Talk:Frances Hugle/Archive 1

Request for Wikipedia Assistance
To prevent an "edit war", intervention by a Wikipedia volunteer is required. The following issues need to be resolved: 1. Removal of information about children and grandchildren. Not relevant to the post and violates privacy of living persons. 2. Removal of unverifiable claims such as why the Hugles transferred to Westinghouse and alleged testing at Baldwin. 3. Discussion of individual items of contention (e.g. spelling of "Broady", resume accuracy and number of patents -- there were 18) without hostility and based on actual evidence. Lhugle (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As you know, John Jordan and I worked together for a few years in the eighties. The story of how he met and decided to hire our parents was one he enjoyed telling me. Though not immediately verifiable by published record, it was included to provide critical context for understanding the relationships and dynamics within which Frances created/invented and moved about in her career. The patent record also may indicate a change of heart in that Frances stops giving William partial credit for her work post Baldwin. Nonetheless, he was able to have some of them assigned to him personally following her death. In regard to 1.: If it is considered inappropriate to include the names of survivors, then by all means, this convention should be respected.

Further in regard to 2.: Your edit introduced a number of not only unverifiable statements but statements that are false:

1a. The TAB patent was filed in 1966. It was certainly not written in 1968 as she lay dying as you claim.

2a. Hyco Labs was founded by Frances. Not William and Frances.

3a. There is no record, of which I am aware, that anyone but Brody (or Broady) funded Stewart Labs. Though, it is very possible, given his clientel, that he was operating in early VC fashion.

4a. Your edit was inaccurate regarding career path. In March 1951, Frances (and Bill) went to work for Standard Electronics Research Corp. The Hugles did not go directly to Baldwin from Stewart. Standard Electronics Research Corp is important because it is the first mention of a security clearance. It also indicates the type of projects on which Frances was working even prior to her military work at Baldwin.

In regard to 3.: I have given the number of patents according to what I have been told by those who held them. I was not allowed to even make copies so that I could review them. I had to wait to be able to obtain them online... and, as you may have guessed, reviewing these patents during homelessness and without a computer has not been easy.

If you know there were 18 patents, and you can cite them, that would be very much appreciated. As to arguments over spelling, I really have none. I used the spelling I found in newspapers. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9122012

I am not sure that including some background on the creation of this article is appropriate here or not. If not, please delete:

This article was written and first submitted during a time when I had reliable access to a computer. But after submitting this article and over a week before it was finally accepted, the mother board on the computer I was using failed permanently. I had planned to continue cleaning it up and adding content (especially in regard to the research Frances did in the forties and how it paralleled the reduction to practice of the transistor... Interesting on this note is that the University of Chicago, like Bell Labs, was one of the research centers where efforts to realize a working transistor model had been located.) once the article was accepted.

I am finally, as of a few days ago, able to be back online. Thank you to everyone who is contributing. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9122012

Inventions
The list of topics includes the topic header ´Inventions´. I prefer the earlier version that used the words Noted and Notable because this section only highlights some of her major accomplishments. Frances had many more inventions than are covered in this section as can be seen from the partial list of her patents.

(Cheryl Hugle. I am sorry about the signing convention... I am using a Spanish keyboard with which I am unfamiliar and can´t find all the characters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.56.3 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, so ✅. David  1217  What I've done 02:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I just undid the last edit by LHugle because it had too much editorial opinion such as the TAB invention was possibly Frances Hugle,s most important invention. For most people, the importance of the TAB invention pales next to her basic science discovery regarding the electronic properties of microscopic materials and her early patented design work on the IC and microprocessor

She also introduced several factual errors including Frances completed TAB as she lay dying in 1968. Actually, the TAB patent was filed in 1966. The LHugle edit also removed critical information about Frances career and its development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This article was twice intentionally falsified by LHugle to support a biography she is writing about her father. This is a situation of sabotage and I hope further vandalism by LHugle can be prevented. Proof that she knowingly falsified this article can be supplied. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9112012
 * Please keep focused on article content as supported by reliable sources and NOT slinging accusations at other editors. And note that no publisher is going to take what appears on Wikipedia as worth a hill of beans in any of their fact checking etc.--  The Red Pen of Doom  22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

education section
The section, Education and Teaching, which I added is a modified version of text that I previously wrote for this article. It was modified to provide additional detail about her U. of Ch. degrees and to remove other details until I obtain further documentation.

A copy of Fran's transcript can be found here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/1LxvVDu2COQ2kaizPaWLBqeeKJqbdk9ww7ENoKNckjcOHGZtPUVBLr_bLAYfu/edit

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * (in general on Wikipedia, new sections go to the end - when you click the "new section"tab, thats where it goes)
 * Wikipedia articles must only be based on reliable sources: essentially content that has been previously published. The above link is not a valid source for two reasons. 1) Primary sources are frowned upon (although in cases where the authenticity is guaranteed, they can be used for limited purposes; 2) and something posted on the web by who-knows-who is certainly not a reliable source, and the authenticity of the document can not be assured. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

status of article
I am very sorry that I contributed this article. It is clearly headed in the direction of becoming 'content free'. I offer apologies to others who also wasted their time.

I deleted the text because I can clearly see that any appeals to Wiki staff just elicit more insults and criticism, which frankly, I do not deserve. Not that I always followed the rules perfectly, but I did try.

Finally, Fran was an exceptional scientist and person with an unelievable sense of social responsibility. This article will clearly never reflect her many sacrifices, accomplishments and lifetime of extremely hard and dedicated work.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Removed article. Too much objection to important (and verifiable) facts being share d regarding the life and contributions of Frances Hugle.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I have reintroduced the section "Profesiional career" after making substantial deletions. The original version can be read in the article histories.

References for this section will be included shortly. I understand there is an 'add section'? button but I did not see it so I placed it last as I was told was protocol? for 'new' sections.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I should have been clearer, it is for new sections on the talk page. Within the article sections can be organized and added where ever they make the most sense. Depending upon your interface, there are tabs across the top "Article" "Talk" "Edit this Page" "New Section" "History". The "New Section" will open up a new section for segregating a new discussion topic, and will place it at the bottom of the page. Talk pages generally read oldest at the top, to most recent at the bottom. --  The Red Pen of Doom  16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has been gutted due to repeated hostile atttacks by Lhugle. Please see article history to read the complete original article.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9172012

Please verify: "42 patent applications"

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9162012

There are 3 sections dealing with patents and inventions. The first cites a few momentous breakthroughs including the first IC and microprocessor patent filings.

The second lists those patents available online and gives links for them.

The third is the more complete list of patents supplied by Lhugle. I will try to format this list better and if links can be found, add those for which links exist to the previous section.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9162012

I see that my comments have been removed so I am adding them again here. These comments are in reply to the points stated below.

Reply to Lhugle 1.:

Then there exists a conflict in the written record. Since this article is about Frances, I think it makes sense to defer to her resume. Especially since she claims sole fouder status and William only claims early association and thus cofounder status.

I have used a direct quote in the article from the resume of Frances in which she claims founding the company. She also makes substantial claims regarding her accomplishments not possible within the 2 month timeframe during which Bill Hugle claims employment with her.

In reply to Lhugle 2.:

I have already supplied this info in the article so I clearly am not in disagreement with these statements. If your point is spelling, I have already stated I have no argument with you. Whatever spelling has been commonly used seemed best, but of course I defer to appropriate convention.

In reply to 3.:

Receiving a contract for work certainly does not preclude later (or even contemporaneous) employment. Frances clearly states she worked for Standard Electronics Corp and gives the exact dates in her resume.

And during Frances's employment with Standard Electronics Corp she was cleared for secret work, as she also states on her resume. Standard Electronics Corp, was engaged in military research. I also have project papers showing Frances was involved in military work while at Baldwin. Possibly you should read Hoefler's statement about Baldwin as you seem unaware of their military contract work, a substantial part being in partnership with Boeing. Baldwin's military work was a well known fact within the semiconductor industry.

I have no record that Stuart was purchased by Baldwin. Please make these available. But, that still does not preclude the manner in which employment was initially obtained per conversation with John Jordan, Vice Chairman of Baldwin. That the Hugles may have sought to recoup their investments by selling their equipment once employed at Baldwin would not be unusual.

Finally, I am certainly not contaminating this history! This incredibly important piece of history has only begun to be told. My purpose has been to investigate the work of Frances and make it available to others so that they might have a more complete understanding of the history of the chip. I had no other purpose in writing this article.

Also, as I am sure you recall, I requested scans of Bill's resumes (5 years ago) and you twice failed to send them. Yet, if Frances and Bill are in disagreement, I prefer to defer to Frances' written record as Bill's history of spreading disinfo is almost legendary.

Finally, you are the one contaminating (spinning) history with absurd claims about Frances' death bed gymnastics and other completely absurd interpretations of the record.

Reply to 4.

Goal Credit held a mortgage, that is not exactly the same as venture (investment) money.

Reply to 5.

For this reason I stated that it was a partial list of patents. I am happy to see a more complete list. But this is the work of Frances, not William, his role was considered by Frances to be supportive. Following Baldwin, as previously discussed, she had a change of heart and stops crediting him with her work.

Finally, if you would please stop accusing me of the very crimes you have committed here, it would be very much appreciated.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle 9162012

The above corrections should be made. Lhugle (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to devote sufficient time to all of the issues with this bio but will offer verification of the following:

1. Hyco Ames Co., 6542 Stony Island, Chicago:  William Hugle's 1951 resume reads:  Hyco Ames Co, Dates of employment:  Sept-Oct 1948. "Hyco-Ames Co. was organized in partnership with two others including my wife, Frances Hugle, a chemist. Took part in a crystal development program particularly directed towards star sapphire and ruby.  Company was dissolved when Stuart Laboratories Inc. was formed." This is confirmed in a later resume where Hyco Ames research is outlined in more detail.

2. John G. (Steve) Broady:  Numerous available resources verifying his prominent work as a New York attorney. See census records, New York Times archives, other sources. Broady represented John Jacob Astor III, Winston Churchill's children, Buick, Joan Crawford, Clendenin Ryan and numerous others. His firm represented Alger Hiss. He also had a private investigation firm and was convicted of wiretapping in the 1950s.

3. Standard Electronic Research Corporation contracted with Stuart Laboratories (later Stuart Industries and Stuart Enterprises), which maintained its office in North Bergen, NJ. I have a copy of the contract, signed by John Broady. Stuart Industries maintained ownership of the plant and equipment. SERC documents show the No. Bergen plant and specifically identify the Hugles as continuing their work in crystal growth. As late as December 1952, correspondence continues to show Stuart Industries as an intact entity with offers to other manufacturers to purchase it, something Baldwin did shortly thereafter. Crystals were produced for many buyers, including those in the defense industries. Your desire to create a history showing military or CIA collusion in Frances' death contaminates the history.

4. Start-up funding for Stuart Laboratories:  In October 1948, John G. (Steve) Broady invested $7,000 in Stuart Labs. Goal Credit Corporation of New York held an additional $20,000 mortgage on the equipment, evidenced by a letter from them dated October 6, 1952.

5. Frances Hugle's patents:  Your list is incomplete. The following patents were applied for and eighteen were issued:

29 March, 1956	01 Aug, 1961	2,994,621	Semi-Conductive Films and Methods of Producing Them (w/Wm. Hugle) 29 March, 1956	28 Dec, 1965	3,226,271	Semi-Conductive Films and Methods of Producing Them (w/Wm. Hugle) 05 April, 1957	19 Dec, 1961	3,013,956	Methods of Etching Metals in the Platinum Group and Producing Printed Circuits Therefrom (w/ Wm. Hugle) 05 Feb, 1959	08 June, 1965	3,187,414	Method of Producing a Photocell Assembly (w/Wm. Hugle) 25 July, 1961			A Cheap Planar CBTL Block for Low Frequency (<100 KC) Operation 21 Jan, 1963	12 Jan, 1965	3,165,430	Method of Ultra-fine Semiconductor Manufacture 08 April, 1963	28 June, 1966	3,258,359	Semiconductor Etch and Oxidation Process 22 April, 1963	27 June, 1967	3,328,214	Process for Manufacturing Horizontal Transistor Structure 22 April, 1963	12 April, 1966	3,246,214	Horizontally Aligned Junction Transistor Structure 30 Sept, 1963		Appl. 312,385	Planar Double-Diffused Transistor Process 21 Sept, 1964		Have longhand version, letters to/from patent office	Aluminum Ball Bonding 14 April, 1965		Have application, no filing number	Ultra High Speed Logic Gates in Integrated Form Using Metal-Semiconductor Diodes (w/Jack Bamberg) 14 April, 1965		Have application, no filing number	Method of Providing Dielectric Insulation for Integrated Circuits (w/Jack Bamberg) 14 April, 1965		Have application, no filing number	Low Voltage Zener Diodes 14 April, 1965		Have application, no filing number	A Radiation Resistant Field Effect Transistor 07 July, 1965		Have application, no filing number	Semiconductor Photo-Latch Oct, 1967	3,344,555 20 June, 1966	02 Sept, 1969	3,465,213	Self-Compensating Structure for Limiting Base Drive Current in Transistors 22 June, 1966	22 April, 1969	3,440,027	Automated Packaging of Semiconductors (first TAB process) 10 Oct, 1966	02 Dec, 1969	3,481,801	Isolation Technique for Integrated Circuits 12 June, 1967	09 Sept, 1969	3,465,874	Carrier for Semiconductor Devices (w/Wm. Perrine) 15 June, 1967	02 Sept, 1969	3,465,150	Method of Aligning Semiconductors 19 July, 1967	06 April, 1971	3,574,007	Method of Manufacturing Improved MIS Transistor Arrays 24 July, 1967	06 April, 1971	3,574,014	Masking Technique for Selective Etching 13 May, 1968	22 Dec, 1970	3,549,232	Microscopic Alignment Mechanism (filed 11 days before she died) 04 Sept, 1968	16 Dec, 1969	3,484,621	Sequencing Mechanism Electronic Logic c. 1965			Paddle Glove (for surfing) -- have undated application copy Appl. 633,150	Formation of Semi-Conductive Crystals and Films -- have undated application copy Appl. 656,915	Capacitors, including Photo-Capacitors, Employing Semi-Conductors Appl. 791,400	Photocells and Method of Manufacturing Photocells

Additionally, the following patent applications were submitted by the Hugles while employed by Baldwin, docketed and of unknown outcome:

1955		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Mounting Means for Small Crystals 1956		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Crystal-Growing Process (Salt Melt) 1956		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Photoelectric Musical Instrument (Multiple Cells Responsive to Different Ranges) 1957		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Chemical Deposition Process (Cadmium Selenide) 1957		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Process for Producing Front-Surface Rhodium Mirrors 1958		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Method of Cutting Single-Crystal Phosphors (alkali Halides) 1958		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Method of Improving Time-Constant of Photocells 1958		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Electropiano (Tone Action Activation by Slow Photocells) 1958		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Temperature Control for Encoder (Cooling) 1958		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Photocell Assembly (Silicon, Photovoltaic) 1959		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Photocapacitor Employing Semi-Conductor 1959		As of 1959 --Unfiled but docketed; have abstract	Wave Form Reproducer (Mirrors Scan)

The above corrections should be made. Lhugle (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Partial list of patents
If we consider the history of Rock n Roll beginning with Elvis or the Beatles, we fail to see the all important Black roots of this genre, and thus the context of inspiration. If we fail to note the rather lopsided acclaim and remuneration given Black musicians compared to those who reworked their music, we also fail to see something fundamental about our society (at least in those times).

In similar fashion, by removing the text, "Several of Frances Hugle's patents were granted years after her death though no royalties or licensing fees were ever paid to her or into the Frances B. Hugle trust she had established for this purpose. Today, it is not possible to determine the full extent of what she considered to be her intellectual properties because soon after her death, all copies of her list of assets, the principal attachment to her trust, were reported lost."

We fail to note the acclaim and remuneration considered appropriate for a woman (in this case Jewish) vs. a man during Fran's lifetime. The semiconductor industry in particular was characterized by an essentially all male and very white cast of elite players. And, it is not biased to say, there were strong prejudices against equal rights for women, Blacks, Jews, etc. throughout the industry (but this comment characterizes the industry elite more than the droves of rank and file engineers who crossed the floor as soon as they entered the auditorium of the first industry show I worked to the Hugle Industries booth to ask,"Where is Frances speaking now?" or "Where is Frances now?").

It is my belief that Fran's gender and race were predominant in determiing her ultimate fate and that of her estate. History was not ready to recognize such a prodigious female inventor, especially one who was also of Jewish descent.

And there is the issue of rampant industrial spying (her husband making some pretty spectacular press in this regard himself in the eighties though it was hardly the first time he was caught), cannibal hiring practices, and the ability to control what was expressed and by whom by the outlaying of funding or its withholding.

Therefore, I feel a disservice to the understanding of the life and times of Frances is done with the removal of the text quoted above. I also feel including a greater smattering of her accomplishments may help flush out the range of topics Fran considered during the course of her career.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * See WP:OR and WP:V. Until we have reliable published sources that have made such claims and analysis, we cannot include such in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. I am not entirely unfamiliar with other biographies on Wikipedia and can state quite factually that the 'rules' are being selectively applied to justify whatever suppressions are desired. And no, this is not Wikihate, just a fair assessment and real feedback.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * there are 4,000,000+ articles created and edited by volunteers. yes, there are articles that do not currently meet the expected guidelines, but that is not a valid reason to allow additional articles to do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Listing an inventor's patents seems not to be a problem for this related bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Noyce

The article about Frances would be improved by listing more of her work because it reveals her enormous depth and breath which is impossible to show without such a list.

As I mentioned, it appears that rules are selectively applied. And, this doesn't have anything to do with article quality as revealed by the article about Noyce.

Furthermore, there are no warning 'signs' above the list of Noyce's patents, only links to them as were given in the original 'Partial list of patents' for this article.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Welcome back. Again, there are over 4 million articles and most have not had any type of real critical review over their contents. Just because another article has something doesnt mean that the other article is a valid model and excuse for replicating in this article. If you must have a model, choose the WP:GA and WP:FA articles as your models. Those HAVE had close scrutiny, BUT in all cases, each article is created based upon what the reliable sources have presented about them. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

One hammer does not all phrases fit...

The links for each patent provided reliable sources.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Names of descendants
Again, are the children of Robert Noyce living? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Noyce

If so, why are they named in article if living relatives according to Wiki rules cannot be named?

Again, I am questioning selective applications of 'rules'. I also read the rules regarding using the names of living persons and found nothing there that would preclude naming Frances' descendants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

oops.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Welcome back. Again, there are over 4 million articles and most have not had any type of real critical review over their contents. Just because another article has something doesnt mean that the other article is a valid model and excuse for replicating in this article. If you must have a model, choose the WP:GA and WP:FA articles as your models. Those HAVE had close scrutiny, BUT in all cases, each article is created based upon what the reliable sources have presented about them. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure that 'reliable sources' is not the issue here. Please follow some logic in this discussion. First, is it or is it not acceptable within the rules of Wikpedia to name the spouses and children of scientists in their bio's?

If not, should I remove those where found throughout Wikipedia?

Also, a reliable source for this info had already been given, the Los Angeles Examiner article.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Explanation for Labels?
"An editor has expressed a concern that this articrole lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message."

Please explain this. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * The enyclopedic value of lists of patents supported only by primary sources indicating their existance seems entirely non-encyclopedic. Why would we include such a list? -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you removed the descriptive text that explained the value of including at least the partial list of patents (I had no intention of also including a basically data insert, that was done to appease one of the other editors. I too never thought it added much though it did help to illustrate the wide range of topics of Frances' research); to demonstrate the great number of contributions and that these contributions, at least monetarily, were ignored very much against her wishes.

Since this was an article about Frances, I thought it was important to indicate those things upon which she placed emphasis. One of those things was her trust and estate (mostly her patents I assume)which she dedicated her last few months of relative consciousness to reworking/rewriting.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I understand your desire to carry out her wishes. However, we can only include content that we can validate as having been published by reliable third party sources. And in any matter, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a memorial site to carry out personal wishes. There are other websites avaialable for that. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

She died 45 years ago. I am sure she had no wishes in regard to Wikipedia. My comments were miscontrued (Although it is being assumed that my point of view is unbalanced or tainted by virtue of close association, that is prejudicial, especially since her career never allowed much time for parenting.).

I am trying to make the point that people, even geniuses, are not only lists of accomplishments, they are also desires and feelings as well as being products of their time(she was of Jewish descent, and lost many relatives to the holocaust during her adolescent and teen years. Thus, even as a teenager, she appears to have been highly motivated to aid the US war effort. And this military affinity also appears to have been lifelong (The semiconductor industry was almost entirely built on military spending.)) and we can somewhat determine those by looking at where they focused their attention.

I had hoped to flush 'the person' out a bit for readers of this article since Frances was truly unusual, not simply because of her singular genius but also because of her amazing gullibility, exhileration when in nature, love of sports, playfulness, bad song writing, uncompromisable sense of personal responsibility, etc.

Finally, if I read an article about DaVinci, it is nice to see his major accomplsihments, of course, but, I am also interested in getting a better understanding of the person and why he might have been driven to such an extent as well as, what more was there to him... interests, etc.

The foregoing, I apologize, is poorly written but I hope you catch my drift... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does make sense. However, "fleshing out the person" is more the job of a biography than an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a biographical article written for an encyclopedia.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Family
The recently created section lumping Fran's family with her education makes no sense. She was born into a family and then grew up, married and had children of her own. During the course of this, she also completed college degrees, etc.

The most cogent way to provide this info is to have separate sections about her family life and her education.

Also, much info of encyclopedic value is being removed from this article that has nothing to do with reliable sources.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * You appear to be insistent on treating this as a research paper and not Wikipedia. Wikipedia content must be based on what reliable sources say, and verifiable if challenged. However, if you decide to go on a rampage across Wikipedia removing unsourced content to remove a point, you will find your editing career here ending very shortly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think threatening me for raising valid points and questions and trying to dramatize those points (in hopes of better communication) is quite inappropriate. My point is the apparent arbitrary, random application and biased interpretation of the rules. I have given clear examples and requested specific clarifications/answers. Please answer my specific questions without threats.

Furthermore, you claim I am treating this as a research project but the truth is, I contributed a reasonably content rich biographical article and made a serious attempt to work within the framework of Wikipedia's rules. As elsewhere states, I had intended to clean this article up (make some deletions and add references) but was unable to return to the project for months. Since then, it has become a rather staid, content deprived, not very cogent and not altogether accurate portrayal that casts unnecessary suspicion.

So, I have not disputed the rules, I have questioned why they are applied with seemingly spurious justification to the obvious detriment of this article's verifiable content.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * as you have been told, there are over 4 million articles created by anyone who signed up for an account and edited by anyone who wanders by with no central oversight. As particular articles come under review by whatever happenstance (such as being drawn in by feuds on articles being edited by people with a conflict of interest) by experienced volunteer editors   the policies begin to get applied more strictly to those "arbitrary" sets of articles. If you dont like it, you can individually begin a process of reviewing all articles and bringing them up to standars, you can attempt to organize a comprehensive review via a Wikiproject and enlist others to help you, you can learn to live the the fact that some articles are being brought up to standards now and others are not currently being fixed, or you can withdraw from the project altogether. You cannot however, say THIS article is exempt from policies because other articles also fail. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge and redirect to tape automated bonding
I do not believe there is enough in-depth and independent coverage of Hugle to merit her own article. The sources from the Smithsonian clearly establish that her invention was a major contribution to circuitry and semiconductor work. However, notability is not inherited. Furthermore, that she had many patents is not an indicator of notability, as practically anyone can have patents approved. Therefore, I think that information can be merged to the above article. This article content as it pertains to coverage of her invention should be merged to tape automated bonding. Other matters, such as her personal history, family members, education, and company ownership, should be removed. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about tape bonding. This article is about one of Silicon Valley's most prodigious and earliest pioneers, at least it was.

Though she has been credited with TAB, she certainly made other and much more substantial and seminal contributions technically and furthermore founded some of Silicon Valley's first and most prestigious companies, and in a time when women executive engineers were an extreme rarity in Silicon Valley.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I never said this article was about tape bonding. But that is the only topic in this article that is covered by reliable sources and is covered in-depth in relation to the subject.  I believe you when you say she is an important person, and I agree that female engineers (sadly) go unrecognized and do not often rise to the same prominence as male engineers, particularly during her time.  But despite that social issue, there is still a clear requirement of in-depth coverage of individuals for biographies on Wikipedia.  The current sources do not provide sufficient coverage of her.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In regard to: "I agree that female engineers (sadly) go unrecognized and do not often rise to the same prominence as male engineers, particularly during her time."

I never said that and disagree entirely as she was both very well known and well respected during her lifetime. In fact, it would not be untrue to claim that she was one of the most, if not the most, popular speaker at industry events such as Wescon.

Furthermore, her patents alone (once listed in the article) demonstrate an amazing breath and depth of contributions to the industry. It is entirely possible (probable) that without her contributions, personal computing as we know it would never have existed.

Additionally, though woman's lib was still a dirty word, she was respected as a super star by the industry's elite (which included herself). So much so that TI gave her their first production chip fashioned into a brooch as a way to thank her for making it all possible.

I think it is sad that this piece of history will not receive mention on Wikipedia, but better that than an absurdity.

Anyway, onward and forward... who needs genuine context? It only interrupts the dreamscape.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I apologize that I misinterpreted you, I don't doubt that to some, she was an important figure. I was speaking about her demographic more generally. That aside, your claim that "her patents alone demonstrate an amazing breath and depth of contributions to the industry. It is entirely possible (probable) that without her contributions, personal computing as we know it would never have exists" is not support by sources.  That statement is what we call original research, and is highly discouraged.  I might also point out that Wikipedia is not a venue to proclaim "the truth" about people, but to write about things verified by other sources.  Her patents do not demonstrate notability, sorry.  As I said already, anybody can make as many patents as they want.  Unless they are discussed by independent sources, they don't lend to her notability.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What has been verified by independent sources is that she was a Silicon Valley founder, was credited with co-founding Siliconix (one of the first and most prestigious semiconductor manufacturers), designed one of the first IC's (actually the first), and was considered an architect of modern computing in a time when women engineers were simply unheard of, at least in that industry. Her patents provide supporting detail of her contributions to the industry and should be included just as patent lists are included in Wiki bio's of other engineer scientists from the semiconductor industry.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * What exactly are your reliable third party sources that support these claims? I have not found "significant coverage" in reliable third party sources. I would support a merge/redirect until such time as someone decides to actually cover this individual. There are probably oodles of people in every Women's Studies department around the country that would LOVE to be the first to publish on an ignored "woman in science". Once that happens, the article can be restored based on those sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If I may. Somehow this article got on my watch list and I am in the "business" (a subscriber to Printed Circuit Design and Fab) and in AfC. I think this article just meets WP:NOTE based on references 3, 6, and 8. Whether there is sufficient material for a stand alone article is another issue. My only suggestion is that over the last few weeks, I think a lot has been hacked out of the article based on lack of sources. Perhaps some of the deleted material should be reexamined. If some can be restored, we may have an article, but a list of patents does not an article make. --  :- ) Don 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I think she would deserve more than a passing mention in several articles besides TAB. --  :- ) Don 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is fair-- but which ones? I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

comment - source 3 is the website of the successor company and so it could be used to meet WP:V for a non controversial claim about itself and its history (such as Hugle's role in its history), but not "independent" to meet WP:N. the claim in 6 is also Verifiable; but a passing comment in a local paper about the subject participating in a high school event also fails N (otherwise, I could have an article about me). and the complete content of source 8 is "and the first patent (despite an IP spat) was granted to a woman engineer, Frances Hugle, of Hugle Industries in 1969." well, I suppose you could say that the "first" lifts this beyond the trvial but otherwise it seems to be a textbook case of "passing mention". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Something really ugly is going on here. This is not a criticism of all the editors, but the ones now dominating have gutted and muddled this article to the point that it now sounds credible to delete it. (As if the article was ever just a list of patents)

And, it was an article about the ONLY female Silicon Valley founder who was one of its most respected engineers, a prodigious scientist and inventor who made substantial contributions in the 40's, 50's and 60's! Yes, additional citations would be nice and would have been added, but there was certainly enough already for a 'C' class article and that cannot be disputed.

I have lost complete respect for this organzation. What a heartbreaking nightmare for contributors. Finally, no answers from RPofD to my previous and specific questions regarding selective and spurious interpretations (and application) of rules/deletions of text? !!! Even doubt was cast regarding her Jewish heritage !!!

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * There are multiple reasons why Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy; not all the reasons are entirely for the benefit of Wikipedia articles and our readers; some are for the benefit of the conflicted editors whose knowledge of the truth from personal experience ends up being distressing when we can only apply what we find in appropriate sources.
 * I would suggest that you take a break from this article. Go edit a few articles to which you have no real personal connection and try to focus on how Wikipedia's policies are shaped and formed and applied to create an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not fooled by this avoidance of answering specific questions by calling into question the credibility (or right to question) of a content provider and editor (me). Nor am I a criminal because I was related to the subject of this article (and this presumption is not true simply because it is convenient) nor was it criminal to provide this article or question the reasoning behind (or lack there of) other edits.

Strange as it is, I originally thought it would have been socially irresponsible not to provide some info about Frances to the public.

Cheryl Hug le (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * No one called you a criminal. I pointed out that we do have a Conflict of Interest Policy, and yes we DO "call into question the credibility" of editors impacting articles upon which they have a personal vested interest.
 * and we DO have a policy that content in articles must be supported by reliable sources
 * and we DO have a policy that content and analysis and claims must be directly stated in the reliable sources and not based on the personal experiences and or interpretations of Wikipedia editors.
 * those are the facts and they apply to this article. if you continue to be unable or unwilling to believe that they apply to this article's content, you will (continue) to find your experience with Wikipedia to be unpleasant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have read those policies. Most of them I read before submitting this article. Others, such as the ones protectng names, I read later. I did not find justification for the deletion of names in these stated policies nor justification for removal of supporting details of her body of work.

It is also NOT clear that other of your edits can be fully justified based upon Wiki stated policies. For whatever reason, you seem to have taken a manic position and will not stop until you have removed and muddled and all cogency and clarity has been reduced to chop.

Content and analysis WAS supplied by reliable sources. Regardless, you seem to be motivated (why?) by a desire to dominate and destroy rather than to improve, substantiate and clarify.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I have also read the conflict of interest policies. I find over and over again that you insist upon rigid, narrow and biased (fetched) interpretations in order to disguise unjustifiable attitudes, deletions, etc. Please stop! If anyone, you are the one who needs to take a break.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * This page is getting too long and going nowhere but down along with the discussion. I see no movement, only two heads butting.  This is a waste of time for everyone involved.  I'm not coming in because I'm ambivalent. Can we move this to WP:PM please?  --  :- ) Don  19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * propose away! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

No reason to feel bad. These things happen and there are ways to handle it. --  :- ) Don 21:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted to WP:PM and Wikiproject electronics also notified. Hopefully this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. --  :- ) Don  21:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Don but I must apologize again... the link to discuss merging on the article page linked right back here for me. So, here are my 'high level' thoughts, first on having an independent article about Frances:

What has been verified by independent sources is that Frances was a Silicon Valley founder, co-founded Siliconix (one of the first and most prestigious semiconductor manufacturers), designed one of the first IC's (actually the first), and was considered an architect of modern computing in a time when women scientist/engineers were an extreme rarity, at least in the semiconductor industry.

Since the foregoing is true, merging this article with one exclusively focused on Tape Bonding makes no sense. On the otherhand, including mention of Frances in that article may or may not make sense.

Furthermore, is there a policy statement I missed stating that less than the highest rated pages should be deleted? Because that seems to be the primary basis of the argument I am reading against keeping an independent article about Frances. If so, it is contrary to what I read prior to submitting this article in which I was led to believe that beginnings were encouraged and improvements/evolutions to those beginnings also encouraged and expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

The following is copied from mergers:

There are several good reasons to merge a page:
 * 1) .Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope.
 * 2) Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability.
 * 3) Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there).
 * 4) Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in " article(and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

And, none of the reasons are applicable to this situation.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * But you are missing WP:FAILN and WP:ATD-M. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is NO notability problem except you insisting that there is. Others (Wiki editors) have also stated this article meets notability requirements.

I am reading Wiki policies and they are not supporting your intended use of them here. This is becoming extreme, manic and nonsensical.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Do not merge, I cannot understand why some editors are so keen to merge. If there were no biographical details available at all, then just a mention in Tape-automated bonding would be appropriate but there is clearly more than that to write. As a general rule, we do not clutter articles about the technology with too much detail on the biography of the inventor and, similarly, we do not clutter biographies with too much technical detail of the persons inventions. The suggested merge would be a retrograde step in this respect. We do have WP:ONEEVENT of course, but that does not really apply here. Being the founder of a major silicon valley company alone is enough to be more than one event when placed beside invention of TAB. ONEEVENT is really aimed at winners of Who Wants to Be a Millionare?, X Factor contestants, and criminals with only one notable robbery to their name.

By the way, Hugle really should be mentioned and linked in the TAB article.  Spinning Spark  22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * can you clarify / specify what encyclopedic "biographical details " are reliably sourced? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll second that request, and add one of my own: exactly what biographical details about Hugle have significant coverage? Also nobody ever suggested this entire article be shoved over into tape-automated bonding in the proposed merge.  That wouldn't be appropriate, of course per WP:WEIGHT.  However, some details from this article are obviously relevant over there.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to: "specify what encyclopedic "biographical details " are reliably sourced?"
 * There was a direct quote in this article from the current SEC filing for Siliconix, one of the earliest and most prestigious semiconductor houses, specifying Frances as its co-founder. That quote was removed as was the reference to it following the text immediately beforethe quote.
 * Frances is named as a Silicon Valley Founder in Don Hoefler's Microelectronic News, the rag for the industry in his day with all copies now a part of the Smithsonian's Silicon Valley collection. Don Hoefler was also the person who gave Santa Clara Valley the name, Silicon Valley, and was the most influential (and intimate with the industry) journalist in the valley in the early seventies.
 * References crediting Frances with inventing Tab are given.
 * A reference to the article that explains Frances' reason for coming to California was to set up the astro-physics lab for Westinghouse is provided.
 * Reference for a quote about Fran's importance in securing funding for Siliconix (by inventing an early IC) is given but the article title cannot be provided until I return to CA.
 * And so on.
 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Indented line
 * Reference for a quote about Fran's importance in securing funding for Siliconix (by inventing an early IC) is given but the article title cannot be provided until I return to CA.
 * And so on.
 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Indented line
 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Indented line
 * Indented line

Do not merge, I echo SpinningSpark's comments. The fact that the article content could be merged in multiple other articles aside from Tape-automated bonding to me indicates that there is significant notability, enough to merit the continued separate article. If there are questions regarding "biographical details", then that is a separate issue. mexicatl (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that details from this article can be merged across several articles does not mean this article should be kept-- nothing in WP:BIO supports that notion. Furthermore, notability is not inherited from the inventions of the individual.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The essay you link to does not say that, or anything like it. It is obvious to me that inventing something notable is an inherently notable thing to do.  You will not find a policy or guideline that contradicts that.  I doubt, either, that you would be able to find an AfD that voted delete or merge of a biographical article on that basis.  Spinning  Spark  06:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I doubt you can find any policy or guideline that says inventing something makes the inventor inherently notable. Saying "it's obvious" doesn't really cut it.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Academics/professors meeting any one  of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable...The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed", WP:SCHOLAR.  Spinning Spark  11:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars...are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  Spinning Spark  11:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On your first point, you are missing the key ending to that statement, which is "...as demonstrated by independent, reliable sources," of which this article is lacking. On your second point, I think the "nutshell" statement is better qualified by the following point:
 * Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
 * Based on that,unless her work has been widely referenced in her trade or in research, I don't think that point supports maintaining the article either. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread is about the question of merging. Based on what is in the article I favour not merging.  The issue of citations is an entirely separate issue.  If there are no citations, or the references are not reliable, then the material should not be on Wikipedia at all, either in this article or a merged article. I have not looked closely at the referencing, but there appears to be something out there at least.  Spinning  Spark  16:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not merge. To me, this article is a wobbler. Minor character with weak sources. Hugle started Siliconix. Rare woman in the business. Husband also started Siliconix clouds the issue. Husband and wife are together in many ventures; they are together in the Semiconductor Family Tree; the SFT article is passing mention; no mention of technical accomplishments. Was she a driving force? Did she attract others? Her position as Siliconix Director of Research could be a significant position, but just a title doesn't say much. She has some achievement in her own right. Patents are self-published, but other sources can pass judgment on them. Although some patents are with her husband, some are independent. Etch and oxidize patent aligns with chemistry background. The TAB work (which she is sole inventor on the patent), even if it were the only thing she ever did, seems to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. The PCFab article tells us TAB is important. She designed early Siliconix products, but what were they? (Patent work suggests she would have been involved in a photo chopper that Siliconix did for HP.) Hugle was only at Siliconix from 1962 to 1964. Not clear what she did at Steward-Warner (but TAB patent in that time frame?). She died young, so little opportunity in the way of awards after industry matured. Few sources. I believe the Mountain View Public Library had an archive of the Palo Alto Times, but I don't know if it still does. The Palo Alto Times was not a large paper, so I am reluctant to label it a regional source for N. Article creator is an SPA with COI, but the article came out of AfC. Strangely, Hugle is not mentioned in [husband's EETimes obit]. No WP article on William Hugle. I think there enough so she merits an article; the lack of sources means the article won't say much. Glrx (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable inventions section
Most of Frances Hugle sounds in unsourced original research.

There is no independent source stating she described how to fabricate an integrated circuit before Kilby or Noyce. Editors don't do WP:OR or interpret primary sources. The patent discusses making four photo-detectors that share a common film; isolation achieved by distance. That's similar to Kilby's idea of isolation, but nowhere close to Noyce's diode isolation. Also, both Noyce and Kilby were looking at a bigger problem. Kilby explicitly wanted to make all circuit components.

The isolation patent is long after Noyce; it may be significant technology, but we need a source to say that.

The patent describing how to make a microprocessor does not mention microprocessors. The patent acknowledges ICs being made out of single crystals already; the patent emphasizes non-single crystals. The reference to Faggin/Mazor/Hoff does not mention Hugle. If Hugle was among the first to propose ICs using FET rather than bipolar logic, that does not directly connect to microprocessors -- and WP would need a source.

I would delete everything in the section but TAB claim.

Glrx (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I should explain how this info came to me. It was not OR. The first time I recall hearing that Frances had invented the IC was when an attendee at a conference commemorating the contributions of Frances called to tell me that a person who was in the audience stood up and claimed that the IC should be added to the list of her contributions. This attendee had claimed that it was Frances who had invented the IC and further claimed that he was a researcher working with with her at Baldwin at the time of the invention.

I thought little of this out of the blue announcement at that time.

But in 2005 I made a very shocking discovery about the cancer that had killed her, that it could be induced. Remembering the claim I had heard almost a decade earlier, I did a search and discovered that Walter Mathews reported the same thing in an article written for SEMI magazine.

So, I wish to respond to all of the points raised here but it will be few more hours before I can get back to this. Hope you can wait.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * anytime you begin "it is something I heard ... " and not "here is the reliable source that says so " you are indeed projecting wikipedias original research. You should actually read the policy. Particularly the part linked here WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I was only indicating what prompted me to seek a nonprimary source for the info. I was not offering my personal experience as a reference. I think that is clear.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

OK, so I read this WP:SYN. And, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the content at issue here. I am certainly not synthesizing. What is stated in this biographical article is not only a direct quote from the cited article, the cited article's thesis (on this topic) is 100% consistent with the one expressed in this biographical article. Possibly you could first read the links you so generously supply for my benefit with an eye to topical relevance?

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"The isolation patent is long after Noyce; it may be significant technology, but we need a source to say that."

The isolation patent was originally filed in 1956, years before Noyce filed for his patent though it was not awarded until years after Noyce had already received his patent. I believe this is the work referred to in Mathews' article.

About Mathews: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/walter-mathews-silicon-valley-pr-icon-global-pr-firm-co-founder-dies-at-age-68-76043342.html I am still looking for an online archive for the article referred to in this bio. Since I originally found the article online without trouble (searched for; Frances Hugle integrated circuit), it is somewhat surprising it is not appearing as readily...

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I really don't like saying this...


 * As editors, we cannot take a patent, read it, and then draw some conclusion about that patent. As the section is currently written, that is what is happening. A claim is made about Hugle, a patent is used for a source, and even the patent does not make the specific claim.


 * "In 1956, two years before Noyce or Kilby, Frances Hugle filed a patent in which she described how to fabricate an integrated circuit." The patent does not describe the invention of an integrated circuit. It describes a depositing a photoconductive film on a scored printed circuit board to make an array of sensors. We cannot label such an array as an integrated circuit. The patent may be used to state that she described how to make a photo sensor array, but we cannot elevate that claim to be about making ICs or that she should have priority over Kilby and Noyce. Clearly, something written in 1956 cannot refer to subsequent inventions by Kilby and Noyce.


 * "In 1967, Frances Hugle filed a patent in which she described how to make a microprocessor." "She was the first person to file for a patent describing how to make a microprocessor". The patent makes no mention of a microprocessor. The statements cannot be justified with the patent. There is no mention of computation. There is a lot going on here. RTL and DTL logic were well-established by then. Motorola was producing MECL ICs in 1962. TTL (an IC technology) was developed in 1963. I forget when bitslice ALU chips appeared. Computational circuits were well on their way. I'm sure the designers were bumping up against both power and yield. What insight into the microprocessor was Hugle contributing? Who is telling us that Hugle deserves priority over Hoff/Mazor/Faggin/Shima? Intel was started in 1968; one of its goal was to make IC memories (bipolar and MOS). Intel was already making LSI when it embarked upon the i1201 (later i8008) and i4004. I think Noyce (who was Fairchild Semi's GM) told me that Fairchild had looked at silicon gate but decided not to pursue it; one of Moore and Noyce's reasons for starting Intel was to pursue silicon gate technology. The statement must go. If there's a source that states Hugle was instrumental in the development of the silicon gate, then that statement can be made. A statement that the first microprocessor used a silicon gate process can be made. But the claim that Hugle described how to make a microprocessor does not seem appropriate.


 * The isolation patent that I referred to is the patent referenced in footnote 13. Footnote 13 states the patent was filed in 1966. If the article is wrong on the date, so be it, but I was working off the date in the article. The Smithsonian images suggest reversed biased junction isolation. I am not aware of anyone who challenges Noyce's priority on junction isolation, but an earlier patent than Noyce's would easily prove such a claim.


 * Any claim by a coworker that they invented the IC with Hugle is not an independent source. It may be a self-serving comment. That someone claims to have heard the comment is classic hearsay. A reliable source must look the available sources and provide an opinion. We must have the opportunity to verify the person's credentials (peer-reviewed publication, prominent individuals) and to verify the statements (e.g., the source is published). I went to a talk by Gordon Moore. He's credited with using Al rather than Cu for semiconductors; in that talk, he credited Noyce for Al; he was trying to get Cu to work, but kept running into a wall; Noyce told him to try Al. In the same talk, Moore described the meeting where Noyce came up with the back-biased junctions for isolation; Moore remembered the meeting well because "he wasn't there" but had skipped it for some reason. But the meeting was all about making ICs, and the significant issue was isolating the different components. The meeting generated a lot of excitement around the company. I cannot be a source for those stories, but there are reliable sources that credit the inventions and their subsequent impact on the industry. Where are those sources for Hugle?


 * The claims in the Hugle article attempt to rewrite a well documented history. That's an OK thing to do (just yesterday I was reading on WP that Gauss did not invent least squares) -- but only if there are independent, reliable, secondary sources that make the actual statement.


 * I have not seen any written claim by Walter Mathews about Hugle. If he is the only source, there may be an issue with WP:UNDUE. Mathews is not semiconductor guy -- he's a PR guy. He is not a prominent individual on semiconductors (Kilby, Moore, Noyce, Faggin, Shima, Hoff, Mazor, ...). Furthermore, Mathews worked for Hugle's husband, so his independence from Hugle is suspect. WP routinely discards press releases as biased sources. On this topic, SEMI may not be an independent source.


 * I'm not saying the statements are true or false. I'm saying the statements are not justified by the sources, and they should be removed if sources cannot be found.


 * Glrx (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In answer to:

"The patent does not describe the invention of an integrated circuit. It describes a depositing a photoconductive film on a scored printed circuit board to make an array of sensors."

It does describe making photocells and also states the process is to be used to make semi-conductive devices of n and p types, this includes transistors, etc. This is completely obvious and no interpretation of the wording is required.

Anyone reading the claims is able to determine that they describe the method to fabricate an integrated circuit unless they have no understanding of what an IC is.

While it is true that the patent does not specifically call this invention an 'integrated circuit', the reason is obviously because that name was not yet in common usage. In fact, I have a picture of an IC made by Frances dated 1953 and it is entitled, 'distributed devices'.

(This is one of the reasons I do stay involved. There is a great deal of misinformation showing up on these pages though I am sure it is well-intentioned, it is still important to point out underlying problems with some of these arguments so that better informed decisions can be taken, regardless of what those ultimately may be.)

189.172.40.237 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

189.172.40.237 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I just noted that you stated "on a scored circuit board". The patent says no such thing. Circuit boards and wafers are not at all the same things.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Addressing these points:

"The patent makes no mention of a microprocessor."

The term microprocessor was not in common usage at the time of Fran's patent filing. That was the reason I supplied two links to simple lay definitions of microprocessors earlier in this discussion and pointed out that the wording in the patent claims are consistent with those definitions.

"There is no mention of computation."

There is mention of "improved performance" (see below).

"There is a lot going on here. RTL and DTL logic were well-established by then. Motorola was producing MECL ICs in 1962. TTL (an IC technology) was developed in 1963. I forget when bitslice ALU chips appeared. Computational circuits were well on their way. I'm sure the designers were bumping up against both power and yield."

These issues are cited in the first and second sections (claims) of the patent.

"What insight into the microprocessor was Hugle contributing?"

She invented it. That is pretty hard to overlook if you have read the patent claims and know what a microprocessor is.

"Who is telling us that Hugle deserves priority over Hoff/Mazor/Faggin/Shima?"

Three people minimally, Frances herself and the two expert examiners who confirmed her claims. Other than that, anyone who both reads the definition of a microprocessor and reads the claims set forth in her patent can see it for themselves.

"Intel was started in 1968; one of its goal was to make IC memories (bipolar and MOS). Intel was already making LSI when it embarked upon the i1201 (later i8008) and i4004."

This is extraneous.

"I think Noyce (who was Fairchild Semi's GM) told me that Fairchild had looked at silicon gate but decided not to pursue it; one of Moore and Noyce's reasons for starting Intel was to pursue silicon gate technology."

Besides being OR, it is untrue. Both Intel and Fairchild jumped on silicon gate technology. http://www.intel4004.com/images/elect_cov_pg1.jpg

Please also note comments in linked article about the attendant improvements in performance of silicon gate technology and that these claims are part of Fran's patent.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

In answer to:

"Any claim by a coworker that they invented the IC with Hugle is not an independent source."

Info was not offered as a source and it was clearly stated that this was the case. Info was offered as the reason I was prompted to seek independent sources.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle (I am not sure why I keep being logged out but I totally apologize if it has been unclear which comments I made, definitely not intentional. Thanks for the heads up Red.)

"Furthermore, Mathews worked for Hugle's husband, so his independence from Hugle is suspect. WP routinely discards press releases as biased sources. On this topic, SEMI may not be an independent source."

Nope, Mathews was named the senior editorial consultant for SEMI magazine after Hugle was no longer associated with SEMI. Still, Mathews was a close friend of William Hugle (he appeared in the valley shortly after Frances died as did the more famous Don Hoefler). On the other hand, Don Hoefler,(the one who named Silicon Valley) was also a very close friend of William. And Noyce and Fran along with a couple others were taking regular one day ski trips just before Fran learned she had cancer... the valley was very close knit especially at the top... for good or ill. But, the quote cited in the article did not appear in a press release. It was in an article on how early companies secured funding... the culture of VC having not yet been refined/defined.

Don Hoefler more or less popularized the goings on in the valley and scripted (or rescripted) its history. Nonetheless, someone closely related to Hoefler contacted me a few years ago to tell me that Hoefler confided to him that Fran not Noyce invented the IC. If that is true, Hoefler knowingly wrote false histories. (Yes, this is OR, but thought you might be interested anyway.)

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"The Smithsonian images suggest reversed biased junction isolation. I am not aware of anyone who challenges Noyce's priority on junction isolation, but an earlier patent than Noyce's would easily prove such a claim."

Yes, and that proof is cited in this article. But, what I find really interesting is that the patent was originally filed in 1956 and then refiled? lost?, then recovered/resubmitted in 1961 and finally awarded in 1965. The date of Fran's award being years after both Noyce and Kilby were awarded patents though Fran's patent was filed years before... and the work it discusses apparently was ongoing for at least a few years before that.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle