On 11/1/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently some time ago, someone added a metric conversion (4 km^2) to the term "1,000 acres" in the quoted New York Times article.
That's a direct historical quote - is an in-line metric units conversion appropriate within the quote?
In quotes, I think that units conversion should be a footnote; I'd rather keep the integrity of the quote. However, a conversion should definitely be there. People constantly complain about metric conversions, but they're useful to the fairly large proportion of the world's population with no conception of US traditional units (or UK Imperial units). 1000 acres means absolutely nothing to most EU residents, for instance.
To make sure that my position is clear - I have no problem with a conversion being there; I don't think it belongs within the verbatim quote.
I have removed the conversion and replaced it with a footnote below the quoted article.