Talk:Oliver R. Smoot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contradiction[edit]

Well which bridge is it? I live near Boston, I really ought to know. I'll find out and edit it soon if nobody else does.
--Mobius Soul 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Harvard Bridge, over the Charles River. The article refers to a "Massachusetts Avenue" Bridge, since the name of the avenues the bridge ends on are Massachusetts Avenue, in both Cambridge and Boston sides. The article could be clearer, but there is no contradiction.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.239.7.74 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 October 2006
That's confirmed by the HB article lk'd above. Removing tag.
--Jerzy•t 00:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor grammar[edit]

"markings were made at each distance between his head and feet." Ummm? How many markings between head and feet? What distances between head and feet? Thanks! I got my Wikipedia laugh of the day! Long dead writers and authors are rolling in their graves! (Unsigned) 70.189.208.233, 17 Nov. 2009.

Reworded. It was absurdly awkward, and now should be a lot clearer. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge length[edit]

Wired got the bridge length wrong. The photo at http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/2008/10/07/say-hello-to-mr-smoot-of-smoot-fame/ is correct. Walter Nissen 2010-07-08 06:20 06:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Nissen (talk • contribs)

Before an edit war breaks out, I've become aware that there are some recent sources which advance the theory that the length was originally or should be recorded as "plus or minus one ear" rather than "plus one ear". I suggest discussing proper wording here and hopefully reaching a consensus on it. BTW, I think inattention to possible error is a major failing of global media today, and welcome any focus on experimental error, sampling error, etc.; but I don't think that has anything to do with editing this article. I'm not at all sure that the original painted length was plus or minus one. I know of no source before 2007 that advances this theory. A search of http://lambda-chi.mit.edu/History.aspx#smoots reveals no word "minus". I know of no local source recording a minus in the paint on the bridge nor in any recitation I've ever heard of the length. I believe that for 40-some years the paint has always read "+ 1 ear". Smoot says 'Over the years the "or minus" portion has gone astray in many citations, including the commemorative plaque and markings at the site itself.' and gives a book by Tavernor (partly readable at books.google) as the source for the minus. In reading at books.google, I don't see much to support that citation. I see less support anywhere for "astray in many citations". Is this about citations? I'm attracted to the phrasing: "The length of the bridge has ever since been known as 364.4 smoots plus 1 ear". I suppose that might have to be qualified if credence can be developed for the "or minus" theory. It should be noted that the literal meaning of the phrase "364.4 smoots plus 1 ear" is only a mere provocation or invitation to its real meaning. Probably the "minus" should be treated briefly. But how? Walter Nissen 2010-07-08 08:26 08:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Nissen (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's about citations, as in WP:RS and WP:V, and not just a "theory". The original measurement's history is clearly given in the Preface of the Tavenor, which I've seen, and Tavenor is the definitive work on the subject. We go by what is sourced, not what we believe is more credible—or, in this case, even what the markings say. I've re-written the paragraph to account for the discrepancy (previously explained at Harvard Bridge and at Smoot). Hertz1888 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per this web page, the book's preface was checked for accuracy by the best eyewitness, Smoot himself. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5043041

[ 2005-12-07 ]

"Now how long is the Harvard Bridge if it's measured in smoots?"

Mr. SMOOT [himself]:

"Three hundred and sixty-four point four, plus one ear."

http://www.ansi.org/other_services/speakers_bureau/smoot.aspx?menuid=10

[ 2003-02-26 ]

"pledges measured Boston's Harvard Bridge using Mr. Smoot's body as the standard of measure - eventually deeming the bridge to be 364.4 Smoot and one ear long"

[The plaque]

[Photos]

I believe that for 40 or 50 years , the paint on the bridge has said "+ 1 ear". This has been the experience and education of, I suppose, 100,000 people or more.

I worry about:

a ) re-writing history.

b ) being played for publicity.

c ) WP's role in formalizing and embedding myths.

Are any of this "bunch of sources" from before 2007? It appears that in 2007 this extraordinary claim was put forward. What is the support for the claim?

We have a European sociology prof whose Web page, and the part of his book I've read, don't indicate that he's ever been in Massachusetts, let alone Boston or Cambridge, let alone be an MIT grad, let alone a Lambda-Chi. He could be the nicest guy in the world and his(?) claim could be right, but what do we see? http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/r.tavernor@lse.ac.uk His Web page suggests he has a lot of other ideas on his mind. It looks like pp. xii-xiii of his preface are imprisoned under copyright. Imprisonment under copyright does not enhance credibility.

Metrology is woefully underappreciated, underlearned, and underused.

I'm not saying that his book doesn't have good points, its main point seems close to a point I make with enthusiasm, we seem to be natural allies, introducing the concept of plus or minus can plausibly lead off toward a more nuanced and very important meaning of "364.4 smoots + 1 ear", merely that it doesn't seem to be an RS on some details of Harvard Bridge history.

We have http://www.sizes.com/units/smoot.htm where it says "In subsequent years, pledges were required to repaint marks at 1 smoot intervals on the bridge." This is contradicted by Smoot. I seem to remember only a few 1-smoot painted marks. It also says "the public works agency scored the new sidewalks". This doesn't seem quite right. The contractors, the laborers, the manufacturing plant, maybe, but a bunch of guys sitting in an office? Perhaps a weak source.

Even if "and minus" did arise early on, I don't think it has shown up on the bridge, nor was it actually measured. I believe the measurement was "+ 1 ear" . Smoot says it was, and the details in WP should reflect that.

Some writers have paid way too much attention to the literal meaning of "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".

I realize now that this discussion should probably be attached to Smoot, and, probably, all these details could be confined to that one article.

A bunch of weak, latter-day sources don't amount to much. Walter Nissen 2010-07-10 01:00 01:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Note use of ISO 8601-compliant date format, something WP could benefit from. Smoot was President of ISO! The ANSI reference to Boston is certainly correct if to Greater Boston. Walter Nissen 2010-07-10 01:00 01:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversion is not an option. Where there are apparent contradictions among sources, or differing interpretations, WP policy calls for neutrality, not for choosing sides. We should look for a wording that presents both (or all) possibilities, sources them, and indicates that there is more than one school of thought. Your obvious disdain for the Tavenor notwithstanding, it is a source that cannot simply be rejected. I doubt that we can sort out the contradictions, but fortunately we don't need to do so. Like it or not, WP is admittedly about verifiability, based on reliable sourcing, not about truth.
I hope, before any changes are made, that other editors will weigh in and develop a consensus for the approach to be taken. We might also discuss proposed wording. There are three articles involved. As you imply, Smoot, about the unit, is probably the central place where the details belong, while the other two articles (which link to it) can be more general. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please sign your posts properly by using four tildes or simply clicking on the "signature & timestamp" icon at top of edit window. It will provide links, as well as the other information. Thanks! Hertz1888 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Nissen is getting a bit tied up with this, to the point of having issues with saying that the agency responsible for the bridge didn't score the sidewalk as they clearly did, instead insisting that it was the people who poured the concrete. (rolls eyes) They scored it where they were told to do so, and who do you think did that?
As far as the "± 1 ear", that's standard wording for something like this. I've just checked the books I've got handy, and have not found support. But the books I've got here are either too old (the original completion report from 1892) or do not have any mention of smoots at all, so they're kind of neutral. I'll look further. - Denimadept (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess my question "Is this about citations?" may have been too brief to explain itself to busy people, so I'll break it down.

a ) Is a reader of an article about a famous lawyer/technologist/administrator/standard-of-measure, or the measure, or the bridge, well-served by use of the word "citations"?

Could the phrase "often omitted" find use? How much detail does someone interested in film direction expect to find, in an article on a famous director, about his mother's death in the Holocaust, his survival of the Holocaust, the fracture of his skull in a criminal attack, the murder of his wife by a wacko, etc., etc., Roman Polanski?

b ) Now the potential differences between the various articles may become even more apparent.

There are at least 5 articles, not counting fr.wiki, ru.wiki, etc., etc.

Smoot, Oliver_R._Smoot, Harvard_Bridge, List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement, Hacks_at_the_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology.

What is the article/section about?

Is it about an historic event? A tradition? The present? Some other aspects?

What is "or minus" about? If "or minus" even rises to encyclopedic inclusion, what role does it play/what does it mean/what does it add?

Are multiple topics being conflated?

I suppose most math and physics profs could teach a whole-semester offering on "364.4 smoots + 1 ear", the more provocative and more fun and more historic formulation.

And they should, IMO.

Think fun. Think provocation.

Does "plus or minus" actually weaken the formulation and end up saying much less than "plus" says?

Walter Nissen 2010-07-12 17:06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Nissen (talk • contribs)

Focus. Do not assume people here are complete morons. Remember to sign your posts. Paragraphs, not lines, are terminated with a carriage return.
Now, back to the subject. "±" is more informational than "+". It implies uncertainty. "+ one ear" just adds an ear. Do we have a reference that includes "±" or not? If not, we should remove the text. If we do, the discussion is over. - Denimadept (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any source for "or minus" from before 2007?

Are there any direct quotations of "or minus"?

Can the possibility that "or minus" is mere rogue nonsense be eliminated?

Here's my best-guess chronology :
1958-10-xx measurement recorded as "364.4 smoots + 1 ear"
next day or next minute --- e in ear modified to epsilon
1987-xx-xx Commemorative plaque reaffirms "+ 1"
2007-xx-xx cosmic-ray-like event disturbs peaceful neighborhood
2008-01-01 rogue nonsense inadvertently inserted in WP
2008 -2009 rogue nonsense widely replicated from book and WP

/Note 1/ The cosmic-ray-like event could be a simple misunderstanding of the literal meaning or confusion between the actual measurement and a more nuanced meaning.
Or it could be a well-intentioned attempt by Smoot or Tavern-or to direct attention to one or more important metrological issues.
Or something else.
But even if it is not rogue nonsense, this does not repeal the life experience of countless thousands of people who have walked the bridge or merely heard a recitation of the length of the bridge.
Nor justify the re-writing of history.
Phrases like "length was measured" appear particularly problematic when juxtaposed with "or minus".
"One day"?? Wasn't it night?
"or minus" could be one of the elements of a modest section on some of the meanings of "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".
Or a sentence suggesting provocations of "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".

/Note 2/ The great multiplicity of the 2008 replication was perhaps strongly driven by publicity for Tavern-or's book and/or the 50th anniversary celebration.

/Note 3/ The replication of a weak source probably doesn't produce a better source.
So there may well be only 0 or 1 currently available source for "or minus".
Walter Nissen 2010-07-13 01:19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Nissen (talk • contribs)

Focus. Do not assume people here are complete morons. Remember to sign your posts. Paragraphs, not lines, are terminated with a carriage return.
Mr. Nissen: Please stop overloading this page and your interlocutors with endless speculation and/or original research. There is no need to invent outlandish theories when a mundane—and sourced—interpretation will suffice. Measurement uncertainty is expressed by "±", and MIT undergraduates, especially, would have been aware of that and used it. Tavenor confirms it.
Please take note: Wiki policy calls for a collaborative approach to editing. Continuing to ignore requests for signing and formatting according to the normal etiquette can be seen as intentionally disruptive. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, finally had a chance to read the Preface of Tavernor's "Smoot's Ear".
It does not support the current language in Oliver_R._Smoot, which is only there because my correction was reverted.
Nor the current language in Smoot, Harvard_Bridge, List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement, nor Hacks_at_the_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology.
My suspicion has grown much stronger that this has to do with an entanglement of the literal meaning of "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" with a more nuanced meaning.

The very first sentence of the Preface quotes the 1987 plaque,
http://lambda-chi.mit.edu/smoots/people003.jpg
(not to be confused with the 2008/2009 plaque) saying "... the span of this bridge was measured ... and found to be precisely 364.4 smoots and one ear".
The original italics suggest to me not mere emphasis, but also direction toward the meaningful.
If I could copy-edit the plaque, I'd remove "precisely" and replace "and one" with "+ 1" to conform with the bridge paintings, but still, if a definitive source did exist, the 1987 plaque would be my leading candidate.

Tavernor goes on in the Preface to write "plus or minus" at least 3 times, but he doesn't explicitly say the bridge was measured "plus or minus".
His exact phraseologies are:

 364.4 Smoots ± an Ear

 precisely 364.4 Smoots plus/minus an ear

 364.4±Smoots           )   line break would

 364.4± Smoots          )      support either of these

I think it most likely he or his editors didn't copy, but created, all of these.

Let me bring up the earlier appearance here of the word "disdain".
You'll have to hold the disdain, since I have no disdain for Tavernor, his ideas, his Preface, nor his book.
Quite the contrary.

This is a subject which seems to have bewildered editors and copy editors, with nearly every source exhibiting wrong facts or sloppy writing.
Sources I find reliable on one point seem clearly wrong on another, making the use of cites in related WP articles a very dicey business, indeed.
I now have a list of more than a dozen aspects of the Smoot and its history which have discrepant sources.
"plus or minus" is only one of them.
I regret to say that it appears that up to 4 of the revisionist claims seem to have originated in WP.

Tavernor seems to want to use the word "precisely".
That's a fine idea.
The bridge is said to be precisely 364.4 Smoots plus/minus an Ear.
But this is a nuanced meaning.
While obviously paradoxical, it does have a meaning, and an academic writing a book on metrology can say so, if prepared to meet advocacy from other academics with other definitions, meanings or philosophies.
It's also a resolved form, not as provocative.

The historic form, the provocative form, the unresolved form, is the one I believe has been on the bridge for 40 or 50 or 51+ years, "364.4 smoots + 1 ear", which I also believe, based on the earliest sources, was the actual measurement of the bridge.

Still on the subject of "plus or minus", while Tavernor doesn't say the bridge was measured to be "plus or minus", he does say something which requires extremely careful reading.
He says, in a caption, "Ic Oliver R. Smoot collapsed at the Cambridge end of Harvard Bridge measuring 364.4 Smoots ± an Ear, October 1958."
Locals would immediately recognize from the phraseology that Tavernor isn't a local.
Note that no one ever claimed that Smoot (physically, in the usual meaning) measured the bridge.
Well, to my knowledge.
He was used by others who did so.
So the caption makes sense if the collapse occurred immediately after the measurement, and the "measuring ... ±" has a more abstract meaning.
I can't help but say that it's wrong to interpret it to mean Smoot spat out "plus or minus" as he completed measuring.
It reads like a weak caption that, like a good bit else written about the smoot, could use some copy-editing.

The Publishers Weekly editorial review, available at amazon.com, says '360 "Smoots" plus the length of his ear'.
This, like Tavernor's caption, can be interpreted by a metrologist as true, even as it leaves something out.
This contemporaneous review of the Tavernor book fails to confirm "or minus".

Has anyone found a pre-2007 source for "plus or minus"?
Tavernor's Preface is not one.
Nor is it a source for original measurement of such.

Has anyone found a direct quote from Smoot for "plus or minus"?

Every appearance of "plus or minus" has the potential of catching the attention of a youngster, or an oldster, who may thus learn something important about metrology.
I don't oppose bringing up "plus or minus" in the context of "+ 1 ear".
"Plus or minus" is valid and admirable, but the local history has been focused on something better, "+ 1 ear".
And more fun.

Oliver R. Smoot says: "One day, as he lay ... markings were made at each interval corresponding to his height, five feet and seven inches.[1] The bridge was determined to be 364.4 smoots (plus or minus one ear) in length. The qualifier "plus or minus" was originally intended to express measurement uncertainty,[2] but the words "or minus" have since gone astray in many tellings and retellings."

a ) Some sources echo "One day", but I think it certainly happened at night, and detailed sources say so.
This type of hack doesn't happen during the day up on the bridge.
Not logical.

b ) "was determined" may cover a multitude of sins, but might better be preceded by "Eventually, ".
It's odd to rawly juxtapose a derivation with an historical account.

c ) "originally intended" needs a date and, if supposed to be part of the original measurement, needs a powerful group of citations to overcome the history of "+ 1 ear" on the bridge, the bridge photos, and the oral history.
Such may conceivably be impossible at this remove, because of the imprecision of human memory.

d ) "gone astray" also needs a citation or 4.
But why is it appropriate, especially in an encyclopedia, to mention the difficulty of precise repetition from memory?
Haven't people played Telephone?
Or to mention hypothetically erroneous renderings of anything?

Note also that "length of the bridge" is quite ambiguous, for several reasons, including its reconstructions and whether the road or the east sidewalk or the west sidewalk is measured.
In the "Bridge length measurement" section at Harvard_Bridge is
'"plus one ear". The qualifier "plus or minus"'
which appears to be a typical case of sloppy writing/editing.
There should be a small prize for readers who can find the qualifier "plus or minus".
The "Length discrepancy" section at Harvard_Bridge has a number of problems, one of which I pointed out concerning Smoot in Talk:Smoot, 2007-09-25.

As previously mentioned, it seems the details about the smoot and its history should go in Smoot, and not in the many other articles which should reference it.

Here comes that ISO 8601-compliant date format again, hopefully now within a form that will also again be SineBot-compliant (temporarily again?). Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-16 19:07

Thank you for checking the reference and admitting that it says plus/minus three times. - Denimadept (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't my words. I'm sure your re-write must apply to some topic or section of some article.
Can you say which one or more?
Can you provide a suitable sentence for that article? Thanks. -- Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-17 00:55
No, of course not. They're from the reference we're using. Thanks for verifying them. - Denimadept (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you may be a bit unclear on. See WP:NOR. Analyzing the sources is outside our purview. We use the sources. If you can find conflicting sources, we say as much. No more, no less. When I added the text Harvard Bridge#Length discrepancy, I was trying to reconcile two different measurements. The difference between the actual length of the bridge and the given length-in-Smoots is quite large. More, I think, than "an ear" whether plus or minus can cover. Whether the text is OR or not is debatable. It was worse before people challenged it and I backed it down a bit. - Denimadept (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of that, WP:NOR specifically says we don't use something like Tavernor's caption Ic. Not that "plus or minus" is supportable, anyway. Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-18 21:04
How do you figure? If the reference says something, how is using the reference OR? - Denimadept (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what does the caption say? Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 00:38
What are you talking about? You said the reference said what we say it said, three times. We're in agreement. What are you arguing about, if anything? - Denimadept (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was your re-write of what I said. I said that Tavernor and I say basically the opposite. The part of the caption I didn't quote just above is: "Photo courtesy of O. R. Smoot". The question is: What do you say the caption says that a) conforms to WP:NOR and b) supports the current language? Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 06:30
You said he said ± at least three times. Scroll up and see it. What else is there? - Denimadept (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said Tavernor wrote ±, meaning orthographically, not that he said something that supports the current language. "What there is" is no one has said what in the Preface a) conforms to WP:NOR and b) supports the current language. The Preface is offered as a source, but it actually favors the earlier "+ 1 ear" which my recent edit restored to the article before being reverted. The question is: What does the caption say? Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 08:52

You quoted the caption as He says, in a caption, "Ic Oliver R. Smoot collapsed at the Cambridge end of Harvard Bridge measuring 364.4 Smoots ± an Ear, October 1958." - Denimadept (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the interesting (for now) part of the caption. And your point is? Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 17:31
You're the one that brought it up. Make your point, if you must, but stop with the silly guessing games (and that's putting it politely). It's time for this very, very serious discussion about a whimsical ear to come to a conclusion once and for all. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already made my point. Nothing from Tavernor's Preface seems to a) conform to WP:NOR and b) deny the chronology known and presented by Tavernor and known by countless thousands of students, faculty, etc., that ± is a formulation derived from "364.4 smoots + 1 ear". No one has said what caption Ic says that meets a) and b). The question is: What does the caption say? Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 18:32
It's us here on WP who must not do Original Research. Tavernor's preface is part of a reference document. We use reference documents to build our articles. If it's in a reputable reference, we can use it as a fact. Are you saying Tavernor is not a reputable reference? - Denimadept (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the caption say? Why don't you tell me. If you're just looking for someone to argue with endlessly, I'm out of here. This discussion has long since passed the point of absurdity. There is no consensus for a change in this or the other articles. Don't count on another reply. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you any such thing. What meets criterion a) doesn't meet b). Apparently no one else has anything to support the current ± language either. Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 20:41


There is another source for Tavernor on his derivation of "plus or minus" and why he chose "Smoot's Ear" for his title:
http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N43/smoot.html
This is an account by Marie Y. Thibault of Tavernor's speech at MIT about his book, with Smoot in attendance.

Both his Preface and his speech have similar structures concerning Smoot's Ear and "plus or minus".
Both appear to be explanations of his choice of title.
Both open with "+ 1 ear".
It's presented by Tavernor as the historical basis, i.e., the historical measurement as shown by the 1987 plaque, and the decades of paint on the bridge.
Both derive "plus or minus" from "+ 1 ear".
Neither states that the historical measurement was "plus or minus".
Thibault gives a direct quote from Tavernor 'The significance of Smoot’s Ear is that is stands for an approximation, a “plus or minus”'.
"Smoot's Ear" is a component of the historical measurement, "+ 1 ear".
"stands for" is clearly not an historical recounting, but a reference to Tavernor's interpretation.
He's distinguishing the earlier "Ear" from his contribution, "plus or minus".

If "plus or minus" were already part of the historical record, it wouldn't be necessary or desirable to begin with "+ 1 ear".

"Plus or minus" was not part of the historical record, it was introduced (for purposes of this discussion) by Tavernor as his interpretation, not part of the historical record.
Tavernor's account in the Thibault article is clearer on some of these points than the Preface, but both seem to achieve the same basic end, explaining how the "ear" in "+ 1 ear" from the measurement on the bridge leads to the ideas in the book, beginning with "plus or minus", i.e., uncertainty.

Tavernor isn't trying to say that his treatment was on the bridge, nor measured on the bridge, quite the contrary, that he took this human measurement, with a component obviously intended to provoke, inter alia, the notion of uncertainty, and related it to the whole history of measurement and made a book of it.

It doesn't matter how many times Tavernor says the bridge measures 364.4 Smoots plus/minus an Ear.
He could say it 300 times.
He might even say the length of the bridge is 360 Smoots plus or minus an ear.
That has its own truth.
These are only a couple of simple derivative forms out of a host of possible derivative forms.
From what are they derived?
Tavernor tells us.
He begins his Preface and book and speech on this subject with the historical measurement, 364.4 smoots + 1 ear.

Tavernor's first reference citation within his book, for the Preface, which certainly seems to be the one he considers most important, is to what he calls a corroborating interview :
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5043041
That's the one I quoted earlier :
[ 2005-12-07 ]
"Now how long is the Harvard Bridge if it's measured in smoots?"
Mr. SMOOT [himself]:
"Three hundred and sixty-four point four, plus one ear."
It'd be pretty incongruous to argue that he found "plus or minus" there.
Also, he repeatedly cites WP, which at the time, didn't have "plus or minus".
Contrary to my initial thoughts when his Preface was being put forward to re-write history, that he was not well situated to know about this, he does make it clear that he carefully checked into the bridge.
He is a distinguished scholar and an architect who happens to be in a Dept. of Sociology, who wrote a book that seems to be a good read.

Tavernor's Preface was cited on the morning of New Year's Day, 2008, as support for the edit of Smoot to add ±, but the Preface actually refutes the edit by its reference to + 1 ear.
± didn't arise on the bridge; it showed up in Tavernor's Preface.
Tavernor quotes the 1987 plaque to that effect.

If no one can say what from Tavernor's Preface seems to a) conform to WP:NOR and b) support the current language of the 5 articles, then, yes, this would be an excellent time to revert to something only a minor copy-edit different than the language which was both historically accurate and present in Smoot on the early morning of New Year's Day, 2008:
'and the bridge's length was measured to be "364.4 smoots + 1 ear"'.
Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-19 20:41


Caption Ic:
Ic Oliver R. Smoot collapsed at the Cambridge end of Harvard Bridge measuring 364.4 Smoots ± an Ear, October 1958. Photograph courtesy of O. R. Smoot.

3 of the serious problems with this caption, if any sense can be made of it as it stands, are conveniently mentioned in this single sentence from WP:NOR:
Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.
Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-20 02:15

I think I've managed to figure out what you're saying, in your long winded and hard to read way. You may have a point, not that I'm committing to anything. Let me ask you something. Given that the original measurement in smoots is about 40 meters short of the actual length of the bridge, is this that important? Is 1 ear == 40 meters?
Hertz1888, if Mr. Nissen's right and the only problem we've got is how he's communicating, does it behoove us to accept what he's saying? I'm thinking he may be correct. If Smoot himself doesn't say ± and nothing on the bridge nor on any plaque has said ±, then perhaps we should remove that assertion. - Denimadept (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't remove it entirely without, in effect, declaring Tavernor (& other sources) unreliable. Cherry-picking sources is, I think, rightfully suspect, and frowned upon.
In my opinion, there's been too much analysis, leading away from what should be the primary goal and focus. Our obligation is to report that the sources offer differing views or lend themselves to conflicting interpretations, and to represent them, without undue weight. As I commented previously (0316 UTC, 10 July), "Where there are apparent contradictions among sources, or differing interpretations, WP policy calls for neutrality, not for choosing sides. We should look for a wording that presents both (or all) possibilities, sources them, and indicates that there is more than one school of thought." It's not a simple matter to sort out the contradictions, and we're not obligated to do so. I see three or four sources besides the Tavernor that use +/- (in symbol or in words), one of which (Kostulas, ref. 3 at Smoot), in fact, embodies both accounts of the original measurement. However, as Mr. N. has amply pointed out, there are numerous sources on the "other side". The "plus or minus" version meets a commonsense test, because it represents uncertainty in the conventional way, and the "plus" version doesn't, but there could be other factors in play. I think the only proper thing to do is construct one good, well-sourced paragraph about the two main possibilities, to go in the Smoot article. Cursory versions (or just linking) can then go in the other articles. A proposed text on this page or a sandbox page would give everybody the opportunity to tweak it before publication. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the Kostulas article (written in 1999!) clearly states that the addendum was "originally '± 1 ear'", and (without specifying how), "This brought about the '+ 1 ear' addendum" (presumably in the markings and signage, perhaps even in Mr. Smoot's recollection). Which accords with what some of us have been saying all along. However, if there is substantial divergence of views in the sources, as there seems to be, we are safest just reporting on them, as described above. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See p. 3 of [1], which I found from the "smoot day" ref #4. Hm. Yes, let's build a way to say this. - Denimadept (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about that. Is that the plaque that was promptly stolen? Has it been replaced? Should one of us go check?
Per the undue weight policy, all views do not get equal time (and fringe views need not get any). This official MIT wording shifts the balance to some extent.
Mr. Denim, would you care to initiate the new edit? I have obligations that will severely limit my time on WP for the next several days. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should go find the plaque, assuming that I missed it in 2009, which I doubt. If it's supposed to be at the Cambridge-end of the bridge, I did see a blank space, so I assume it was stolen. Perhaps I should ask MIT about it.... okay, I called MIT. They say the plaque is on the Cambridge side of the bridge, sorta on the right, not on the bridge itself. I don't recall seeing this. The lady who answered the phone, when I told her what was up, said "plus 1", but I told her what we're finding, and now she's not sure. Someone, perhaps me, should to go and look for this plaque, just for the heck of it. I don't think we can post an image of the plaque due to copyright issues. I'm not sure what this will solve, since we already have an image of the plaque at the link I posted above from the article, and we still have multiple sources which say different things. Maybe we should ask Oliver Smoot and declare his answer to be definitive, whatever it is. I think that would not be OR but rather finding a reference. Ah, here's an image of the plaque and a story for it, which has apparently only placed last month, so I didn't miss it 'cause it wasn't there yet. I'd rather not bother Dr. Smoot himself. - Denimadept (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've used that new reference to update Smoot. I think the wording there is appropriate for covering the issues raised by Mr. Nissen. I did get the date wrong, as it appears the plaque was placed in June 2009, not last month. Mr. Nissen, are you satisfied? - Denimadept (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should focus on extracting from the best parts of sources instead of repeatedly seizing upon the worst.

Like Hertz1888,
"We can't remove it entirely without, in effect, declaring Tavernor (& other sources) unreliable", I lament the poor quality control in the sources I've seen.
I can't recall even one which seems error-free, maybe the NPR interview.
One might think the plaques reliable, but I don't, only partly.
The smoot arose from a clandestine prank, not the sort of activity likely to be carefully and publicly documented.
There may be no definitive history.

If there are photos of "+ 1 ear", then we should use that.
If the MIT art collection or other local collections hold artifacts showing "+ 1 ear", then we should use that.
How 'bout this? If 2 or more plaques agree on something, then we should use that. 8->
Spelling of Smoot: S-m-o-o-t 8->

Without, say, an official Lambda-Chi history, I think we have no choice but to cherry-pick the sources.

How 'bout a "+ 1 ear" from the pre-Jayson Blair NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/weekinreview/it-s-as-big-as-the-period-at-the-end-of-this-sentence.html

"official MIT wording" is not persuasive.
Lambda Chi is not a subsidiary or division of MIT.
"Official Lambda-Chi wording" would be much more persuasive.

A better image of the 2008-2009 plaque is:
http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N27/graphics/smoot-2.html

I think it's awkward in the middle of a sentence to explain that ± expresses uncertainty.

Possibly the best quick reference for images of the "+ 1 ear" legend on the bridge is:
http://www.google.com/images?q=%2B%22smoots%22+%2B%22ear%22
I would guess there are at least hundreds of these, many in editorial morgues.
I could be wrong that "or minus" has never appeared on the bridge deck, but I've never seen an image of "or minus" on the bridge deck.

Here's an update to my best-guess chronology :
1958-10-xx measurement recorded as "364.4 smoots + 1 ear"
next day - e in ear modified to epsilon
1958 -2009 "+ 1 ear" is relentlesly painted on bridge
1958 -2009 "+ 1 ear" is observed daily by thousands over years
1987-xx-xx Commemorative plaque reaffirms "+ 1"
2007-xx-xx Tavernor publishes book with confusing caption
2007-12-31 "+ 1 ear" still firmly in command
2008-01-01 cosmic-ray-like event disturbs peaceful neighborhood
2008-01-01 --- as "or minus" is inadvertently inserted in WP
2008 -2009 rogue nonsense widely replicated from book and WP
2008 -2009 rogue nonsense copied onto plaque from WP(?)

Tavernor explains that "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear" is a derived expression.

Correct:
The length of the bridge is "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".
The bridge's length is "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".
The bridge was measured to be "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".
The bridge is "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" long.
The bridge is "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" in length.
The bridge is "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear" long.
The bridge is "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear" in length.
Aguably correct, but not suitable for WP:
The bridge is "360 smoots ± 1 ear" long.
The bridge is "360 smoots ± 1 ear" in length.
Wrong, but only by a copy-edit:
The length of the bridge is "364.4 smoots plus one ear".
The length of the bridge is "364.4 smoots plus an ear".
Wrong:
The length of the bridge is "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear".
The bridge was measured to be "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear".
The bridge's length is "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear".
The bridge's length is "364.4 smoots plus or minus an ear".

The thing that is most wrong with the 5 articles is that "plus or minus" is prominently featured and poorly sourced, while the accurate "+ 1 ear" has been totally obliterated.

Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-21 19:34

No, I think we're done here. We've already shown that the article discusses this both ways, and we've provided sources. Good day. - Denimadept (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Denimadept: "Given that the original measurement in smoots is about 40 meters short of the actual length of the bridge, is this that important? Is 1 ear == 40 meters?"

I think there are 3 problems here.
The practical ones are:
a ) The sides (sidewalks?) of the bridge were different lengths.
For some decades, I think the West was longer than the East.
b ) The bridge was reconstructed twice(?).

The third issue is that "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" has multiple levels of meaning and is intended as a provocation.
It's essentially a small work of art.
Thus, it has a life of its own.
It wouldn't matter if the bridge were moved and inserted as the central span of the Tappan Zee Bridge, its length would still be "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".
As Susan Hockfield said, [at least] the smoot and the smoot marks are part of world history.
And I would add, if she didn't cover it, so is "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".

There is some value in its literal meaning, but I'm not sure it would lead to much that would be suitable for WP.
The discrepancy might be the only thing (?).

Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-21 20:19

At the time they measured it, the exit to east-bound Storrow drive was still there, so the two sidewalks were roughly the same length. Since the bridge was rebuilt and that exit ramp was removed, this is no longer true. Still, they didn't measure the whole bridge. Then again, given the original story that they were just trying to measure the bridge from Boston which I read as "from the southern shore of the Charles River", not from the end of the bridge (apparently), maybe it doesn't matter. I'm more bridge-centric, so I'm disappointed that they didn't measure the bridge. The bridge is 2,164.8ft long, or 25,977.6 inches. If we divide that by 67 inches to get it in smoots, you get 387.73 smoots as a length. Feh. I'd've said 387 smoots ± one ear if I wanted to be that way and call 0.73 smoots "an ear", which'd still be a large ear, but less so than 40 meters!. - Denimadept (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat different topic. Note this diff [2]. It's been over a year since we finished the major rewrite! Woot! - Denimadept (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just checked my files. I was out there taking pictures in April 2009. The new plaque was placed in June 2009, which explains why I didn't see it. Oh well. - Denimadept (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


When people start joking around, a lot of wild stuff appears.
It seems "or minus" was introduced into WP on New Year's Day morning of 2008.
In Smoot.
I wouldn't take that seriously, but treat it as a New Year's Eve prank.
But if I took it seriously, the cite is to Tavernor's Preface.
We find there that Tavernor begins his Preface, his book, quoting the 1987 plaque "364.4 smoots + 1 ear", then explaining that "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear" is derived from "364.4 smoots + 1 ear".

The references and links at Smoot do not support the statements in the articles -- specifically they support "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" far above "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear", especially when any degree of originality is involved.

Let's look at the references and links.
These were not cherry-picked by me to support an argument.
They were all inserted by other editors, not by me.

In chronological order, inserting the 1987 plaque, which is quoted at the very beginning of Tavernor's Preface, the references and links from the article, omitting those with (apparently) no info one way or the other:

1987 plaque + 1 ear
1999 Keyser + 1 ear
1999 Kostoulas - section heading + 1 ear
- - ditto - - undated: originally or minus
- - ditto - - only citation refers to + 1 ear
1999? aether - unit of length + 1 ear
2005 NPR interview - Smoot himself + 1 ear
2005 Washington Post + 1 ear
2005 ISO + 1 ear
no date "own words" + 1 ear
no date MIT Museum in text and image + 1 ear
2007 Tavernor's Preface + 1 ear
2007 Tavernor garbled caption or minus
2007 Sizes.com or minus
2008 Smoot Day - Smoot kneels next to + 1 ear
2009 Smoot in Stone or minus

Potentially, Kostoulas' "originally" could be newspaper evidence that, despite Tavernor's narrative/chronology, "or minus" arose earlier than 2007, in Tavernor.
But, it's confusing for a number of reasons.
It's contradicted by or unsupported by virtually every other source, including "+ 1 ear" in his own text and his own citation.
It's not attached to a date or dates.
Hypothetically, for a freshman, originally could mean August.
It's not a direct quote.
And it doesn't place "or minus" on the bridge.
Could it be that it's simply reductionist, like Tavernor, with "originally" actually meaning that "plus or minus" is a principal simplified meaning?

To see the + 1 ear at the MIT Museum link, you need to click on "Trivia" at the bottom of the linked page, and then click on "answer".
It might be better to link to the Trivia page than the Smoot page.

If one newspaper article would have equal weight to the flood of citations of "+ 1 ear", we have
http://tech.mit.edu/V85/PDF/N19.pdf
which, like Kostoulas, offers "+ 1 ear", and then also this alternative:
'Anonymous member of the U.S. Bureau of Standards: "... Many years ago we defined the Smoot to be exactly 7.5069x106 times the wavelength of Charles River marsh-gas (colorful, odorful, nox- ious)."'

Among many earlier articles,
http://tech.mit.edu/V97/PDF/N35.pdf
from 1977, says "Do you know the length of the Harvard Bridge? Most MIT students could tell you right off - 364.4 smoots plus one ear", giving no credence to "or minus".
We also have the 1993 NY Times article and many bridge deck images that support "+ 1 ear".
Not to mention the 20,000 to 40,000 or more people who for years of their lives have daily walked past the smoot marks.
We actually have nothing from before the 2008 edit that places "or minus" on the bridge, and maybe nothing at all.

This isn't a controversy, calling for balancing, it's a prank or a simple editing error, calling for prompt correction.
There are no teeming masses of proponents and opponents out there teaching their children to hate people on the other side.
There is certainly some fuzz because people keep copy-editing "+" to "plus" or "and" and "1" to "one" or "an" or "on"[sic].
Followed by a lot of copying of the glitched definition.

The effect of the 2008 edit is the same as if it were vandalism.
Readers have been and are being given inaccurate info.

In other words, if history were improved by revisionism, if Cotton could be improved by replacing "soft, fluffy staple fiber" with "plant material", and if Chicken could be improved by replacing "a domesticated fowl" with "an animal", then the case for "or minus" might be strong, or at least, tepid.
None of that is so.
No one benefits from smooshing a smoot.
Thus, I'll again be restoring the language to the "+ 1 ear" of the early morning of New Year's Day, 2008.
Meanwhile, I have some other ideas about structure and content I've brought up over in Talk:Smoot.

The available sources support the idea that the "plus or minus" coverage mainly belongs in a Tavernor article or a WP article rather than Smoot.
Roughly, my best guess, an inadvertent misinterpretation of a caption at sizes.com or WP or (?) lead to insertion in WP, and to a flurry of inaccurate repetitions of "or minus"? Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-27 01:00

You call my January 2008 edit citing Tavenor a prank, akin to vandalism. You are violating WP:AGF. You say it needs "correction"—as if you own the only truth, and nothing in all the preceding discussions has made any impression. Refusal to abide by a consensus is disruptive behavior. I believe we (except for you) have a consensus for the present wordings, and that they are properly sourced and balanced. Consider this a warning that if you insist on having your way it may lead to your being blocked. Please don't make that necessary. It would give me no pleasure to see it.
If you refuse to let go of this matter, or want to make a career out of two words about an ear, I suggest you start a blog or write a book, and do whatever it takes to cool down. I have other priorities and will not be responding to the specifics of your latest post. You are overloading this page and your fellow editors, who have (at least until now) been willing to assume good faith on your part, and have given your views a good hearing, and responded. Endlessly bringing up new arguments or rehashing the old ones is not in the spirit of collaborative editing, nor is name-calling. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be ok if you let me speak in my words.
I said the effects are the same.
The effects _are_ the same .

The smoot is all about fun.
Maybe too much seriousness could spoil the article.
The tradition of the smoot started with a prank.
It might be reasonable to expect an occasional prank in Smoot.
I didn't say your edit was a prank, I don't know your thoughts then.
I said my best guess was that it was an inadvertent misinterpretation of a caption at sizes.com or WP.
I don't know why you obliterated the "+ 1 ear", based on one unclear caption against a bunch of sources for "+ 1 ear".

Here's the executive summary of my recent posts:
There are many, many sources for "+ 1 ear" , quite a few of them solid (plus or minus a copyedit 8->.
There are zero solid sources for "or minus".
Those which exist are all seriously flawed with respect to their support for "or minus".
Tavernor derives "or minus" from "+ 1 ear", quoting the 1987 plaque, the 1999 article is unclear about "or minus", but doesn't place "or minus" on the bridge, the ones post-2008-edit may be presumed to have been copied from Smoot.
This justifies reverting back to the 2007 "+ 1 ear".


When looking for consensus, check out this edit summary, presented for an edit removing "or minus":
Revision of Oliver_R._Smoot as of 20:52, 13 July 2009 by 64.81.73.35
(The "one ear" is part of the measurement, not a plus-or-minus estimate of accuracy. See the Wikimedia photo of the sign.)

Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-07-27 15:00

Wales told me Wikipedia almost always gets it right, eventually. I guess this is a test. It is 364.4 Smoots Plus 1 Ear... not plus or minus 1 Ear. I have walked the bridge many times 'shortly' after it's painting in Smoot Marks. I saw it hundreds of times. I even discussed it with Smoot himself abet about 15 years ago. Eeeb (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


How many people have seen "+ 1 ear" on the bridge?
Could it be a million?
Boston says more than 250,000 students attend college in Boston and Cambridge alone.
Over 52 years, it could easily be hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more.
How many have found "+ 1 ear" incorporated into their daily lives?
At least in the tens of thousands. Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-08-02 12:54

Denimadept, earlier you wrote, "As far as the "± 1 ear", that's standard wording for something like this. ".
Hertz1888, earlier you wrote, 'The "plus or minus" version meets a commonsense test, because it represents uncertainty in the conventional way, and the "plus" version doesn't, but there could be other factors in play'.
These claims are correct, but they support "+ 1 ear", not "or minus".
"±" is standard and conventional for uncertainty and "other factors in play" is amply supported by a ) my claim above that "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" is essentially a small work of art with a life of its own and by b ) the quote from Dr. Marcus' below, and c ) numerous other sources.
The more workaday, ordinary, or conventional that "plus or minus" is, the less suitable it is as a replacement for "+ 1 ear".

100% of the bridge images I've seen (and my own recollection) show 364.4 SMOOTS + 1 EAR.
I use "364.4 smoots + 1 ear" to represent that in a more civil way in discussing "or minus".
I use "or minus" to represent the concept that "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear" deserves a prominent place in any of the 5 articles under discussion -- or a closely related concept.
To the contrary, sources seem to support the idea that "364.4 smoots ± 1 ear" should instead be covered in a Tavenor article or in an article about the influence and accuracy of WP or how the edit of the morning of New Year's Day, 2008, failed the trust of a lot of good people.
And I use "+ 1 ear" to represent the language in Smoot, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smoot&oldid=179002737 that was present in the early morning of New Year's Day, 2008, -- and in reference to that language, and elsewhere, I use the accurate "+ 1 ear" to represent the less accurate, unfortunate copyedits which use "plus", "and", "an", "one", and "on"[sic].

Above and below, I use somewhat disparaging language against "or minus".
The meaning of this is very precise -- crafted for this discussion.
This is a very delicate situation.
The sources show clearly that "or minus" is a derivative, degraded form when compared to "+ 1 ear".
OTOH, when Tavenor derives "±" he is fully justified in doing so, just as someone, e.g., needing 3 for the adults and 4 for the children, might be fully justified in reducing "a + b", an elegant expression for addition which might warm the heart of a mathematician, to "3 + 4".
Reductionism has its place, but not in explaining the smoot nor in giving the traditional, historical length of the bridge. Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-08-02 12:54

Something doesn't add up here.
I must be missing something.
I'm having a very hard time understanding how "or minus" was put into any of the 5 articles under discussion.
At the time of the 2008 New Year's Day morning edit , "+ 1 ear" had been in Smoot for 4+ years.
5 editors, including 2 still very active, had inserted "+ 1 ear" into the 5 articles.
Every reference and link at Smoot, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smoot&oldid=181395584 properly read, supported "+ 1 ear" for the measurement.
By what logic does a stray, garbled caption justify not merely adding "or minus", but actually totally obliterating "+ 1 ear"?

By today, at least 3 more editors, for a total of 8 or more, have restored "+ 1 ear" in place of "or minus".
Each correction has been reverted to the unfortunate edit.
Every reference with "or minus" has 1 or more serious flaws relating to RS and NOR.

It seems there are hundreds of readily accessible sources which give "+ 1 ear".
An easy way to find some of them in quantity is to google:
+"smoots" +"ear" 2007 -tavernor
or
+"smoots" +"ear" 2006
or any other year prior to 2007.
Some are pristinely clear about how the history of the smoot has become a traditional cultural phenomenon encompassing tens of thousands of people, e.g.:
http://tech.mit.edu/V97/PDF/N35.pdf
from 1977, says "Do you know the length of the Harvard Bridge? Most MIT students could tell you right off - 364.4 smoots plus one ear".
Dr. Gail Marcus, a nuclear engineer and high government official, writes, from 1993:
http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/silvergirl/MITHomecoming.htm
"364.4 Smoots and one ear. Never forget the ear. The ear says it all. Imagination, humor, an engineer's precision overlaid on an imprecise world. If not for the ear, the paint would have faded long ago. But they thought of the ear. And now, here it is, our own unit" ... .

How can claimed consensus ignore those 8 editors?
The tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands for whom "+ 1 ear" became, for years at a time, a part of daily life?
The LambdaChi history?
The 1987 plaque?
The NYTimes article from 1993?
Smoot himself in the 2005 NPR interview?
Smoot kneeling next to "+ 1 ear", in 2008?
The many other 100% of bridge deck images which show "+ 1 ear".
The vivid, "better than HD", living color of "+ 1 ear" in contrast to the snowy, black&white of "or minus"?
What am I missing here?
Walter Nissen (talk) 2010-08-02 12:54

You've missed the fact that you're monologuing. - Denimadept (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical?!?[edit]

This is supposed to be a biographical article, but instead it mostly seems to cover what's already covered more completely in Smoot. Where can we get source data to refocus this article? - Denimadept (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modified. Most bios seem to have birth, early life, and so forth. Where is that? There's also a bio infobox. Where's a picture of Mr. Smoot? Where was he born? When? What else has he done? Is he married? Where does he live? Does he have hobbies? Maybe he goes around with a piece of string measuring things in 5'7" units. What else is there about him other than the smoot unit and his ANSI career? - Denimadept (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is dead; the second is behind a paywall. The third one's OK, though.Mr. Protocol —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oliver R. Smoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin?[edit]

The Smoot article gives- with no citation- "He is the cousin of Nobel Prize in Physics winner George Smoot"; George Smoot's own article also (in a rather poorly-implemented, shoehorned-in manner) gives "(It is Smoot's cousin, Oliver R. Smoot, who was the MIT student who was used as the unit of measure known as the smoot.)" Are there any sources supporting this? This source- http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/04/at_mit_future_nobelist_not_above_a_prank_or_two/ (the original source mentioned evidently https://aether.lbl.gov/www/personnel/smoot/smoot-measure.html)- states "distant relative", so probably that, at most, ought to be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.192.96 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why is the fact that he graduated MIT in the first few words[edit]

It seems to me that the unit of measure and his time spent at the ANSI and ISO are the actual notable things about him - the school from which he graduated probably belongs in the biography section rather than the summary ~Jade Z 216.80.1.156 (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added infobox[edit]

I added an infobox with picture to the article. Neutron jf (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating size of present day Smoot[edit]

If the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units is not a reference to the 2016-04-01 recalibration of the Smoot, I would be shocked. But one important thing about that article is that it says the current size of Oliver R. Smoot has decreased to 1.67 meters. I propose that the height on the infobox be updated, and include that Mr. Smoot now is 0.9813139 Smoots tall. In fact, I'm making the update now. If someone can prove that he has not decreased in height and the article was a complete fabrication instead of just a partial fabrication, I welcome a revert. --TIB (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oliver_R._Smoot&oldid=1205339063"