Talk:George Smoot

public domain photo?
George's photo on this page http://aether.lbl.gov/www/personnel/Smoot-bio.html is published on the server of a US government institution. Does that make it public domain? My guess is yes, but i'd rather hear more opinions. The photo is here. Boud 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. LBL is managed under contract with the Federal government, but LBL employees are not Federal employees, so the federal government copyright exemption does not apply to them.  This should be kept in mind both for the image and for the text of the biography (which should not be copied verbatim).  Dragons flight 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the Smoot of the Harvard Bridge
Note that he is not the MIT alumnus that is the Smoot used to measure the Harvard Bridge. Don't let that possible misperception into the article. GRBerry 12:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wondered about that. Thanks for saving me the hassle of researching it.
 * Septegram 18:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know which Smoot was used to measure the Harvard Bridge? I wondered the same thing.
 * See either the Smoot article or the external link at the end of the first edit to this section. GRBerry 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oliver Smoot, I believeFZ 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Oliver Smoot article says that they are cousins. There is a citation to an NPR interview from a 6 October call-in show with George Smoot on as a guest.  Here is the link, I checked it out.  8 minutes into the broadcast George says Oliver is his cousin.  I am not adding it to this article, as it is not the reason George is notable (although he did say in the interview that from time to time he has to deny he is the Smoot the unit references).  Notary137 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a precautionary 'don't delete this section'. It's exactly what I was trying to find out by coming to this page.


 * This section should remain, but it should be modified to only state George Smoot is the cousin of [the other] Smoot with a cross-link. There is too much information about another person who is not the target of this article. Jocago 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Year of PhD
Another editor changed the year of his PhD from 1970 to 1971, citing http://alum.mit.edu/. As an MIT alum, I can go there and validate that. But non-MIT alums can't. As we preference verifiability over truth, I've restored it to 1971, citing a MIT Press release from early this morning, which matches the biography at the  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. As we preference verifiability over truth, I think that the 1970 date should stay until we find verifiable sources that anyone can use. But I expect the MIT alum site to be more accurate. GRBerry 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation
I translated most of the Biography section from the French article, so please copyedit in case I made any mistakes. - SpLoT 03:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I see one of my wiki article translated elsewhere. Thanks. Alain Riazuelo 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was a nice article anyways. Except for my rather awkward translation. - SpLoT 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually most of the material was borrowed from English bios I found on some LBL or NASA website (I put them in the references section). So it's probably better if you directly go to those sources rather than translating my own translation, especially when dealing with technical terms (last scattering surface and not surface of last diffusion, for example). Alain Riazuelo 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this at that moment. But still, nice french article. - SpLoT 03:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Better picture?
C'mon folk, there's gotta be a better picture of this guy. At the very least crop out the booze. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible, feel free to look. I think free > fair use though. --Falcorian (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I went back through my pictures, and I found only one with Smoot in it. It might be perferable (although it's a little out of focus). Please feel free to recrop it and whatnot (I can even post the larger version I took it out of if someone would like to try). --Falcorian (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the booze has got to go. Would you see anything like this in a physial encyclopedia??? ask123 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my picture, so I'm biased... but can someone please explain what's inherently bad about Dr. Smoot pouring himself a glass of champagne in celebration of winning the Nobel Prize?  I kind of feel that the picture being from that historical moment adds a certain amount. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this in stronger terms, since I will already be calling down the wrath of one of Aspergpeida's editors. What the eff is wrong with strong drink, you douche? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.101 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Why in the world would it be an issue that he's pouring Champagne? That's what I'd be doing if I'd just won a Nobel prize.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious
Is any information about him religious beliefs to put in infobox?--Vojvodaeist 09:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never heard him say, and I don't see any sources after a quick google search. --Falcorian (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did refer to the seeds for future galaxy superclusters as "fingerprints from the Maker" and also said the creation of the universe was "finely orchestrated". He was recently asked if he was religious and he responded by saying: "I try not to answer that question and the reason is there are a lot of people so desperate to believe but they don't want to figure it out for themselves and they want an authority to tell them the correct answer. I think that is not right. It's a personal relationship people should have with God." Hard to say if he's religious or not, but he certainly seems like some sort of theist. 208.96.110.56 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just finished reading Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" book on his work on COBE, and yes, he does appear open and sympathetic towards spiritual ideas on creation, and to philosophy in general, even though he does not push any particular denomination or specific theological viewpoint. He specifically notes that he does not agree with ideas that the universe has no meaning and is just an accident. At one point he even says he thinks that, in the future, scientists will consult with philosophers and theologians in a manner analogous to how they consult lawyers and other professionals now. He also compares the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang on with the development of an embryo being built from its genetic code. He uses this analogy several times, and it suggests that he believes that in a teleological viewpoint of the universe's development, that is, that it has some end purpose that was designed into it from the very beginning. Dawkins, or even Hawking, would probably disagree with the general mood of his thoughts, as vague as they are. But it was refreshing to see a first-rate scientist espouse a less authoritarian and nihilistic view of the universe than a lot of the rather arrogant stuff that is being promulgated by some scientists today. Myles325a (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Smoot said in an interview that he was raised a Protestant and "is very comfortable with that." Also, his interview on closertotruth.com is pretty telling. Certainly seems like not only a theist, but a spiritual person as well. 99.240.233.185 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)devo

Other Activities and Accomplishments
George Smoot participated in the the Fox game show "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader" on September 18, 2009 and was the first man to successfully win $1,000,000 on this show by guessing the correct location of of Acacia National Park.


 * And that's in the article now. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

5th Grader
I'm sure glad that this is the one of the only people in the world smarter than a 5th Grader... Otherwise the LHC would be run by elementary school kids haha. 72.220.125.54 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

what he won Nobel for
The article doesn't say what he won the Nobel prize for.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ✅ — "He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer with John C. Mather that led to the "discovery of the black body form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

explanation of POVO acronym and Smoot's interest in it
Dr. Smoot's photo is subtitled "George Smoot at Ithaka Science Center's POVO conference 'Talent development in Science and Technology’ in Venlo, the netherlands." It would be useful to (a) spell out the POVO acronym and (b) add links to the conference during which the photo was taken. The Ithaka Science Center archive page suggests it was a conference in 2009 and that Smoot is interested in the subject (he was to be the key note speaker). The page says "It is our pleasure to announce the POVO-Science & Technology conference: 'Scientific Talent Development', on June 18, 2009. We are honored and pleased to have Prof Dr. George Smoot, Nobel Laureate -Physics in 2006, as the conference key note speaker." (The page has a no-cache tag, so can't be webcite'd.) I don't speak or read Dutch, but using Google translate I think POVO is an acronym for "primair onderwijs ... voortgezet onderwijs". I haven't found a page that identifies the acronym and the Dutch phrase explicitly, and explains what the Dutch mean by POVO and how broad the activity is, but it seems to be essentially an effort to improve students' transitions from primary to secondary school. For instance, see POVO-013 that says "POVO-013 is a collaboration between primary education (PO) and secondary education (VO) in the Tilburg region." Could someone who knows Dutch and/or knows the POVO subject matter, add material about POVO and Smoot's activity and/or interest in it? Thanks. Updated. Inkwzitv (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on George Smoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090922222702/http://www.hulu.com:80/watch/96145/are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-episode-27 to http://www.hulu.com/watch/96145/are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-episode-27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, discuss here the changes to be made
Before removing pieces of information pertaining Smoot's scientific activity judging arbitrarily them as trivial, please discuss your points here. Please, do not be destructive. Act in a constructive way. Thank you. Best regards. Redwheel (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:BOLD it is up to you to justify your addition. I have re-reverted, please do not add this again without first obtaining consensus here. As for the board membership itself, while I understand that an obscure journal like Universe wants to tout the fact that a Nobel Prize winner is on their editorial board, this fact does not have the same importance for that Nobelist. Neither on his faculty page nor on his lab page nor in his detailed CV does Smoot himself even mention this board membership. Hence, mentioning Universe here is just an attempt to make the journal seem more important than it is. --Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On which basis do you argue that 'Universe' is an 'obscure' journal? Have you the competences to say that? Is the importance of a fact pertaining an individual estabilished by what the individual himself would allegedly think about the fact, or by its impact on the rest of the community? Let us suppose, say, that somebody with an article in Wikipedia kills somebody else: he would certainly not like that this fact is reported in her/his article, but this would certainly not be a reason to exclude it. Furthermore, on which basis do you argue that Smoot does not deem as important his membership in 'Universe' only because this fact is not reported in his CVs? It is a mere speculation of yours. Have you checked the date of the last modifications of his pages, curriculm, etc.?  Your censoring smells strongly as an ad-hoc action to support your unjustified desire to have 'Universe' article cancelled. Redwheel (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please humor me and read WP:AGF? Thanks! You are right, I have no evidence that Smoot does not consider being on the board trivial. The problem is, there is no evidence of the opposite either and that is what we need to include this here. As for Universe being obscure: if there are no sources on a journal except its own website, it has not been included in any selective databases, is published by a minor publisher, has been in existence for only a very short time, then, yes, I think it is justified to call a journal "obscure". Of course, I cannot exclude that Universe will become the hottest journal in physics ever (I dropped my crystal ball yesterday), but at this point, we just don't have any evidence for that. So while it may be a boon for the marketing of such a journal to add a Nobelist to its board, it is far from a scoop for the Nobelist to be on that board. And please, once more, please stop casting aspersions on my motives. I am not accusing you of unduly trying to promote this journal either, so why not calmly provide your arguments so that we can address this issue as scientists: rationally, instead of emotionally. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Likely, you are not a scientist at all: certainly, you are not a scientist working the field covered by 'Universe' able to jusdge on the topics you are speaking about. You deliberately ignore every single piece of information which do not fit your unjustified judgement. Your only weapon, behind which you hide, is OTHERCRAPEXIST or something like this, which you use a rod to stop immediately any rational discussion. I am not even sure you really know the Wikipedia rules on academic journal's notability: I've read them, and I can see that they leave room for cases like this. Indeed, you deliberately ignore that NASA ADS indexed it (oh, but NASA ADS does not release a commercial Impact Factor...How can it be judged as selective?...), that it returns reads, downloads and citations to Universes published articles. Do you want a Herald Tribune article? Or by new York Times? You deliberately ignore the Altmetric's buzz on 'Universe' s article (and those by Smoot in particular). You have no competences to judge if the coverage by Emerging Citation Index is selective or not, not to say about the other databases. The fact that the publisher is minor or not (and also in this case, you have not competences to say that) does not count anything: only the journal matters (incidentally, Wikipedia has articles on other journals by MDPI). The only thing you understand is the Impact Factor so that if the worst journal in the world has an Impact Factor, then it deserves an article in Wikipedia. Plain and simply. You are so incompetent and ignorant of very basic facts that you are not even able to realize that what it matters in a journal is its Editorial Board and what it publishes: you do not even know who the members of the board are. You are not even able to realize that if a Nobel Laureate decide to join the board of a journal (and to publish in it twice) after some months of life of the journal, well it is an obvious (not for you, clear..) sign by itself of notability (but, perhaps, before joining, Smoot should have consulted some Wikipedia's rule on notability, of course, it is clear....Ah,ah, ah, ah!). Oh, yes, clearly, you now will say that OTHERCRAPEXIST, sure...Your only criterion of a rational, not emotional discussion is OTHERCRAPEXIST-if-you-do-not-like-'Physics Essays'-ask-for-a-deletion-of-it. All the articles on academic journals existing in Wikipedia look like mine, relying upon the same kind of information I provided for 'Universe': oh, yes, certainly OTHERCRAPEXIST: this is the only thing you are able to repeat. You are by no means able to conduct such a discussion in good faith. Please, go away and focus on a topic you are really able to follow in a competent way without appearing as ridicolous as you are now. Best regards Redwheel (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, another little question; I forgot it, sorry...Why did you not (yet?) censored the membership of Universe of other scientists like Gron, Alexander, Odintsov, Zhang? I see that you censored it only in the Smoot's page; why? Please, go to the pages of Gron, Alexander, Odintsov, Zhang and remove immediately that they are in the board! Ah, ah, ah, ah!! Redwheel (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a powerful Admin like you, who can decide the life and the death of whatever you want here; why do not you go to Physics Essays and ask for a deletion of such a rubbish journal? It seems that your severe remarks on 'Universe' apply even to it (oh, wait a moment...No! There is SCOPUS coverage...it is clear that it is notable..Ah, ah, ah) You are in good faith, right? Ah, ah, ah, ah!! Ooops..sorry...I forgot OTHERCRAPEXIST....Redwheel (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to this ranting. I have politely asked you to discuss the issues rationally and refrain from personal attacks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you rushing to cancel the Universe membership in the articles by Gron, etc.? Ah, ah, ah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwheel (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your useful and constructive edits at the page of the other members of the editorial board of 'Universe'. By the way, I think that if it is allowed to have their membership to 'Universe' listed in their articles, the same should occur for Smoot as well. Best regards.Redwheel (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you allow that Universe's editorial membership is in the articles of Gron, Odintsov, Alexander, etc., then you must do the same for Smoot as well. Redwheel (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1/ As the journal has been judged non-notable by the community, we should perhaps remove its mention from those articles, too. 2/ I gingerly suggest that those scientists are not of the same caliber as Smoot. So being on the board of a journal, even a non-notable one, may be slightly less trivial for them than it is for Smoot. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815040431/http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.html to http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)