Talk:List of human-based units of measurement

Roman and Greek foot

I have reverted the deletion of the Roman and Greek foot and digit entries. The grounds in the edit summary were "derived units". I am not sure what this means in the context of this list. I am aware of Berriman's theory that the Greek foot had a geodetic origin and the other units followed from this. However, this is at least controversial and the proper place to discuss this theory, if considered notable, is within the individual articles. Readers are bound to expect these units to be here, and if they are not, an explanation for their exclusion from the scope. I daresay that there is no incontrovertible proof that any of the units on this list have an anthropomorphic origin as opposed to merely having an anthropormorphic name. If it can be reliably sourced that such a division actually exists, in my opinion this should be indicated in the list in some way rather than outright removal. SpinningSpark 19:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "yard" shouldn't go back in on the same grounds, but have left it out for now. SpinningSpark 19:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Roman digit was defined by the Romans as 1/16 of a foot, and is thus "derived" from the foot. The Romans similarly defined the foot as 1/5 of a pace. This is common knowledge. The yard has a completely different issue: that its origin is unknown. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to give you an example of my views on this, the original Roman inch was a derived unit, 1/12 of a foot. The earliest definition we have for the English inch defines it as the length of three barleycorns. However, historians of metrology are of the opinion that the actual standard was something longer. For about the last 700 yards, it was the yard. However, there was one occasion where the English inch was legally defined as the width of a thumb. Specifically, 18 Henry VI c 16 (1439) outlaws the sale of cloth by the yard and handful and legalizes the use of the yard and inch, stipulating that the extra inch could be measured as the width of a man's thumb. Just to put this into context, cloth was heavily taxed (by the yard). The extra handful in a yard-and-handful transaction was essentially a black-market transaction. As the state repeatedly cracked down, merchants switched over to the yard and inch to avoid prosecution. The law of 1439 was essentially legalizing a minor act of tax evasion (as the lesser of two evils, i.e., preferably to greater evil of the yard and handful). The use of the thumb-width here may have been a way of signifying the state was only grudgingly tolerating the practice. The point is, I didn't tamper with the inch entry here even though, for nearly its entire history, it has not been a human-based unit of measurement, just because of this one counter-example. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the Romans made 16 digits = 1 foot and 5 feet = 1 pace but is there any firm evidence that these units originated with these definitions? Is it not perfectly possible that the units originated anthropomorphically and only later definite equivalences established? Much as we have two originally unrelated units, 8 furlongs = 1 mile, which now have a definite conversion. In any case, I would argue that foot and digit belong on this list because they are named anthropomorphically, whatever their true origin. Any qualification needed can be given in a footnote or left to their respective articles to explain. In the case of the yard, according to its article, there are at least theories of an anthropomorphic origin, so it should have at least a qualified place here. SpinningSpark 23:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we're just approaching this from a different philosophical angle. When natural units were invented in the Age of Enlightenment, it started a movement against human-based measurement, which was seen as arbitrary an unreliable. Etymology was enlisted in the service of the argument. To this day one still finds contemporary literature denigrating customary units by exaggerating their deficits. To me, this is a bit like 19th century anthropologists explaining how "primitive" the "savages" are. On the other hand, I like your idea about including units that are named anthropomorphically (which would certainly include the inch in most languages). That is at least an objective definition. Otherwise, I think this is a losing battle on my part. In the Wikipedia I occasionally find things that strike me as highly disagreeable but which I am powerless to change. (See articles on Paleolithic Continuity Theory and Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence to see what I mean.)

But once again, just to put this into context, about a month ago someone added an external link to Pound (mass) that looked to me like linkspam. It was a link to an advertising-laden weights-and-measures conversion site. Being comparatively new to the Wikipedia, I didn't revert it, just noted it on the talk page, along with a mention that the same user had put the same link on many other articles. An hour later one of the links had been reverted. Then I reverted one. Then other people reverted the rest. In other words, it was community action. The point is, sometimes people take tentative steps to see if there is any community support for what they are trying to accomplish. Since I've obviously hit a brick wall here, I'll just move on to other issues. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Temperature?

Surprised to not see Fahrenheit here, which aimed to set its 100° point to the temperature of the human body (which we now more accurately measure at 98.6° F). Jm3 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A single point does not make a scale. Zero °F is certainly not human-based. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)