the text you didn't wanted in History of the metre. Charles Inigo (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dodge, Y. (2003) The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms, OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-920613-1
  2. ^ Ritter, Elie. Manuel théorique et pratique de l'application de la méthode des moindres carrés au calcul des observations. Mallet-Bachelier. p. 7. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
  3. ^ von Struve, Friedrich Georg Wilhelm. ""Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences / publiés... par MM. les secrétaires perpétuels" (July 1857)". Gallica. p. 509. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
  4. ^ Viik, T (2006). "F.W. Bessel and Geodesy". Struve Geodetic Arc, 2006 International Conference, The Struve Arc and Extensions in Space and Time, Haparanda and Pajala, Sweden, 13–15 August 2006. pp. 6, 10. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.517.9501.
  5. ^ Perrier, Georges (1872–1946) Auteur du texte (1933). Cours de géodésie et d'astronomie / par G. Perrier. pp. 17–18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Encyclopedia Universalis. Encyclopedia Universalis. 1996. p. 302. ISBN 978-2-85229-290-1.

Use of non-English sources.

[edit]

I recognize that some sources on a history whose events occurred in France would naturally be in French. However it is the policy of the English wikipedia to prefer English sources when they are available. Furthermore we need to be able to verify that content here is actually related to the topic. Please include relevant quotations from French secondary sources that connect content directly to the history of the metre. See WP:NONENG. Johnjbarton (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleased to help. I think my contributions in this article will not any more be useful. Charles Inigo (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying farewell, when I saw that a source was needed. I found someting in French:
  • La France, qui avait été l'initiatrice des travaux de mesure de la Terre, est restée à peu près stationnaire, pendant que les nations étrangères couvraient leur sol de triangulations en employant de meilleurs instruments et procédés d'observation et de calcul.
Goodbye then. Charles Inigo (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the text in the article International Association of Geodesy but I checked the Alder source in French pp. 197-201. Charles Inigo (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meridional definition

[edit]

I was adding new informations when I realized Johnjbarton suppressed the content of my precedent contributions. I hope you are allrigth with the last one. Charles Inigo (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Charles Inigo (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with additions of material outside of the scope of this article. This is the same issue we have discussed before and multiple editors agreed that these kinds of additions are not wanted. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. I've made a start on the middle of the article body, removing some irrelevant content about geodesy after the creation of the Metre des Archives, some highflown talk of "consecration" and "the first great deed dictated by the motto inscribed in the pediment of the splendid edifice that is the metric system", and some woolly longwindedness such as

For metrology the matter of expansibility was fundamental; as a matter of fact, the temperature measuring error related to the length measurement in proportion to the expansibility of the standard and the constantly renewed efforts of metrologists to protect their measuring instruments against the interfering influence of temperature revealed clearly the importance they attached to the expansion-induced errors. It was common knowledge, for instance, that effective measurements were possible only inside a building, the rooms of which were well protected against the changes in outside temperature, and the very presence of the observer created an interference against which it was often necessary to take strict precautions.

NebY (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it was a good idea to suppress it. Charles Inigo (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of the metric system?

[edit]

It's clearer now that this article is functionally a fork of History of the metric system, which includes pretty much everything this article might if fully developed. It's also exceptional; we don't have "History of" articles for other SI base units.

The forking is something of a wiki-historical accident; this article began as "Redefinition of the Metre in 1983", a redefinition which at least one editor thought very foolish. Extended on-wiki arguments about that led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, this article narrowly survived an AfD but its scope was soon expanded to History of the metre, and activity died down. Meanwhile History of the metric system was created and continued to be developed.

As this isn't a new article, it seems to me that WP:ATD-R applies: discuss on talk page first, but if consensus is lacking, go to WP:AfD for discussion with the wider community. Or of course, if everyone here hates the idea, don't. Do we? NebY (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the 2 articles separate. The history of the metre involves only the distance measurement. Whereas the history of the metric system involves many types of measurements (weight, time, temperature, etc).
However, you are right that there is massive overlap that should not be there. This article requires massive trimming. And the history of the metric system should also be trimmed and defer to this article when mentioning the metre.
I've seen some history of the kilogram documentaries on TV and would welcome a corresponding article - assuming that it doesn't do the massive duplication like these 2 articles.  Stepho  talk  23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @NebY proposal. I don't think we need "History of the metre" but rather History of the metric system and a section in Metre which links History of the metric system and gives metre specific historical aspects, if any. There was no "metre" independent of the metric system so they don't have different histories. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it separate so as not to disrupt its parent article. Currently this is a child article of Metre, and Metre#History of definition is an {{excerpt}} of this. See Wikipedia:Summary style. It should not be merged into History of the metric system, though an excerpt could be there. We have separate articles about subtopics of things all the time. Metre itself has a separate article from Metric system. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a section in Metre which would link to Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain? This article gives informations on historical aspects centered on the metre. Charles Inigo (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. As opinions here are evenly balanced numerically, I don't suppose we'd reach wholehearted unanimity either way even with long discussion, so I've opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the metre, proposing redirection - let's talk about it there and see who else joins in. NebY (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal for deletion of the article has been refused and the corresponding template removed. I added some informations centered on metrology and links. I propose to remove the Maintenance template which was added before simplification of the article. Charles Inigo (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_metre&oldid=1300425085"