Talk:Richard Smalley

Untitled

I added what was perhaps Dr. Smalley's most charming award, which was Rice University Homecoming Queen. He listed it on his official CV [1] directly below the Nobel Prize. The undergrads apparently have a tradition of voting in an implausible homecoming queen each year, and Dr. Smalley received the title in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.110.175 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 October 2005

Conversion to Christianity

Evolution is a controversial topic so please source statements from websites that are not actively promoting a particular veiw on the subject. M stone 06:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Richardsmalley.jpg

Image:Richardsmalley.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia

As far as I know, it is impossible to develop CLL from NHL. Perhaps this statement is designed to suggest that Dr. Smalley was diagnosed with small lymphocytic lymphoma, a diagnosis which was then changed to chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Most researchers and medical experts view these as not independent diseases, but the same disease. The presentation of disease at the beginning of the cancer can be different. For example, an enlarged lymph node with normal blood values might lead to a diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). More frequently, an incidental finding of abnormal white blood counts in the absence of abnormal lymph node size might lead to a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Most clinicians and researchers believe that these are the same disease, with different presentation. They are treated the same, the disease course runs in a similar fashion, the genetics seem to be identical, cell markers are the same, and survival rates are the same. In both diseases, one of the cell markers which must be present to distiguish from other blood cancers is CD23. See http://www.lymphoma.org/site/pp.asp?c=chKOI6PEImE&b=4127899 and http://cll.acor.org/pp%20-%20NHL%20&%20CLL.htm among other sources.

I suggest this statement to read that he was diagnosed with CLL/SLL or just CLL.

CLL is considered to be one of the non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The diseases tend to converge as it progresses, so that almost all patients exhibit the disease in both the bone marrow, the blood, and in the lymphatic system.169.3.228.61 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Addressed, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

second name

I was reading a book written by old fellows and them write his second name as Everett, so I change it. The book is "Introduction to nanoscience," Edited by Taylor and Francis Group, and wrote by Gabor L. Hornyak, Joudeep Duta, Hary F. Tibbals and Anil K. Rao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.225.24 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Errett is correct. It was his maternal grandfather's first name. See his Autobiography prepared for the Nobel people. Rmhermen (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Untitled 2

The code for the side panel with his birth date/death date/occupation etc is broken and I don't know how to fix it.  :'( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falijah (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Creationism Section

The second paragraph begins with: Following his death, Reasons To Believe, the publishers of the Old Earth creationism book "Who Was Adam", issued a news release that said: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading ‘Origins of Life’, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, ‘Who Was Adam?’, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.”[7] I read this several times trying to figure out who the heck "reasons to believe" is and how they are connected to Smalley and why they are so important in his life as to deserve mention is this article about the Nobel Prize winner. Could someone please add some language to indicate how Smalley was connected to this group? 110.164.140.69 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Creationism section?

@Anmccaff: @Elementalhelium: Why do you guys think that the creationism section should be removed?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

For the reasons mentioned in the section above, and in the edit notes. First, it's undue prominence in the article, even if it is correct. More important, though, this is a poor cite: it claims someone said something (that happens to line up completely with the writer's own beliefs) after they are dead and can no longer correct or nuance it. It is mostly an expansion on the supposed implications of the statement, from a particular POV. In short, I say it's WP:Coatracking, and I say the hell with it. 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a very small section of the article wt bedt, I'm not really sure you can claim coatracking here .--Prisencolin (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not for the article as a whole, but certainly for the section. The references give no indication whatsoever that Smalley say himself as -any- form of "creationist", just that he believed in an occasionally interventionist, personal, God: that he saw us as somehow entwined with His purposes. Anmccaff (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

[[od}}"God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago". It literally cannot get explicit than that. I wonder what you think the word creationist means? Rmhermen (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As I believe I have mentioned explicitly above, or in the comments to edits, "old earth creationist" is mostly an exonym, used by "creation science" devotees to claim outsiders as fellow adherents. Very, very few people use it about themselves. I see no proof here that Smalley did. Anmccaff (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Addressed the questionably sourced quotation by removing it. I can find no original sources in support. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Reversion without discussion

We appear to have some reversions without discussion, ironically by someone who began them with:

  (revert - use the talk page, not edit warring to resolve this please)

So, use the talk page. The cite which was just re-introduced does not support that Smalley was, or thought of himself as, an Old Earth Creationist, a term which is largely an exonym, used to claim outsiders's support without their participation. It is such a fluid term that it can, conceivably, include any high-church or mainline Xtian. It is, frankly, mostly creationist glurge. Anmccaff (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, another reversion without discussion. There is nothing in any of Smalley's words or writing that suggest he saw himself as -any- sort of creationist; the fact that fundies have read into his words after his death reflects their beliefs, not necessarily his. There is no reason to search for "better" cites of a position that does not belong in the article at all, or that belongs as an example of posthumous recruiting. Anmccaff (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Bed wetters?

It's a very small section of the article wt bedt, I'm not really sure you xan claim 

was ammended to:

It's a very small section of the article wt bedt, I'm not really sure you can claim 

Personally, I think the xan was the most transparent of the typos; could you fix the others? Anmccaff (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

@130.65.109.103:, thanks. A lot of good editing, and stuff that accurately emphasizes that Smalley's ideas were mainstream Mainline and High Church, stuff that Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Catholics can all agree on, not just the far reaches of Fundamentalism. That said, I dunno that he was so much actively skeptical, as the word is often used now. Either way, the article is no longer a [[WP:Coatrack}} for creationism, and that is big progress. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Supersonic bare metal cluster beams?

The Publications section currently lists two articles, on "Supersonic bare metal cluster beams", which aren't his main work, and aren't related to anything currently discussed in the article. If someone has an idea of what these are about, could they discuss them in the section on his research? I'm inclined to remove the section unless it can be improved. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible misquotation from Tuskegee

The Tuskegee article, which seems to be cited most frequently as a relevant source in Wikipedia and elsewhere for Smalley's talk at Tuskegee, gives the following summary of Smalley's comments:

Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible's "Genesis." The burden of proof, he said, is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. ... "

Note that the passage prior to "Genesis' was right" is NOT given in quotes (other parts of the article are) in the Tuskegee article. It is attributed to Smalley as a direct quote in the current Wikipedia article. It's possible that he did say exactly this -- but the cited source doesn't give it that way so I'm going to quote only the parts that are explicitly identified as quotations in the source: Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Smalley.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)