1

In a nonfiction snippet I'm writing about metrology, specifically the term micron being used in reference to the unit multiple micrometre (AmE: micrometer) I need to cite Resolution 7 of the 13th CGPM1, but I'm not sure which year to put it as.

Even though the Wikipedia page, "Micrometre", states that the term micron was "officially revoked ... in 1967", the source it cites—the English version of this Resolution from the the SI Brochure, 8th edition—does not even say it was solely 1967.2 In fact, neither the English version nor the official French version lists it as such. According to both of these sources, the year it's listed as is "1967/1968", and I can't find any information that specifically lists either one of these specifically as the most appropriate year with which to cite it.

Should I cite it as both or just stick with one? And if the latter, then which one should I go by?3


Footnotes

  1. According to NIST,4 the CGPM stands for Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (En: "General Conference on Weights and Measures"), and

    ... The CGPM is the primary intergovernmental treaty organization responsible for the SI, representing nearly 50 countries. It has the responsibility of ensuring that the SI is widely disseminated and modifying it as necessary so that it reflects the latest advances in science and technology.

  2. Then, again, it is listed as merely a Start-class article, so meh; I wouldn't take it too seriously. Lol.

  3. I'm thinking it can be done any of the following 3 ways, but obviously which one you choose depends heavily on context, and I'm not sure which one this context would lean toward, if any.

    • Both: Sometimes, it's best to just adopt a descriptivist plan & assume that whatever it's labeled as by the original source is the correct "year".

    • First: If, in fact, the time range of the Resolution's publication were to span across multiple years (Ex. Dec 29th–Jan 2nd), then if a plural year is not allowed, it might be appropriate then to just choose the earliest year, since choosing the latter might imply that said publication did not occur any earlier.

    • Second: If, in fact, the time range of the Resolution's publication were to span across multiple years (Ex. Dec 29th–Jan 2nd), then if a plural year is not allowed, it might be appropriate then to just choose the latest year, since choosing the former might imply that said publication did not occur any later.

  4. National Institute of Standards and Technology

1

The actual document's title is: COMPTES RENDUS DES SÉANCES DE LA TREIZIÈME CONFERENCE GENERALE DES POIDS ET

Officially the 13th Conference took place over both years.

The actual paper's publication date is actually in May 1969.

That's why they cite it as: Comptes Rendus de la 13e CGPM (1967/68), 1969, p.105

on http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/13/7/

  • Ah, so it is. So which should I cite it as: "1967/1968" or "1969"? – SarahofGaia Nov 22 '15 at 19:40
-1

You're going to have to look beyond Wikipedia. You need to track down the original articles in the footnotes and/or look elsewhere. Wikipedia is not an academically rigorous source of information. Assuming you are doing more than a lower high school homework assignment, you are going to have to find the source.

If you are at a university, try looking on JStore, or similar, for the copies of the original articles.

  • With all due respect, did you even read my question? I did cite the original source. – SarahofGaia Nov 22 '15 at 19:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.