Talk:Frances Hugle/Archive 2

MIS => MOS
It appears she invented a method of producing MIS transistors on an integrated circuit. She/they were investigating three different technologies, MIS, MOS and MNS for producing insulated gate FET's. Today those are all grouped into MOSFET transistors. She indirectly lead to the development of microprocessors by designing the first MOSFET transistor as an integrated circuit. The breakthrough that lead to the first microprocessor the Intel 4004 was done by Faggin when he developed a method of self-aligning the MOSFET gates. This allowed packaging densities to increase enough to make a single chip microprocessor.

All notable inventions and many prerequisite to where we are today, but the only revolutionary one to her credit is probably TAB. --  :- )  Don  00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"A microprocessor is an integrated circuit on a tiny silicon chip that contains thousands or millions of tiny on/off switches, known as transistors."

http://www.belarus.net/Intel/MUSEUM/micropr.htm

"A microprocessor is a very advanced integrated circuit that houses millions of transistor within a single package."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_IC_and_microprocessor

From Frances Hugle patent METHOD OF MANUFACTURING IMPROVED MIS TRANSISTOR ARRAYS http://www.google.com/patents/US3574007?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

"a relatively small reactor can contain a 3" by 9" substrate on which several million transistors can be made and interconnected."

Column 3, second full paragraph, last sentence.

And the quote from article, "This invention relates to a method of producing large arrays of semiconductor devices..."

Finally, there is (and was) no 'they' to this invention. The et al refers to herself, Frances Hugle, assignor as trustee of The Frances Hugle Trust.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"Faggin when he developed a method of self-aligning the MOSFET gates."

Faggin is not credited with inventing the self aligned gate technology (that went to a team from Bell though this was contested by another who appears to have had a very valid 'prior art' claim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_gate) but Faggin is credited with developing the steps used in its manufacture. These are the steps described in the Frances Hugle patent.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

To further clarify that the Frances patent defines the steps to make microprocessors using polycrystalline (self aligning) gate technology:

In the Frances patent section, 'Other References' (very bottom), the first description of this gate technology (at an IEEE conference in 1966) is cited by the Frances patent. The citation reads:

Fa. C. H. et al. The Poly-Silicon Insulated-Gate Field Effect Transistor IEEE Trans. on electronic devices, vol. ED-13, No. 12, pp. 290-291 (1966)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=bWN1AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

In reply to:

"... investigating three different technologies, MIS, MOS and MNS for producing insulated gate FET's. Today those are all grouped into MOSFET transistors."

That these are all the same thing is also stated in the Frances patent, lines 65-70. So it is incorrect to state that she/they were investigating 3 technologies. Also, immediately following the tutorial on terminology (lines 65-70), line 71 introduces polycrystalline (SAG) as the basis that will be used in the described process for making large arrays of devices.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=bWN1AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I'm not sure where I saw the information on Faggin patent. I misread, or there is wrong information somewhere.  I did read that Faggin made the process commercially viable. Thing can be invented, that does not mean they can be built.  There are so many events, processes and inventions that lead to the modern microprocessor, who can say which was the seminal event?  What about the people who figured out out to make the silicon, or how to make the ingots larger than 1 to 2 inches in diameter.  These all had to happen before we go today's microprocessor.

What is the point of this extended discussion? We want to say that Frances Hugle invented the microprocessor? I don't think that can be said. --  :- )  Don  16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

" I did read that Faggin made the process commercially viable. Thing can be invented, that does not mean they can be built."

You were the one who introduced the discussion of the technology that separated Faggin from the others. I simply pointed out that it was the Frances Hugle patent that first described the commercially viable process:

Please see: METHOD OF MANUFACTURING IMPROVED MIS TRANSISTOR ARRAYS, column 2, lines 3-15 http://www.google.com/patents?id=bWN1AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Immediately following on line 16 of column two, we are told, "It is a further object of this invention to improve the uniformity of gate characteristics of MIS devices." This of course is the technology process most often attributed to Faggin, et al.

"There are so many events, processes and inventions that lead to the modern microprocessor, who can say which was the seminal event? "

The seminal/breakthrough event was decided by the industry that was finally able to use this event to make the first microprocessors. You attempted to allude to it earlier, so I do not understand your problem now when I contribute clarification of the event and further demonstrate that it was this event that was the subject of the Frances Hugle patent.

"What about the people who figured out out to make the silicon, or how to make the ingots larger than 1 to 2 inches in diameter."

Each step in transistor processing technology has been built upon prior knowledge and developments. The breakthrough ability to manufacture microprocessors is no different yet it is one of the most heralded benchmarks of the semiconductor industry. Frances was the first to describe the manufacturing process though this process was credited to Faggin who was also given a patent for it... filed later than Fran's but awarded earlier.

"What is the point of this extended discussion?"

To clear up apparent fallacies in the minds of the other editors.

"We want to say that Frances Hugle invented the microprocessor? I don't think that can be said."

Frances did invent the microprocessor as she clearly states in her patent though Faggin who filed his claims later was awarded the first patent for it.

This bio article only points out that she was the first to file a patent describing the commercially viable process whereby microprocessors could be fabricated (and basically are still today... the nuts and bolts of this technology remain largely unchanged). That Fran was the first to describe the commercially viable process for making a microprocessor is a factual statement (initially) referenced with a link to the patent which in plain English states and elucidates (in more technical language) this.

The only confusion(s) here seems to be that people do not know what a microprocessor is, what event introduced it (a process for making them commercially feasible, first articulated by the Frances Hugle patent) and what supporting technologies it included/necessitated (and why) and who introduced those (not Faggin).

Summing up, Frances did make the first patent filing describing how to make commercially viable microprocessors. Her patent was awarded years after it was filed and only after Faggin had already been given the patent for this process though his patent was filed a year later than hers.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * For the purpose of Wikipedia, the patent could only be used as proof that she filed a patent. Not on any claims about commercial viability or any products or technology that came from it. Really really read WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Until there are multiple third parties, knowledgeable on the subject, who say Frances Hugle is responsible for today's microprocessor, it can't be stated as a fact. I don't think you will find many third parties agreeing attribution of any modern technology to an individual, so Frances is not alone in her somewhat obscurity in the history books. --  :- )   Don  19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Not on any claims about commercial viability or any products or technology that came from it."

These claims, regarding the products created by the invention and their commercial viability are NOT interpretations but statements taken from the published material itself.

It is not enough to be able to cite Wikipedia rules. It is also necessary that editors check to see that the rules they are citing are applicable to the material in question:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." WP:OR

Again:

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Please see: METHOD OF MANUFACTURING IMPROVED MIS TRANSISTOR ARRAYS, column 2, lines 3-15 http://www.google.com/patents?id=bWN1AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nothing has been said on the subject of the microprocessor invention for which a reliable published source is not supplied stating the exact same thing.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"Until there are multiple third parties, knowledgeable on the subject, who say Frances Hugle is responsible for today's microprocessor, it can't be stated as a fact."

The claims are given in her patent. The patent was issued validating those claims. Patent examiners are experts in the field of the subject of the patent claim(s). More than one examiner ("multiple third parties, knowledgeable on the subject, who say Frances Hugle is responsible for today's microprocessor") was involved in making this determination. In the published patent record, Frances is the first person to file for a patent on making commercially viable microprocessors and her claim(s) are recorded and published as valid by experts in the field.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * You can continue to claim that you know that your interpretation of Wikipedia policies is correct and that other long term editors dont know what they are talking about, but that will not get you anywhere but upset. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am claiming no such thing. But, if AN EDITOR cites a rule to bolster a position that is in fact not bolstered by that rule, then I am going to point this out. Being a long term editor does not (I assume) give one the right to over-extend, subvert, mis-apply or mis-represent the rules. Or does it?

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * clearly you do not understand (or are attempting the most audacious of Wikilawyering fallacies) to try to claim that because there was more than one patent examiner involved in granting the patent that should count as multiple reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on around here?
No real interest in reading the walls of text, but long past time for blocking of disruptive editor(s).

If you are to close to the subject, then time to step away. --Malerooster (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? I have been addressing questions and comments and supplying substantive answers on the Talk Page. Maybe you should read them before throwing accusations, labels and threats.

This is counterproductive and contrary to what was initially suggested to me, that resolutions to conflicts and/or misunderstanding should first be sought by extensive use of the Talk pages. And, I took that to heart.

I continue to supply info and references for this article and to participate in improving it and asking for help in that. I see no reason why my particiaption would be offensive unless my opinions and contributions are extraneous and/or counterproductive. And, they are not.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I am not going to read walls of text. I can look at the article and see it is in poor shape. It should get a total overhaul at this point. --Malerooster (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Problems:
 * Certain people have hacked away a lot of info that really didn't need to go, considering it is not a WP:BLP.
 * There is a good reason for the restrictions implied by WP:COI.
 * I'm not a good writer, or I would redo it. I know a few good copywriters, maybe I will point one this way.  I agree it has been hacked to pieces at this time.
 * The Patent section should contain a list of her patents listed using the US Patent template (someone made if for a reason). This has been done in many articles and is done for books by authors, films by directors, songs by song writers, albums by groups, etc., etc. An example using the template is here.  She was not a modern day patent mill, so I doubt it would use 100kB.
 * Bases on these points, Cheryl and Red should go away for a while (1-2 months). Let the article recover, other people will look after it. --  :- )   Don  03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * this certain person hacked away at a lot of it that violated basic content policies of WP:V WP:OR WP:PRIMARY WP:NPOV and WP:COI and when this certain person tried to rebuild the article found a distinct lack of WP:RS to do so. this certain person would do that hacking again, (and may do so again in the future). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am continuing to add references and had planned to soon add additional info, properly sourced. The problem with this article is that it is like trying to write a well-sourced, unbiased, non-speculative ethnography on pre-Columbian people... we just know too little, yet their presence (and prior art) is certainly notable.

In 1967, there were probably few engineers in the semiconductor industry who hadn't heard of Frances, or attended one of her lectures. Forty five years later, there is almost no one who can even fathom why she might be important, yet, her early presence and prior art (and our response to it) continues to define much of who we are today.

Developing a well-sourced bio is difficult but still a tad easier for me because I already know where she worked, lectured, taught, some of what she accomplished, and many of those with whom she did what she did and who funded her R&D and why. Once all the basics are included here and sourced, any good writer should be able to arrange it into a cogent article of any desired style. But, we are on our way there and not yet there... that's my assessment.

I am sure my role has been constructive but if there is consensus that the content I contribute here is unwelcome, I will cease contributing.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Not unwelcome, but naturally biased. This talk page is the size of an article that has been around for 2-3 years.  That tells you there is too much contention.  IMHO, it's best just to go away for a while and come back with fresh perspective. If it is a worthy article, and you go away and promise to find something else to do, you will come back to a better article.  I speak the truth.  --  :- )   Don  06:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The size of the Talk page probably also reflects the historical significance of the subject matter. It is furthermore unclear/doubtful that all edits to this article and editing suggestions have been constructive. Many articles on Wikipedia end up being disjointed and strangely redundant with frustrating stylistic gyrations and I don't think this is generally due to the fact that an article is 'unworthy'. Though I do understand the COI concerns, I am sure that my contributions lack COI biases. It is also wrong for other editors to assume they lack bias simply by virtue of being biologically unrelated. Biases, especially on subjects that historically touch us all, exist for many reasons and many have been revealed in these Talk pages. Everyone needs to exert control and examine their reasoning, motivations, and upon what they are based. But, I do respect that this is your opinion and I will continue checking to see if it represents a consensus.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * if the size of the talk page were because of "the historical significance of the subject matter" it would correspond to lengthy pages here and here and here. Since it doesnt, the length of this talk page represents mostly WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. I think there is enough WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT to go around and WP:NPOV has two sides.  Is it going to hurt anyone, if "We" just leave the article to mellow for a while? Please? --  :- )   Don  15:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV has all the sides presented in proportion to their coverage by the mainstream academics in the field. But its only relevance here is that people who are too personally close to the subject should be very careful about their involvment in the article and that based on the the published work in the area, presenting Frances Hugle as anything but "a scientist that history forgot" is inappropriate. We can make sure that she is not totally forgotten by using what minimal reliable sources there are, but we cannot do more until such time as someone discovers this wonderful opportunity to bring a woman's work to light and publishes content about her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody, anybody, please stub this bio or try a rewrite.
The article is crap, excuse my french, in its current state. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you keep deleting content, it certainly will become a stub...

BTW, not everyone thinks that being a prominent Jewish female scientist in the semiconductor industry in the 40's, 50's and 60's is nonnotable, it is not only notable, it is entirely unique, there were no others in that industry during that period even close to her level of accomplishments.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * This is WP:OR. Ethnicity should be discussed under a early family section, but not in the lead unless it is the reason for the person's notability. --Malerooster (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The family section was deleted by another editor, and a random part of it combined in a section where it did not belong. The last iteration was contributed by yet another editor but at least in the introductory section, it seemed more sensical. I think Fran's ethnicity is important because of the impact the holocaust seemed to have on Jews who were adolescents, teens, etc. during WWII. But, she was decidedly atheist (not suggesting this last be included in the article because there is no published source for it, just FYI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Stating ones ethnicity is 'nonnotable' in bio articles?
This is a bio article. Isn't being Jewish during, prior and immediately following WWII important contextual biographical info?

The reference given for this was a page hosted by Jewish Gen specifically for Jewish families in which several pictures of Frances and her extended family members appeared. Is that an inappropriate source to validate ethnicity?

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Yes. --Malerooster (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at the Conflict of interest notice board
Since the discussions here have had little effective result, I have initiated a discussion at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate Headliner Tag Removed
I removed a tag that has been twice placed at the beginning of this article that both misrepresents and inappropriately discredits the content and the sources that exist. 'Citation required' tagging is already in place (by the same editor) as is a statement cautioning a reader about any material that may not be properly sourced.

There seems to be a concerted effort by two of the editors to blanket this article in inappropriate tagging, characterizations, etc. as prelude to complete deletion of the article. I hope these destructive behaviors can be blocked since it is time wasting, serves no constructive purpose and is not based on the article's merits or lack thereof.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Professional career
Recent additions to this section include information that is only partially correct. In the original article it was stated that Fran worked on military contracts while at Baldwin. This statement was deleted until appropriate sources could be cited. So far, only one source is cited in the article that states that this could be the case, Don Hoefler's article on Silicon Valley history.

I had originally included the statement about Fran's military contract work because I uncovered some of Fran's papers from this period marked classified which concerned an R&D project for the Air Force. But, these could not be used as sources. Articles, such as those from technical journals, written in the fifties and sixties are obviously required and those are difficult to locate, at least for me now.

Other than Hoefler's mention of the fact that it was possible Frances was involved in military work while at Baldwin there is also this timeline for BEI Technologies, Inc., an offshoot of D. H. Baldwin Company which confirms the military contract work ongoing at Baldwin during the time Frances was one of (if not) the principle scientist there.

Company Perspectives:

BEI Technologies, Inc. is leading the development of intelligent sensors across many markets. Key Dates:

1948:   Baldwin Piano and Organ Company uses an optically encoded disk to make an electronic organ. 1951:   The U.S. Army Signal Corp. contracts Baldwin to develop optical encoders. 1962:   Baldwin encoders are first used in the U.S. space program.

Excerpt copied from: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/bei-technologies-inc-history/http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/bei-technologies-inc-history/

I offer this only to point out that though Wikipedia has a strict policy of only stating what is popularly or 'conventionally true', this policy does often obscure valid history.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Hi Cheryl! I understand that this can be a problem. The sources I could find seem to place her as working at Baldwin on pianos:
 * "They started a synthetic gem company in New Jersey and then moved to Cincinnati to work for the electronic instruments division of D.H. Baldwin, the piano maker."
 * And:
 * "One of their first joint projects was at the Baldwin Piano Company, where they developed the technology to create electronic organs."
 * So based on those, my assumption was that at least part of her time at Baldwin was working on electronic pianos. If that is incorrect. I have no hassles taking that claim out of the article, though. Sources can be wrong, and I don't think that we need to repeat them when they are. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby,

Your assumption that at least part of the time she worked on technologies for electronic pianos is correct.

I always thought this was largely a cover-up story but the more complete patent record does indicate some work on tone generation, etc.

So I am not at all sure how one achieves balance and fair representation of this history when later published records seem to intentionally obscure the general nature of the work in which she was primarily and for the most part engaged.

The biggest problem I see with this article is that so much of Frances Hugle's history was re-scripted (mostly buried) following her death by William and his friends. If I had thought more about Wiki policies and less about trying to share a largely buried piece of history, I think I would have realized the virtual impossibility of this task.

Still, I am glad you showed up on these pages. Please understand that when I add context/info, I am only hoping to assist other editors. I do not know what is best in this case since not addressing more of the published record also seems mistaken. But, I personally do not know how to address it while remaining valid and within the structure of Wiki guidelines. I know it's a tall order but I hope someone(s) may.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * it actually IS pretty simple. we go by what we can specifically verify in reliable sources without committing original research by presenting assumptions or analysis. If we dont have the sources, we dont present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And, that guided me in deleting the description of her work at Baldwin and other deletions. But, we were also addressing the question of what to do in the case where majority publications are known to be presenting false or misleading info or hearsay. And knowledge that publications are doing so does not necessarily depend to original research.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Hi Cheryl. Just a couple of things, I guess. The first is that we can only add material that is verifiable, but this doesn't mean that we must add material because it is reliable sources. If we know that the material is incorrect, we don't have to add it - although in this case, if I understand things correctly, you believe that she did work on electronic pianos, but that she also worked on military contracts.
 * The problem you face is to do with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Because of how easy it would be for people to insert false information (and they try to do so, often), Wikipedia needs an objective standard for inclusion. Which is where the "verifiability" comes in - if it can't be verified by a random editor, given reasonable effort, then Wikipedia can't include it. This creates the problem you describe, where we can't give the full story because we can't check important claims. On the other hand, it limits the bigger problem of defamation, so it always seems to me like a necessary evil. The result is that Wikipedia can't do full justice to biographies of people where part of their history isn't readily available.
 * At any rate, I guess I'm not sure what to do next. We know she did work on pianos - what is missing is what else she worked on. In Electronic News, January 18, 1971, there's the line "TI never answered the letter, but Baldwin did. Its interest in transistors was for electronic organs, and possibly military and industrial electronics. The two Drs. Hugle moved to Cincinnati to join Baldwin, forging a friendly relationship that continues to this day." I'm not sure, but I guess one possibility would be to change the wording, based on that, to: "... and shortly thereafter obtained employment at the Baldwin Piano Company, who were looking to use transistors in their electronic organs, and may have been interested in "military and industrial electronics"." Given that we also know, from your sources above, that Baldwin did some military work, perhaps that would be a reasonable approach? - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby,

Yes, I do understand the limitations and reasons for them. And, within that context, your approach sounds like a sensible compromise. Can you do the rewrite?

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * If it is ok, I'd like to give it a bit of time to see if there are any objections first - I tend to take things a bit slow on Wikipedia, (with some notable exceptions, of course, where changes are urgent), as everyone works to different timezones. :) But I'll remove the current wording subject to discussion - it can always be added back if anyone has concerns. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentals of Microsystems Packaging
I've added a book reference from this sourcelink removed supporting Hugle's invention of TAB-- I typically use Google Books as the URL reference, but a Scribd page has the full text of the book, so I've used that one. The book source also dates her patent of the invention to 1966, however the patent for it seems to have been dated to 1967 for publication-- is this just a dating in the book error or does it correspond to a different patent? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the scribd link as an apparent WP:COPYLINK violation. Glrx (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

COI
I think there are numerous examples of aggressive tagging based upon overextending (and intentionally misapplying) certain stated Wiki policies. Here is another example from a recent tag at the top of this talk page: "Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Autobiography"

Obviously this is not an autobiography when the subject of the article has been dead almost 45 years! And, my biological relationship was fully disclosed from the beginning for ethical reasons.

Furthermore, I really do not appreciate receiving threats and warnings on my personal Talk page based upon false allegations made by unscrupulous editors.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Again, you are notified that slinging insults such as "unscrupulous " at other editors is not acceptable behavior. If you do not want your conflict of interest to be a source of continual discussion, then you will need to stop editing articles where you have a blatant conflict of interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * COI-affected editors can still use the article talk page to present their ideas. If they modify the article itself, and especially if they revert changes by other editors, their actions may be questioned. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The characterization that I am editing an article in which I have a clear COI is a bit unbalanced. I did not begin by editing this article. I began by contributing it because it is a critical piece of history that had been largely buried though it is of interest to the general public.

I have remained involved for two reasons, Red has continuously attacked it often by misapplying policies as justifications and other editors have exhibited assumptions based upon fallacies that were easy to clear up.

My contributions have mostly been positive. On the other hand, your continuous attacks have not been positive nor 100% warranted. And these 'walls of text' have only become necessary in defending some often absurd claims.

I am sure you will succeed in destroying this article by continuous removals of content and references and then stating it is unworthy of being a stand alone article. No one is going to put the time in to keep up a defense against your determined attacks. But, there is still merit in pointing out that the program in place that allows editors such as yourself to prevail in these cases serves the interests of no one.

I have done my best to bring this history to light for everyone's benefit. I can't do any more here and will not.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * I am afraid your characterization of this situation says more about your behavior and attitude than it does the system or editors you are railing hard against. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Notable inventions section (2)
This has already been discussed above but the concerns seem to have been arbitrarily dismissed without being given further consideration. Am starting a new section given the substantive discussion since.

The Notable inventions  section contains blatant WP:OR and most of the claims contained therein are not supported by reliable secondary sources. At all. Someone has read the sources, come to their own conclusion about what they mean and cited the original source as supporting that claim. That's not how sourcing works and it's certainly not how Wikipedia works.


 * The line, "She was the first person to file for a patent describing how to make a microprocessor though her patent was not awarded until years after it was filed and only after Faggin, et al. had already received a patent for the microprocessor" is in no way supported by the reference given for that line. The source says nothing of the kind, in fact it doesn't even mention the subject from what I can tell. Re-interpreting that source, drawing that conclusion and then submitting that editorial prose is pure WP:OR - plain and simple.


 * The line, "she unexpectedly discovered the unique and critical electrical principles of microscopic semiconductors which enabled the design and fabrication of the microprocessor" is not supported by the source given in any way, shape or form. The source is a patent - reading it, interpreting it yourself and then claiming it supports the above editorialising is just plain wrong. At no point does any person in that source suggest the patent represent a "discovery" or that the discovery was "unique" or "critical". That's because the source in question is a primary source and offers no secondary commentary on the patent whatsoever. Any subsequent critical analysis (which is what this statement amounts to) is pure WP:OR.

It's clear there is some contention as to sources and content so I thought it best to highlight these here first. But unless someone can come up with some reliable sources that actually support what the article says then I will move to remove both of these lines. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue has been in other venues but not forgotten. I deleted the OR statements and moved two patents into the next section. Glrx (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A good start. Nice work. I was aware it had been raised here (above) but wasn't aware it was at other venues. No desire to stir anything up but the edits you made look like good ones - they certainly addressed the concerns I raised. Cheers, Stalwart 111  22:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment
I googled several variations of the term Frances Hugle (Frances Sarnat, F B Hugle, etc) against perhaps 50 to 100 newspapers, science magazines and journals, using vast search sweeps that really comb through the web rather thoroughly. If there had been any acceptable sources out there, then at least one or two of these sweeps would have found a mention. But I did not find any references using this method. And then I'm looking at this rather long article and wondering what is going on here -- using patents as references, websites, and I was unsatisfied with the current bunch of references. It may be the case that this person was notable, with more sources and references obtainable, if Wikipedia has been around in the 1930s and 1940s; but it wasn't. So, if there are any acceptable sources, maybe they may be found in books pertaining to this field? But if they can not be located, then my sense is the article should either be trimmed substantially or deleted. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of web content is recent. Many trade journals as well as mainstream publications from the 40's, 50's and 60's are no longer published and the majority of their content is not yet included on the web.

This includes the Palo Alto Times, probably the most respected mainstream newspaper in Slicon Valley in the 50's and 60's. (Though I have a copy of one of its articles on Frances, I do not have it with me but it would eventually have been cited.)

Nonetheless, the basic claims of this article are supported by acceptable sources. There is simply no justification for removal of this article except the storm of protest it has occasioned.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * If you google Frances Hugle and the Palo Alto Times, there are no hits. Ditto if you search for "University of Chicago" and "Frances Hugle"; ditto "University of Cincinnati" and "Frances Hugle". If Hugle was as notable as you say, then wouldn't there be some indication of this from the U.Chicago alumni office?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another problem: overemphasis. Suppose there are a few references which others may consider as reliable; then still, why is this article so long? That length will cause it to attract negative attention and deletionists; at the very least, I counsel keeping the article short and well-referenced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Patents, on comparing Acacias and banana boats
The following statement was posted to the COI board remarking that though both the acacia and the banana boat may populate a tropical island, the appearance of one is not necessarily dependent upon the other, and if it is, it represents a substantial change of state certainly deserving separate identification...

The statement:

Following this COI request, a very predictable and unfortunate situation has arisen, the removal of verifiable information from the article (relevant Wiki policy guidelines regarding acceptable sources as well as the exact text paraphrased will be quoted in a separate statement) replaced with a meaningless and incomplete selection of a few of Frances' patents with an entirely misleading and misinforming comparison given following the mention of one of these patents, Frances' isolation patent. Frances' isolation patent had not previously been included in the Notable Inventions section (now deleted) but appears to have been included very recently to imply that Frances' work was a later version of work already patented by Noyce. This unjustifiably implies the contributions of Frances should be considered of lessor (later) value, and possibly an attempt to take credit for work already patented. This sullies and discredits the subject in the mind of the casual reader without justification whatsoever. The patents now being compared in the article are not comparable: In the case of the Noyce patent, one of the four major claims was later dismissed by the US Patent Office and the other claims if challenged might also be denied. The body of his patent essentially describes the properties of insulating materials and diodes and how these perform the same functions in semiconductor circuitry that they perform in any other type of electrical application. The Frances patent on the other hand describes a means to substantially condense circuitry by largely removing the intrinsic barrier (insulating) regions. Following her invention, a substantial part of the wafer previously needed for the isolation of devices(40%) became available for increasing device populations. The Frances patent represents one of the core technologies that enabled the development of microprocessors and the essential features of her isolation patent are still in use today. Aditionally, improvements to isolation technology are many and they continue to be patented such as this one in 2012: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/8138571.html I strongly suggest that those rewriting the section on Frances' contributions/patents/inventions either read the material they are seeking to characterize/compare, or refrain from comparisons and other statements that may unfairly discredit or incorrectly characterize her work. I suggest that the patent section either list the patents or refrain from listing them altogether. The selection as it stands contributes absolutely nothing but a false impression to the casual reader. Finally, everyone has biases. The most common type being a favoritism for ones mother culture. Our 'mother' culture definitely includes Noyce as a (maybe the) key figure in semiconductor technology. So, it is entirely normal to apply different standards when reviewing assumptions we have accepted by virtue of being a member of a culture which incorporates those assumptions. I think this is the fundamental reason my position appears to be 'wrong' and COI is a convenient presumption. The information in the Frances Hugle article challenges us to consider a largely buried piece of history (though still with enough sources to be modestly revealed) and the biases (including gender, racial and cultural) that our dominant (and incomplete) industry histories uphold. 189.172.40.237 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

189.172.40.237 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

An open note to Cheryl

 * With respect, I think you've hit the nail on the head without realising it - "a largely buried piece of history". Wikipedia does not publish original research, no matter how factually accurate you believe your information to be. Any information you add (about any subject, regardless of debates about COI) must be verified by reliable sources before you add it. So "buried history" (by its very definition) is unlikely to be published here. You'll find most of the people here don't have an advanced understanding of semi-conductors, or their history or even the broader history of Silicon Valley. I'm Australian so the whole subject is fairly irrelevant to me.


 * The suggestion that people are railing against your style of editing because of some deep-seeded "favoritism for ones mother culture" isn't really accurate, I think. From what I can tell, you have a perhaps underdeveloped sense of what Wikipedia expects of its editors in terms of verifiability and the citing of sources (entirely understandable for a new editor). In essence, you can only repeat what has been published elsewhere, whether the information is qualitative or quantitative. If an article says, "In 1955, x did y" then you can summarise that and cite the source - "y was completed by x in 1955". You cannot, however, add, "x did y. Given y was completed in 1955, the project represented a huge advancement on the work of r, s, and t and lead to the development of z". That is editorialising and drawing your own conclusions from a source - we call that "original research". It doesn't matter if it is "factual" or not - this is an encyclopaedia and so information must be verified by reliable sources first . We report on what others have researched, we don't (can't) conduct the sort of research required to overcome the "challenges" of "buried... history", "biases" or "incomplete industry histories". That's not our role. When someone else challenges those incomplete histories then we can cite them.


 * We can probably include a list of patents by citing the relevant patent documents. They are primary sources but for basic factual information (no editorialising!) they might be okay. Any commentary (any at all!) needs to be supported by reliable sources. It's no good to simply say, "well, it says it was filed on x date so we can draw x conclusion". As an editor here, you cannot draw that conclusion yourself. If you want to draw those conclusions and have the information included here, go write a book. I don't mean that to sound nasty in any way - seriously, go write a book. You have a coherent writing style, you understand the material, you obviously have a personal and unique connection to the history and you seem to have access to primary sources that others don't. Write a book and we will cite the hell out of it.


 * Finally, I don't think your COI is being used as a weapon against you. You have a COI. Great, whatever. Separately, your editing style here could do with some work. The responses from other editors to your style I have seen here are no different to those I have seen for editors with no COI at all. People are commenting about your style and your need to comply with policies and guidelines. You have interpreted that criticism (on more than one occasion) as an attack on the subject of the article. I would venture to suggest that if you had no COI at all and you were here to learn how to edit (generally) in areas where you have no conflict, your response might have been very different. Surely, if this criticism had come about on an article about water buffalo, your response would have been different. No? (Unless you farm buffalo, in which case I've just ruined everything!). Unfortunately, your reactions have only served to reinforce the suggestion that your COI is impacting on your editing. Posting your suggestions here is a much better idea. That allows other editors to contribute content to the article based on sources you have found. The content will be written from a neutral point of view and no-one can suggest editor COI has been involved. The discussion is then also open for all to see here.


 * You are obviously getting frustrated with how this whole thing has gone - again (without drumming it in), I can only imagine that a subject with which you have no connection would not have created this much angst for you. I'm genuinely serious - write a book. Have a copy shipped to Australia and I'll be the first person to read it. Stalwart 111  00:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will note that a similar suggestion was presented earlier, but hopefully this longer and more detailed suggestions will meet with better success. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It takes a while to grasp Wikipedia's rules. Many begin here by being passionate about one subject -- shining it, waving its flag, trumpeting its glory. Invariably, we run into others who think differently. What makes Wikipedia great is the multiplicity of viewpoints tempered by adherence to its rules. While elevating Frances Hugle to notability is a particular cause for one contributor, it indirectly hurts the encyclopedia as a whole, since it is an exception: standards are lowered to accommodate this subject's lack of importance. Readers may come across this article and sense something amiss which they may not put their finger on right away, but there is something fishy -- an undeserved importance, a trumpeting of the trivial, a vagueness in the writing, lack of clarity as a result of lack of references. Readers may not trust this article and may begin to distrust the entire encyclopedia as a result. Please try to see the larger picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, false assumptions are being made. And, the quote, 'buried history', should have included my complete statement, that although most of this history has been buried, the claims in the article are limited by Wiki guidelines on neutrality and proper sources as well as the need to keep the article free of opinion and OR. If you claim otherwise, then give examples. That at least is something objective and allows for complete transparency instead of what seems to be a preponderance of prejudiced and baseless assumption. Furthermore, if you incorrectly cite an example, it should not be assumed that it will go unchallenged... or that challenging it is confirmation of the challenger's COI.


 * And, I have already ceased editing this article. So, no need to go round and round.


 * "Posting your suggestions here is a much better idea. That allows other editors to contribute content to the article based on sources you have found. The content will be written from a neutral point of view and no-one can suggest editor COI has been involved. The discussion is then also open for all to see here."


 * I do intend to do so, not because I am guilty as charged, but because of the obvious limitations of the other editors who often inappropriately apply and interpret Wiki policies.


 * About a book... they rarely receive enough interest to make the effort worthwhile. Nonetheless, I am continuing to seek better understanding of Frances' work. I am particularly interested in finding some way to peer into her early work on crystals in the mid forties. This is the period that caused an obvious uproar, catapulting her out of medical school and into a career focused on the development of (additional?) military and semiconductor technologies.


 * 189.172.40.237 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Cheryl, you are free to take or leave my suggestions as you see fit. But you continue to suggest that your edits comply with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR while at least half a dozen experienced editors have told you they do not. Most have provided examples - I certainly did. You can continue to claim you didn't hear them or that "everyone else is wrong" but it probably won't do much good. Your stubbornness and refusal to drop any of your many sticks will likely mean that your suggestions here will simply go ignored. That's the best case scenario. Worst case would be that this article is taken to AFD where an "everyone else is wrong" attitude will fare even worse and your inability to assume good faith will see you subject to sanctions. My comments were supposed to be a good faith attempt to encourage consensus building rather than a battleground attitude. Simply dismissing everyone who disagrees with you (even those who try to give constructive advice) as "prejudiced" is likely to be unproductive. Stalwart 111  04:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Simply dismissing everyone who disagrees with you (even those who try to give constructive advice) as "prejudiced" is likely to be unproductive."


 * Regardless of your intentions, I do find the position prejudiced and not based on fact. Also, I did not believe your model describes my editing at all, it only describes your perception of it.


 * Furthermore, if I believe that you are the one who has not understood, regardless of how many may agree with you, I do not see why I should feel that continuing to state my opinion is some sort of violation.


 * I have already promised a more complete reply to the OR assertions/allegations. I intend to exactly quote source text (that which was paraphrased) and demonstrate that no claims outside the ones stated in the source text were made or implied.


 * I will also quote the relevant Wiki guidelines and demonstrate that the statements made did conform to those guidelines, hopefully effectively demonstrating to your satisfaction that article statements were not OR.


 * But sanctioning someone for expressing an opposing opinion? Not on policy but on whether those policies are being correctly applied (i.e., Is the situation as others are describing or not? That is the question and considering how many things others have gotten wrong, are we to continue to assume infallibility? What if the accepted point of view is mistaken? Is there a point at which it is no longer acceptable to mention it?)


 * But, I repeat; I am not editing this article. I am just disputing the reason given by the editors for why anything I do on this article is suspect as well as the allegation that it is substantially OR.


 * In sum, there is apparent consensus that edits by me are unwelcome. So, I am no longer editing this article.


 * 189.172.40.237 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * As I said - feel free to take my advice or leave it. It is, of course, not a violation to give your opinion, even repeatedly, as long as you stay on the right side of WP:CIV and WP:NPA (which are not-negotiable). Most functional processes here are based on community consensus but it is up to you how you approach consensus-building. You are absolutely right - you are free to openly disagree with the community and their consensus - they may very well be mistaken. You can also disagree with their interpretation of their policies and their application of them. That's the benefit of WP. Either way, I genuinely look forward to your analysis. Stalwart 111  08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My sense is regardless of what anybody says or does here on this talk page is that the article on Frances Hugle will probably be deleted. This can be tough to take emotionally. This has happened to me several times in the past: articles that I have worked on extensively (poured my heart and soul into them, etc etc) got taken to the chopping block, sometimes rather abruptly, with much finger wagging. I have found that perhaps the best way to cope with such a possibility is to keep the article alive on another site such as Wordpress. Move Frances Hugle there. Add photos. Make it interesting. Make it fun to read. With Wordpress you'll lose readership but gain control: you'll be sole master about what appears there and will not have to fuss with other contributors or hard-to-grasp rules. If you do this and ask politely, then contributors here may offer constructive suggestions about how to improve your content which you will be free to choose or ignore. We can also help you build readership there too based on simple principles of SEO.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or if you dont want to be the promoter, I am certain,  as I have said before, that there are scads of people in Women's Studies departments across the country that would love access to any of the documentation that you have and who would be able to bring the work of this neglected woman scientist into their thesis and publications in university and academic presses. And once it is published there, it can be brought back here. But starting here is the wrong method.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Tom,

I sincerely appreciate your friendly advice. Still, it assumes I have trouble understanding WP policies. I disagree. It assumes that I would be happier with less input. But the opposite is true. I submitted this article to WP largely because other editors might become involved. I have never wanted to 'own' this article, I wanted to contribute some info within a group of technical and editing professionals with hopes that the presentation would be improved and its content would continue to grow.

There are few to no people alive who have any undestanding of Frances' work. Had I not shared what could be shared, this record would have been lost forever.

On that note, how can an article about the only female Silicon Valley founder, one who co-founded an early and major semiconductor house and designed its first products, and one that contributed critical understandings of semiconductors and their processing (that remain key to the today) be removed? The majority of content of this article is not disputed. Its notability is not disputed.

The argument for removing this article is primarily based upon the fact that it was contributed by a relative. Yet, I see no clear WP policies that demand removal (on that basis) and since this issue has been elsewhere addressed with the decision not to delete...

Yet, I am not sure I would be crestfallen if it were deleted. It was a good faith effort, misunderstood by the majority of editors commenting here. But I am an environmentalist and a vegan, so I am not a stranger to good faith attempts (lasting years) that result in spectacular failures. Nor insensitive to the heartbreaking, ever-present and ubiquitous reminders of those failures.

OK, but your suggestion about creating content elsewhere may still be interesting. I would like to further discuss it but I am sure the Talk page is not the place. Where then?

(I tried to submit this and had an editing conflict with Red's comment. So again, there is no way to state that the article's content is not reasonably sourced. And, that which is not, (such as the S.B. degree) can be deleted still leaving substantial well-sourced content. That more current writing on the subject would be good is no doubt true. But, it is certainly more likely that this could happen if the subject is available to be explored and discoverd. The info shared here is sound, notable and reasonably sourced which makes it a critical, valid and important resource and starting point for women seeking info on women scientists and engineers and their contributions.)

189.172.40.237 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Cheryl,


 * Hmmmmmmm. My opinion is not guided by conflict of interest concerns; rather, looking over the current article, my sense is that maybe there are only one or two solid references. The best one is the article in SF Gate. Still, if this article went to an Articles-for-deletion (AfD) debate, I bet it would get chopped, since really there should be three or more independent sources meeting WP:RS. Patents are primary sources and are generally not usable; perhaps they could be used to confirm another source. There are few, if any, inline citations. My sense is: if you would like this article to stay in Wikipedia, trim it down to the bare bones -- a FEW lines at best, based mostly on that SF Gate article; start from the good references and work from them, and trim down all the rest (which is causing problems and bringing negative attention here); perhaps then it may be better positioned to survive a critical onslaught of deletionists which will probably happen sooner or later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider floating an article on William Bell Hugle. You can find (usually) acceptable references rather quickly by using search strings. Copy and paste them into your Google search browser bar. Here are a few that might help but modify them accordingly (omit my user time stamp obviously):-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ("william bell hugle" OR "bill hugle" OR "W. B. Hugle" OR "William B. Hugle") (site:wsj.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:boston.com OR site:miamiherald.com OR site:post-gazette.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:suntimes.com OR site:latimes.com OR site:sfexaminer.com OR site:oregonian.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:time.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:nysun.com OR site:cbsnews.com OR site:npr.org OR site:guardian.co.uk OR site:nj.com OR site:thestar.com OR site:usnews.com OR site:slate.com OR site:newsweek.com OR site:cnn.com OR site:thenation.com OR site:newyorker.com OR site:news.google.com).-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ("william bell hugle" OR "bill hugle" OR "W. B. Hugle" OR "William B. Hugle") (site:sacbee.com OR site:ncswa.org OR site:sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com OR site:krctv.com OR site:enjoymagazine.net OR site:sfgate.com OR site:sfexaminer.com OR site:sfweekly.com OR site:kcbs.com OR site:kron.com OR site:nbcbayarea.com OR site:ktvu.com OR site:sfbg.com OR site:examiner.com OR site:sanfranmag.com OR site:bayareamagazine.com OR site:theatrebayarea.org OR site:theowlmag.com OR site:fingeronthepulse.org OR site:thedelimagazine.com/sf OR site:insidebayarea.com OR site:theoaklandpress.com OR site:mercurynews.com OR site:eastbayexpress.com).-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ("william bell hugle" OR "bill hugle" OR "W. B. Hugle" OR "William B. Hugle") (site:almanacnews.com OR site:menlopark.patch.com OR site:santaclaraweekly.com OR site:losgatos.patch.com OR site:losgatosdailynews.com OR site:siliconvalley.com OR site:metronews.com OR site:cupertino.patch.com OR site:paloaltoonline.com OR site:paloalto.patch.com OR site:padailypost.com).-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ("william bell hugle" OR "bill hugle" OR "W. B. Hugle" OR "William B. Hugle") (site:pcmag.com OR site:pcworld.com OR site:computer.org OR site:computerworld.com OR site:netvalley.com OR site:computerpoweruser.com OR site:cgonline.com OR site:zdnet.com OR site:computermagazine.com OR site:techny.com OR site:developerdotstar.com OR site:ddj.com)-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ("william bell hugle" OR "bill hugle" OR "W. B. Hugle" OR "William B. Hugle") (site:bizjournals.com OR site:peteconstant.com OR site:mercurynews.com OR site:thewavemagazine.com OR site:sanjosemagazine.com OR site:siliconvalley.com OR site:discovermag.com OR site:icdim.org OR site:ece.uci.edu OR site:smu.edu OR site:pascal.eng.uci.edu OR site:journalseek.net OR site:ieeexplore.ieee.org)-Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you need my help, ask.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Last, as I said, float an article in Wordpress on Frances Hugle. You'll have control. And remember that other contributors here who may appear as adversaries are really trying to help you. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would vote to have the article chopped based upon your comments. That this history was buried in the first place was, in my view, a concerted effort by William and other of his associates. Those associates (very close in many cases) include founders of major companies, as well as notable journalists who began to (re)script and popularize Silicon Valley history circa 1970.

I am certainly not interested in expanding upon lopsided accounts no matter who popularized them. Most of the articles that followed Williams death were prompted by the campaigning of a relative who wanted some of the more unsavory aspects of his career obscured ...

At the outset, William's career was intimately tied to an infamous, very powerful and highly connected industrial spy, John Broady. He is known to have been twice investigated for related activities, first for the illegal export of technology and later for espionage (the Harper case). Other equally serious crimes have been discovered but cannot be shared and many more are likely to be discovered.

My intention is not to waste time spreading somewhat popular though fundamentally flawed histories. My intention was only to share what might be of value to others. This is certainly not about resume. That is far from an interest at my point in life.

Please move to chop this article. I would feel better personally knowing that it had been removed from this community.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Okay. Making the request.✅--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple clean up, editing tasks
In the section on education, Sarnat is misspelled in a couple of places. 'Sarnet' should be replaced by Sarnat.

Also, according to a quote attributed to Frances in the LA Examiner article, Frances and William first met in high school not in college as the article now states. My personal understanding is that they had many high school friends in common but were not an 'item' until the end of their college careers.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Recent Source(s)
Another source: http://www.circuitsassembly.com/cms/news/13652-techsearch-ieee-launch-scholarship-for-women-engineers- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

oops

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Original research
Frances Hugle died of stomach cancer in May of 1968, a few months before Intel was formed.

Frances Hugle filed a patent on Silicon Gate Technology in 1967, the technology that was the raison d'etre of Intel. She also held a number of other valuable patents. If she had lived, she may have successfully challenged the dates of the Bell Lab SGT patent and other patents awarded following her death to companies such as GE.

Shortly after she died, her family moved and the house was rented to Don Hoefler, a close friend and drinking buddy of William Hugle. Don's wife also soon developed stomach cancer and two years later, Fuji, the man who founded Hugle Electronics, Japan, reported that his wife (age 37) had also developed stomach cancer. When Fuji was asked how he felt about his wife's cancer he reportedly said, "I'm not worried, I already found someone to replace her."

Considering the value of Frances Hugle's inventions, that these properties came immediately (at least nominally) under the control of William Hugle following her death and that two other women NOT within Frances Hugle's social circle but who were within William's social circle, the following statistics seem to be a smoking gun.

Statistics for incidence and death from stomach cancer in women aged 35-44:


 * During 1998-2002, the median age at death for stomach cancer was 74 years of age. The percentages of people who died from stomach cancer based on age were as follows:

::1.2 percent died between 20 and 34 ::3.8 percent died between 35 and 44 ::8.8 percent died between 45 and 54 ::14.4 percent died between 55 and 64 ::24.5 percent died between 65 and 74 ::30.4 percent died between 75 and 84 ::16.9 percent died at 85 years of age or older.


 * The age-adjusted stomach cancer death rate was 4.5 per 100,000 men and women per year. These rates are based on patients who died in 1998-2002 in the United States. Stomach cancer death rates by race and sex were:


 * 2.8 per 100,000 White women

So, if I understand correctly, approximately 1 in 1 million white women died between the ages of 35 and 44, the age range into which Frances fell at the time of her death. Though these incidence rates were higher in 1968 and higher yet in Japan, the likelihood of death by stomach cancer at such a young age was still statistically rare.

If there is a 1 in a million chance that someone will die of a specific disease at a particular age, what is the probability that there will be three such cases at approximately the same time in one person's life?

The number seems to be something greater than 1 in a quadrillion.*


 * Considering an event number of 100 (derived from an assumed pool of <100 close business associates for William) instead of 3, the probability is more like 1 in 10 trillion... but still improbable.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * A smoking gun for? Stalwart 111  23:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Murder Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Yeah, had a feeling that's what you were getting at. I think I could safely speak for everyone when I tell you to be very (very) cautious about posting such things here. While WP is not the place for original research, it most certainly would not be considered the appropriate place for original research relating to a private criminal investigation. Suggestions/evidence/accusations/etc relating to the same could easily be considered a WP:BLP violation, not to mention a legal threat.
 * These are really things that should be referred to police or some other investigative authority. To even consider including such things in the article, the information would need to be verifiable. For criminal matters that usually means nothing short of a conviction.
 * If there's no way we could ever use such speculation in the article, there's not really much point having it sit here on the article talk page. In fact, I actually think there's a good chance it might be something you could be blocked for. Would strongly suggest you remove it, even temporarily to allow a broader conversation to happen if that's what you want (without specifics). Stalwart 111  00:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As it is, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of two editors having this conversation without wider community input and would generally be inclined to refer it to WP:ANI, if not WP:Oversight. I think you really need to take a step back and consider the context of posting an accusation like that in a public place. Stalwart 111  00:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The facts are: she died and the statistical probability is what it is, reliable source quoted. The people mentioned in this discussion are dead. So, I am not sure what the problem bringing this to light is on a Talk page about an historical person.


 * It's purpose is not to suggest inclusion in the article though. It's purpose is to provide background notes. Those I think I provided pretty well and they may be welcome by some editors.


 * Anyway, I am not trying to limit conversation. If I were, I would have withheld the statistical info.


 * As far as police and such... that is impossible. This matter is well known to various military, government, and secret service agencies such as the FBI and CIA. There should be a case opened, that is for sure, but no such thing will happen until a public outcry demands it. I have been thwarted often trying to unearth documents that may be relevant so I am pretty sure that there is a very concerted cover-up continuing.


 * I think there has been a terrible amount of censorship on this topic already. If you promote censoring cancer statistics compiled by the most reliable sources, then what is next?


 * So, is it speculation to point out the mathematical relationship of the statistics and a person's death? I do not think this is speculation. It is simple mathematical fact. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I think this needs to be addressed, "there's not really much point having it sit here on the article talk page."


 * I disagree. Though the article does not in anyway, indicate that Fran's death came at a critical juncture in the semiconductor industry, it has been noted in other published sources cited by this article. Considering that the SGT technology was the impetus to found Intel, if nothing else, it is remarkable that a person so intimately involved in it would pass away just before the enterprise created to exploit it was formed. This can be noted without alleging any wrong doing... simply as a fact, an historical anomaly if you will. Such facts are often noted about artists... that they passed away paupers and then...


 * So, there is a point to coloring in the whole page. It is what makes something informative rather than just irrelevant data. And, we do not have to have all the reasons for the facts we present... they do not have to be part of a grand scheme... they can reside as facts... later possibly to be found to connect in surprising ways.


 * Again, the tragic timing of her death has already been mentioned in a respectable publication in regard to TAB. So, this is not by any means the first mention.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle