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 there is another source for tavernor on his derivation of plus or minus and why he chose smoot's ear for his title 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 ear it's presented by tavernor as the historical basis i e the historical measurement as shown by the plaque and the decades of paint on the bridge both derive plus or minus from 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 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 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 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 smoots plus minus an ear he could say it times he might even say the length of the bridge is 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 smoots 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 that's the one i quoted earlier 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 as support for the edit of smoot to add but the preface actually refutes the edit by its reference to ear didn't arise on the bridge it showed up in tavernor's preface tavernor quotes the 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 articles then yes this would be an excellent time to revert to something only a minor copy edit different than the language which