Here is my contribution to the AP stylebook discussion. It may be a futile attemp as all the previous were. But one should keep trying, right? I am attaching it here for a feedback/criticism before sending it to AP. Stan Jakuba
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Kilopascal <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > John, > > I can't blame the NIST for not wanting or being able to get involved. > Let's face the hard facts. America is broken and bankrupt. It would take > time and money to update their documents, money they most likely don't > have. Those people at NIST are most likely on pins and needles wondering if > they will have a job tomorrow. > > Maybe the best thing for the NIST is not to waste money they don't have > creating variations of international standards and instead just adopt the > BIPM standards as they exist, and other such standards like all ISO and > IEC. Why spend money the nation doesn't have modify perfectly good > standards? They could also save money not supporting inch based nonsense. > > As for the AP, just boycott any publication that uses their stuff and don't > buy from companies that advertise in periodicals that use AP feeds. Read > the foreign press. > > > > *From:* John M. Steele <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 2011-10-25 07:18 > *To:* Kilopascal <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [USMA:51282] Re: 2012 AP Stylebook Suggestion Form Now Open > > I agree. NIST has a guide for the news media LC 1137, but it does not > cover this point. I wrote to NIST suggesting they update it. However, they > declined. It apparently was never popular, it is now out of print and only > available on their website. They don't plan any more updates to it, period. > > I still think they should update the web version, but they disagree. It is > addressed in SP330 and SP811, but those are very long documents. I don't > see AP wading through them. > > --- On *Mon, 10/24/11, Kilopascal <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:51282] Re: 2012 AP Stylebook Suggestion Form Now Open > To: [email protected], "U.S. Metric Association" < > [email protected]> > Date: Monday, October 24, 2011, 10:19 PM > > What I don't understand is why the NIST or some other standards > authority doesn't get involved. I can't imagine anyone of us being able to > persuade the AP they are wrong. I would think it is in the best interests > of the standards organizations to assure that units are represented > correctly. A standards body would have their job made easier if proper > symbols and usage were used by the media. Since the media gets it wrong, > then what chance is there for others to do it right. > > [USMA:51282] Re: 2012 AP Stylebook Suggestion Form Now Open > John M. Steele > Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:55:43 -0700 > > And we must convince AP to change to have any effect. Trying to change > individual writers is a complete waste of time' all they care about is AP > direction. I recently had the follwing exchange. > > I said > "One minor correction on metric usage: "Kph" is a random abbreviation made up > by and dictated by the Associated Press. It is not an accepted symbol in the > International System of Units (the formal name of the modern metric system), > the proper symbol is "km/h". As an automotive writer, if you research FMVSS > 101, (instrument panel marking requirements) you will see that a speedometer > in > the U.S. with secondary kilometers per hour markings MUST be labelled km/h, > kph > would be considered illegal marking. Since your readers will never see a kph > on > a car, they are probably more confused by it than the correct km/h. Many will > have a seconadary speedometer indication, marked km/h, on their cars." > > He said, > "As a member of the Associated Press, we use AP style." > > (I have previously encountered the same attitude. We can only change the > media > by changing AP. Please write.) > > --- On Mon, 10/24/11, G. Stanley Doore <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: G. Stanley Doore <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:51281] Re: 2012 AP Stylebook Suggestion Form Now Open > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected] > > > Date: Monday, October 24, 2011, 1:37 PM > > > > John: > Your recommendation is on target - km/h rather than kph. > It's sad that correct useage is rejected by AP Stylebook editors. The AP > editors are not in the real world. > Keep up the good work! > Regards, Stan > On Oct 24, 2011 12:09 PM, "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The AP Stylebook is the "cause" of most incorrect metric usage in the media, > such as the use of kph for km/h. They have a short period of accepting > suggestions in the fall for the next edition of the AP Stylebook. I found the > submittal form open today and they are accepting suggestions through November > 15.http://www.apstylebook.com/?do=social_media > > I used the form to resubmit the three page analysis I sent them earlier this > summer. I hope many of you will submit suggestions, in particular for the use > of km/h in preference to kph, and better guidelines for when the metric should > be retained in the article, as well as any other incorrect usage that bugs > you. > > Write your suggestion in your own style. However, I think the strongest > argument for km/h, and particularly automotive writers is FMVSS 101 (safety > standard on instrument panel marking.) The US requires a "miles" speedometer, > but allows a secondary indication in kilometers per hour. That MUST be marked > km/h; kph would be an illegal marking under FMVSS 101. Automotive writers > write using a symbol that Federal law forbids on the cars they write about > because AP requires them to do it wrong. > > If you intend to comment, do so before Nov. 15. After that, the form stays up > but the comments are not really accepted. They send you an email with a link > you have to click on for the comment to actually go through. I learned last > year they close the process after Nov. 15, so I wasted time with a suggestion > no human ever saw. > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4574 - Release Date: 10/25/11 >
AP stylebook.doc
Description: MS-Word document
