Hi John,
I read your note. May I make a few comments: 1) It might be worth mentioning that the NIST recommendations for presenting units of measure are equivalent to Websters recommendations for presenting words and should be respected as such. 2) The BIPM is not in France, it is on international territory close to Paris, just as the UN headquarters are not in the US, but on international territory close to New York. 3) You have not stated why the some units have symbols that are lower case and some have symbols that are upper case. This might bring the point home to them. It might also be worthwhile emphasizing that a 1 mW power supply is sufficient to power a hearing aid, while a 1 MW supply is sufficient to power a suburban train. 4) It might be worth mentioning, but given the isolationist nature of the US I leave it to your judgment, that km/h is accepted worldwide, even where the letter km and h do not appear in the longhand writing of kilometres per hour. (See the Wikipedia article kilometres per hour for more information. 5) I dont know about the AP style guide, but in the UK, journalists tend to describe temperatures in C (or infrequently in F) rather than in °C or °F - 50 F describes a huge capacitor and 10 C represents a mighty electric charge!). Regards Martin _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 04 May 2011 00:55 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50422] AP Styleguide 2009, was Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return My library arranged an interlibrary loan of a 2009 edition. The kilometer per hour entry was added sometime between 2006 and 2009. It says: "kilometers per hour The abbreviation kph is acceptable in all references." It should, of course, say kph is wrong in all references, and require the proper symbol, km/h, as the only allowable "short form" with the only other acceptable alternative writing it out in full. Other parts of the guide say that any abbreviation not specifically listed may not be used, so, by omission, AP says the correct km/h is not permitted in journalism. I have gone through the AP Stylebook in some detail. I disagree with their basic policy of not using metric, but that is policy, not a technical issue. I believe they have seven technical issues that should be corrected. I have attached a draft of a letter I plan to send them, and would appreciate the forum's comments on the content. It is clear that journalists won't depart from the Stylebook on their own, so journalism will not use metric correctly unless we convince AP. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: Carleton MacDonald <[email protected]>; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 9:12:59 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50370] Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return Thank you. That helps. I haven't found a 2009 edition yet. The 2010 is published, the 2011 will be available in May according to their website. Since I am not a journalist, I don't plan to buy it. But it looks like we have to convince AP. Trying to convince individual journalists is a waste of time. _____ From: Carleton MacDonald <[email protected]> To: John M. Steele <[email protected]>; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 8:52:03 PM Subject: RE: [USMA:50370] Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return This afternoon I went to our companys Corporate Communications office. I know some of the people there, and Ive written to them in the past. From time to time my company puts out press releases, indicating speeds in miles per hour and (to their credit), parenthetically, in kilometers per hour. (At least they do that.) They are understanding and not unpleasant. However, they are adamant that they will follow the AP Stylebook to the letter. The person I talked with had the 2009 version on her list. It listed topics and words and phrases in alphabetic, dictionary-like order. For kilometers per hour, it read (and Im quoting from memory, I didnt write it down, but this is the gist of what it said): The use of kph as an abbreviation is acceptable. No mention of the correct km/h. As far as the AP Stylebook is concerned, this is the only option they offer. And to those who follow the AP Stylebook to the letter, this is what they do. It doesnt matter what NIST or BIPM or anyone else says the AP Stylebook is their Bible. I did point out to her that the word acceptable does not mean required, but she is awaiting the AP to correct their book, before her office will change. In the section under metric system, all symbols were described as abbreviations. So, in short, yes, AP allows it. And it doesnt mention anything else. I havent seen the 2010 or 2011 books. I went onto the AP Stylebook webpage, but from what I can see you have to be a subscriber to make any comments. Carleton From: John M. Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 13:46 To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: Re: [USMA:50370] Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return Carlton, Have you actually seen it with your own eyes? What year stylebook, and can you quote the entry? Or are you just accepting the word of the communications guy at your work. I have checked the ones I can find at local libraries. For 1998, 2000, and 2006, it does NOT say kph is ok (it does say mph is ok for miles per hour, but it offers no short form for kilometers per hour. There is one exception. Back in the sports chapter, specifically for a table of auto racing results, it shows and allows it, but not for any other usage. However, there is no entry in the main body of the book; they are silent on the matter The approach we need to take depends on whether AP really allows it, or journalists are just using it own their own (maybe extrapolating from the auto racing results form. _____ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 12:20:30 PM Subject: [USMA:50370] Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return It's that d*mned AP Stylebook again - pretty much every newspaper adheres to it as their Bible. Carleton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:02:30 AM Subject: [USMA:50369] Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return Hi John, I made a small contribution the bit showing the various languages. I will certainly add your reference it is very useful. Regards _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 18 April 2011 13:52 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50368] Re: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return Yes, that might be useful too. Are you the author? It would be useful if the article points out that on dual unit speedometers in the US, FMVSS101 requires km/h (upper case is allowed) and does not permit kph, or any variant of it. Therefore a driver sees kph only in car reviews and not on his dash, adding confusion. This was addressed in my note to the author. (NOTE: If you are the author and need a reference, see USMA laws page for FMVSS101 reference.) My personal goal for the year is to stamp out the kilo-pico-hour. Because of dashboard confusion and FMVSS101, I am thinking automotive writers may be the best place to apply leverage (in addition to storm reporters, after rolling over the Natiuonal Hurricane Center). _____ From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 8:04:55 AM Subject: RE: [USMA:50366] Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return You could also point him to the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 18 April 2011 12:16 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50366] Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576257300108686920.ht ml?mod=googlenews_wsj The author of this car review expresses strong advocacy for the metric system in the body of his review, but then goes on to use the dreaded "kph" and mostly Customary specs for the vehicle. He does express strong support for liters per 100 kilometers as a fuel economy measure. I have sent a note thanking him for the metric support, pointing out that "km/h" is the correct symbol, not "kph," and suggesting one way to show metric support is to use metric specs or at least dual units for all specs in his reviews.
