Talk:Frances Hugle/Archive 3

Why is there no picture in the infobox?
I added the info box when I figure an article is going to be around a while. There have been two family members editing the article, but no picture. Curious. --  :- )  Don  01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have scans of two Sarnat family group pictures which include Frances. One is when she was 12 and one when she was 38. I have been promised a better picture but have yet to receive it.

I have never had posession of any of the family's papers, pictures or patents. Nor do I have permission to access any except those that were recently rescued (after I mounted a storm of protest) by my daughter and her boyfriend from a family burn pile. But, I live 2000 miles from where those rescued are stored and cannot presently afford to bring them here though I doubt any pictures not work related are amongst them.

There are also family pictures that include Frances in the LA Examiner article which I have on my computer. And, in my personal storage, there is a copy of the PA Times article with a picture of her taken less than a year before she died.

But, it also seems unnecessary at this stage considering the uncertain status of this article. In any case, if anything I have mentioned interests you, let me know and I will try to upload somewhere or otherwise provide access.

And, the link to the Jewish gen site (now deleted) also had group pictures that included Frances with her properly identified. Oh yes, there is another scan of a group picture with her on a camping trip, she was 29.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * If you have something that might be useable, you can upload to commons or email to me, I can be somewhat handy with photoshop.
 * I don't know why the Jewish gen site was chopped I did not see a problem with it. But, I have not had much of a problem with a lot of stuff that was chopped.  This is a historical piece IMHO, some latitude is allowed, as opposed to a BLP. --  :- )   Don  21:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier for me to email them to you. Thanks. Your address is on your user page? I'll check.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Accuracy and readability vastly improved
Regardless of the fate of this article, cogency, accuracy and readability have been vastly improved.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

"Clarification needed" tag
Note: A "clarification needed" tag was placed on the section listing the subject's university degrees, one of which was a Ph.B. "Ph.B" was not expanded.


 * Here is the definition given by Wikipedia:


 * "Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.; occasionally B.Ph. or Ph.B.) is the title of an academic degree. The degree usually involves considerable research, either through a thesis or supervised research projects. Despite its name, it is in many universities – for example, the University of Oxford – a graduate degree."


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Since I have ceased editing this article, could someone please remove the 'clarification needed' tag and link to WP page on this subject. Thanks.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * ✅ I think the person who put that there meant we needed clarification of what the acronym meant and also a reference for the claim itself (once the claim had been clarified). I went one better than simply clarifying - I found a source for the claim itself; an obit. from the University of Chicago magazine which can also be used for the claim about her other degree (it lists both her degrees as post-nom letters and is from the institution that awarded them - should be good enough). Have removed the tag and added the citation to both claims. However, the source does not list her academic record or confirm the second half of that section. I have hidden that section (rather than add another "citation needed" tag) so if a source is found we can add it later. But the claims themselves are now okay and we can remove two tags. Stalwart 111  02:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stalwart. I'll try to get some acceptable sources for the rest of the info.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * No worries! Try to use colons to indent your comments - it helps to make the flow of conversation clearer. Stalwart 111  08:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a little focus?
I would like to help resolve some of the issues around this article, but this has been an incredibly long-winded dispute. I have no interest in wading through all of the text above in an attempt to make sense of it. Perhaps one of you could choose a specific issue in the article that needs addressing and discuss it succinctly (in two or three sentences)? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * one of the big issues has been that the content in the article was frequently based on extrapolations of what the source actually says WP:OR. I have not given the current content and sources in depth lately to give specific current example. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So-called experienced editors making false claims and causing much undue misery
Sorry folks but after all the fantastical, misleading and erroneous claims regarding WP policy advanced by several editors claiming to be experienced...

A bit of a reality check from actual Wikipedia guidelines is in order.

Notability:

"For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

and...

Any biography Academics
 * 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
 * 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
 * Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Creative professionals


 * Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics.

OK, experienced editors (you know who you are), I think you have consistently mis-stated WP policies. Intentionally? I think you put me through hell. On purpose? And, I think you owe me an apology!

Because the Frances Hugle article overwhelmingly established notability according to these guidelines. And, if you really are experienced, you knew that!

Nearly every other criticism of my contributions could also be shown to be unfounded. And this includes the inclusion of certain primary sources that everyone said could not be allowed... Yet, I re-read the policy guidelines and the interpretions given by several editors are simply unsupported by WP in the specific cases that arose here.

Shame on you!

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * There is no need to get emotionally charged or wag fingers. It is how Wikipedia works. We add, we subtract, we challenge -- the overall result is a better encyclopedia. My particular choices were made in good faith following what I perceived to have been the rules and my reading of the sources. Please learn to respect that. Personal unhappiness can result from a fixed thing (a person) becoming too attached to something that changes (the Francis Hugle article). Learn detachment; perhaps you'll become happier.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorial changes are not the issue. They were anticipated, expected and hoped for. But continuous unfounded criticisms and insistence that my comments (generally informing and substantive) prove that 'I am too attached' is a problem.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * if one were not overly attached, one would not be overly offended when someone pointed out that they might be overly attached. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And, if one were not a murderer, they would not be 'overly offended' when someone pointed out that they 'might be' a murderer... ditto for bank robber, rapist, liar, cheater, sex offender, etc.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * that fact that you are equating editing a wikipedia article with accusation of murder is also a pretty good sign that you are overly attached. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me first state that I think this article should be kept in some form, particularly because many editors have done a lot of legwork to find good sources. That said, Cheryl has repeatedly said that a lot of criticism about this article has been unfounded or inaccurate.  I would also argue that vaguely waving to some notability criteria with no specific explanation as to why they fit is an unhelpful response.  Let's go through these and see why they might not actually be fulfilled or why certain details should be left out:
 * Notability:


 * "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
 * I should note this comes from the lead and is intended to address the spirit of this guideline. Obviously the terms "interesting," and "unusual," among others, are subjective and can't really be used alone to argue for notability.

Any biography
 * 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
 * There is a claim of "an honorary degree from a Canadian university," but it is not cited. Patents are not awards or honors.  Anyone can get one for anything, even during the time Hugle got them.
 * 1) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
 * Notability isn't temporary, but "widely recognized" and "part of the enduring historical record" are not really well established by current sources. Yes, there are some sources that do recognize her contributions, but these sources are limited to a few trade magazines and a single textbook (the latter of which I found).  These don't seem "widely recognized" and the "enduring historical record" may be tarnished because she is not represented better, but she is nonetheless not represented well in the discipline (even if she might deserve to be).

Academics
 * Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.


 * It is true that Hugle does not have many biographical details in secondary sources. I also have personally found that many inventors do not have a lot of significant coverage out there about themselves.  This makes it challenging to make informative biographical articles about these individuals.  I agree that Hugle has been notable in the world of ideas, particularly because one of her patents was featured at The Smithsonian and that she has a nontrivial (but not wide) amount of representation in secondary sources.

Creative professionals


 * Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * I don't think there is any evidence that she is widely cited. Her patents do not appear to have a large number of citations.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * "Known" is the key word here, and I don't think Hugle is "known" in the traditional sense based on a limited breadth of coverage.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * Hugle's work specifically has not been the focal subject of any book or of multiple articles/reviews. It has been mentioned or described in some depth in a number of sources.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * I think b) applies here due to The Smithsonian thing, but none of the others.
 * So, the point is that Cheryl's comments that editors' objections are unfounded or inaccurate are only partially correct, at least to me. I should also note to Cheryl that this statement is stated under Notability (people) in regards to the "Additional Criteria" (emphasis in the article):
 * People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
 * So, people do have some leeway in their interpretation of whether a person is notable even if some of these additional criteria are fulfilled. Personally, I do.  Others may not, particularly given that many criteria above are not fulfilled.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one of those criteria has to be fulfilled, just as the guideline says. That's exactly why we list the multiple possibilities, to cover multiple career patterns.  DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of one patent out of (by my rough count) 400 patents featured in the Smithsonian exhibition is only "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition," by the most widely stretched and loosley interperted of standards.  and the patents are only a portion of the exibit which includes actual chips, content about people, and chip art. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea that Fran's ONLY notable contribution was the isolation patent included in the Smithsonian collection is quite a stretch (patently false). This is the sort of agenda driven characterization and bias on the part of some of those who have edited here that I find reprehensible.


 * As matters now stand, there are factual errors, obvious misspellings, and it is virtually impossible to understand anything about who Frances was, what she did, why that is important and even less... why she might have done what she did... a young Jewish teenager shocked by the holocaust and loss of relatives, deceived in love and business (also by a man later exposed as an industrial spy) and strongly motivated to do whatever she could to bolster the US military... probably in her mind, the first line of defense against the rise of future Hitlers. She was a rare genius, uber responsible and dedicated whose research efforts were being directed by a gang of criminals (industrial spies) eager to harvest whatever they could. She was EXTREMELY gullible and blind to the motivations of those who surrounded her.


 * While many of these facts cannot be shared due to WP guidelines, some could have been. Furthermore, her product and technology developments continue to be fundamental to the industry in so many ways. But this is not possible to understand from the present article. I do not think this is a source issue entirely. I think it is just as much a comprehension issue. If those editing this article had a better understanding of the origins (technical breakthroughs) of the industry and the seminal nature of her work, this article could have been written in a manner such that it could be of some value to the general public.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

IEEE's Frances B. Hugle Memorial Scholarship Fund, and what's wrong with this picture
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6353283

The article linked above has a number of examples of 'poetic license'. But, it does help to establish notability and a few of its statements are correct.

Factual errors in the above linked article:

1) Fran's first love was medicine. She dropped out of medical school because William threatened divorce if she would not help him found a company. She agreed to marry William because they also had agreed that they would support each other through medical school. And it was agreed that Fran would attend first since she would finish sooner.

Dropping out was not an easy decision for her and this is reflected by the only 'D' she ever received on her college record. According to her brother, she agonized over this decision so he told her to remain in school to which she replied, "Even if it means I will be divorced?"

I believe that her R&D work on crystals at HYCO (also the basis of her PH.B. thesis and the reason she was given an extension to complete her course requirements) was very compelling to military and industrial interests. Remember, the University of Chicago was a major research node seeking to reduce the transistor effect to practice (chosen by industrial and military interests). Eventually, I think it will be reasonably shown that it was her work on exsolution phenomena, etc. that made the reduction to practice possible. These efforts were shared with researchers at Bell, and the other centers chosen to undertake this collaborative R&D effort.

2) Frances and Bill were both employed by Standard Research Corp before going to Baldwin, another company doing military research. Baldwin had been engaged in military research continuously since the forties. Since I met the man who hired them and even worked on a joint project with him for a couple of years, I know the story of the Hugle's move to Baldwin contained in the above linked article to be utterly false.

3) The Hugle's left Baldwin precipitously in the winter of 1959, not in 1958. No plans had been made, just 3 days of hurried packing and then departure to a cold uninviting cabin in the mountains of Pennsylvania. What I recall happening fits with the story I was told as an adult of Fran's discovery that William was engaged in a long term affair with a Baldwin secretary.

4) Frances became very interested in studying law in 1967. I doubt she became involved in Head Start but she did support many non-profit and social programs (at least monetarily), so it is not impossible.

5) She had no long term issue with ulcers. Actually, when she first noticed stomach discomfort, it was diagnosed as ulcers and she was told to drink Maalox. When this treatment did not result in improvement, she was opened up and this is when her cancer was discovered. The problem is, the normal surgical treatment, removal of the stomach, was not done. There are several anomalies surrounding her illness and death (including forged documents and false medical statements) but too much to delve into here.

6) Finally, I would hope that the person who so generously contributed her version of history to the above linked article would also consider making all of Frances Hugle's papers available to the public. They could be scanned and uploaded to Wikipedia or other site. These should include her PH.B. thesis if that be in hand.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

7) Frances most assuredly DID NOT have conflicts with those who worked under her. She did not 'inherit' positions and employees so much as create them. She hired those who worked for her and was held in the highest esteem by fellow engineers and researchers, something I witnessed first hand at conferences and also the many gatherings in our home that included her co-workers.

8) So far, I have not read one quote from Linda that is fact based. Telling stories to fit Frances into some expected place just obscures the much more interesting and actual reality of her life and times. I also noticed that the woman/engineer quote is being revised here from an earlier one she published on femengineers... but still it is nonsense. What Frances did is partially covered in the article. How this actually came about is obscured. And, the incredible esteem in which she was held by fellow researchers, engineers and other coworkers was pronounced and very hard to miss. One person said to me, "Many people in the industry actually think your mother was a saint."

OK, so much for Herodotus' version of the life and times of Frances Hugle.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

9) Frances obviously did not retire at age 37. She was still working full time when she was diagnosed with cancer (in January of 1968 when she was forty) and even then did not stop working until the cancer became so advanced she had no choice.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

189.172.40.237 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

10) Stuart Laboratories, a joint project with her husband as noted above, was certainly not founded in 1946 but Fran's first company, HYCO Labs, of which she was the sole founder, was.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * You may very well be correct (given your connection to the subject, I would venture to suggest you are), but do you have a reliable source to verify your personal opinion? Again, Wikipedia is not the place for "correcting the record" - it is an encyclopaedia built upon what others have published elsewhere. It is not the place to publish things for the first time to counter what others have published elsewhere. It is not the place to re-publish what others have published along with our own analysis. If what you're saying hasn't been published elsewhere then it cannot be published here, regardless of the nobility of your cause. You seem to be determined to use Wikipedia to publish a new, more accurate and more truthful account of the subject's life. That's a great idea (I strongly support it), but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Stalwart 111  00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think my purpose in providing the link and cautionary notes was misunderstood... I am not suggesting that anything without a reliable source be published. Since I am no longer editing the Frances article and only providing links and info for others, it seemed responsible to also indicate any merits or lack thereof that I note in the provided material. In other words, if I know something to be false, I will tell you. It is up to you what you do with that info. But it is meant to help determine which claims will likely to be challenged.


 * 189.172.40.237 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I understand that, but the problem is you have not provided anything we can use to verify what you are saying so we really can't do anything with that info at all. Just telling us (effectively), "I found another unreliable source" obviously doesn't achieve much. You contend the source you provided is factually inaccurate and earlier said of the article itself;


 * As matters now stand, there are factual errors, obvious misspellings, and it is virtually impossible to understand anything about who Frances was, what she did, why that is important and even less... why she might have done what she did


 * But we still have nothing to verify any alternate viewpoint. It's unclear what you expect of other editors. You can't publish your original research, but we can't publish your original research either. So we just keep filling the talk page with unreliable source suggestions, original research and circular discussions. Posting a potential source, only to then poke it full of holes means the source probably won't be used. Broadly, it suggests there's not a lot of sources out there that you, personally, would consider reliable. As I have said several times - that's fine. There are two solutions - find some that are or create some yourself. Stalwart 111  05:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I totally understand your frustration. But, I do not mean to imply all the sources for the Frances Hugle article are invalid and provide only fiction. Some of the sources give very reliable and factual info and some give some fact mixed with not so factual info. Even the scholarship link gives some good insight and makes several good points including,


 * "He was impressed by her extraordinary vision and ability to solve problems by “simple, practical, and low-cost strategies,” he says. “Frances Hugle is the epitome of creativity with a pragmatic reduction to practice.” Gilleo passed his awe on to Jan..."


 * So, I did not suggest the scholarship article to 'poke holes' in it. I posted it because I thought it had some good.


 * Furthermore, my criticisms of the Frances Hugle WP article related to editing choices that seem ill advised and are unrelated to source issues.


 * 189.172.40.237 (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * 189.172.40.237 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle