Talk:William Shockley/Archive 1

Shockley was alienated
Shockley was alienated for espousing a politically unpopular (and therefore "controversial") view. The question Shockley raised may be politically charged, but it is a question of fact that is revived and given careful treatment by two renowned modern scientist in the widely read book - The Bell Curve. This is not a POV. These are all facts, and this is the heart of what I presented in my concise reference.

Some would say that if that question of fact is later shown to have been essential accurate, then it should be recorded that Shockley was a martyr for science in same way Galileo was. I mean persistent in advancing a scientific idea that is politically untenable.

I see by your edit it is still politically untenable. Even here, in the paradise of free communication. Well then, let us not sink in the bog of semantics. If we are going for paucity devoid of bias, let us agree simply to remove the term "controversial", which I feel is not necessary and carries a negative connotation. The reader can decide the merits of Shockley's ideas.

BTW: As a mathematics major, I would think you would appreciate the merits of statistical (and variance) analysis. Is this branch of mathematics a POV?

~KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.202.245 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 November 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with removing "controversial", but I don't agree there's any particular bias in saying so. After all, they were indeed controversial statements.  Perhaps you have forgotten that you yourself called the Bell Curve a "controversial book" in the edit I deleted.  It doesn't seem as if you were trying to give the book a negative connotation there.


 * I'm not interested in debating about race and intelligence. If you wish to debate such issues, the aforementioned Wikipedia page is the more appropriate forum.  My only concern is that a page about Shockley should not make biased statements saying his claims were "bolstered" or not.  --C S 09:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Isn't the accuracy of Shockley's theories a revelant topic? Especially if he were alienated/ostricized for them? ~KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.202.245 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 November 2004


 * Sure, accuracy of his ideas is relevant...up to a point. For example, I think you would agree that even if everyone agreed he was correct, it would not be wise to put more than a sentence commenting something like, "His theories are now supported by..."  However, that doesn't apply in this situation, because there is no widespread agreement.  We have to keep the debate localized to pages where it is most appropriate, so as to avoid endless debate on article pages about every person who ever expressed a thought on race and intelligence.  Note that someone recently made an edit trying to discredit Shockley's ideas; I considered it POV and reverted it also.


 * As for whether branches of mathematics are POV...certainly mathematical theories, i.e. theorems and mathematical statements, are not, but the point of applied mathematics is to apply the theory to real situations. I'm not making a comment specific to Herrnstein and Murray (or anybody else), but let me just say that the way theories are applied and the results interpreted can often be very POV.  One has to make judgments of various kinds that are not the form of a strict mathematical deduction, but involve opinions and beliefs.  That's why there's controversy and one can find respected scientists on different sides of the debate on race and intelligence.  --C S 11:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shockley as Mayflower descendant
I suspect the number of Mayflower descendants is quite large and inaccurate. Especially considering the high rate of "surprising paternity". I don't see what relavence it has, even if accurate. ~KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.202.245 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 November 2004 (UTC)

I noticed there's a little back and forth on the history page for the article. I don't wish to initiate a revert war, which is why I am stating my opinion on the talk page, to see what the consensus is.

The basic issue under discussion is whether the fact that Shockley is a Mayflower descendant is notable enough a fact to mention. User:VeryVerily removed this fact because s/he didn't think so, stating:
 * "(rm mayflower descent; this is not a genealogical database, and tens of millions of americans are mayflower descendants, as well as descendants of other colonial figures)"

4.228.90.62 disagreed stating:
 * "(Revert. There are not "tens of millions" of descendants (and I am certainly not one of them) .  The population of the US is 300 million.  Are you saying 30 pilgrim couples  populated the entire US?)"

After some googling (not extensively I admit), I find that "tens of millions" is the estimate given by several Mayflower descendant webpages. For example, from we have:
 * "It has been estimated by Gary Boyd Roberts, of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, that there are some 30 million descendants of the Mayflower families. [1] So even if you don't carry the surname of one of the 23 progenitors that survived that first winter, it is still possible that you descend from one of them."

and from :
 * "Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls. "

There are numerous other articles stating more or less the same thing but I'm not aware of where they're getting their information.

I find it plausible though. It is not unreasonable that 100 people, a little less than 400 years ago, managed to produce 30 million descendants. Just from a mathematical viewpoint, it is reasonable.

Also, note that gives a number of famous people as Mayflower descendants. Are we supposed to introduce this "notable" fact on all these persons' Wikipedia entries?

I am of the opinion that while being a Mayflower descendant is cool and makes for interesting dinner conversaiont, it is not notable enough to warrant a mention on the Shockley page.--C S 12:16, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * No one's complained, so I'm going to remove the Mayflower reference. --C S 16:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Standard deviation
I have in front of me a Los Angeles Times (magazine, 6/5/05) article that says Shockley devoted himself to "dysgenics", the "idea that black Americans weren't as intelligent as white Americans..." Does anyone have a reference that includes mention of him "noting" a difference of a full standard deviation? If not then I think we should not attribute things to him that we don't have sources for. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Virtually all of that paragraph is unsourced in its present form. Focus on getting better sources in general before worrying about specifics. Rangerdude 08:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll worry about what I want to worry about. Thanks. -Willmcw 08:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * As will I, and right now I see no merit in removing standard deviations to replace them with an unsourced less specific phrasing on the basis of "sources" when the larger paragraph itself suffers from a greater deficit in that regard. Rangerdude 09:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sourced informaiton is better than unsourced information. I still don't see any source for your assertion that: "He claimed that standardized intelligence tests showed a genetic factor in intellectual capacity and that tests for IQ indicate that African Americans' have, on average, IQ's one standard deviation lower than Caucasian Americans' IQs." Thanks, -Willmcw 23:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This text has been added again by 199.190.250.136: The sources are articles that nevers quote Shockley. Can we please have the reference in which he makes these comments? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * He noted that intelligence research shows a genetic factor in intellectual capacity1 and that tests for IQ indicate that African Americans have, on average, IQs one standard deviation lower than Caucasian Americans.2.
 * The source for the genetic intelligence and 15 point gap (one standard deviation in IQ) statements is the US News and World Report interview cited in the PBS bio, linked to earlier in the paragraph under question. This was the area of research he talked a lot about.  The footnotes that are there now should probably be changed to "see also" notes following the sentences.--Nectarflowed T 00:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that. The immediate source says:
 * In an interview a year later with U.S. News & World Report he fell into the trap of discussing race. He pointed out that African Americans as a group scored 15 points lower on IQ tests, and suggested the cause was hereditary.
 * I've edited to text to better reflect what the source says (dropping the POV "trap"). -Willmcw 00:18, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rushton source
The source for this is a study by J. Philippe Rushton, a very controversial person in the field of intelligence who is head of a eugenics-supporting foundation. I don't think we should add it here in this context, as it is not a widely established theory. -Willmcw 23:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that very high IQ parents often have lower IQ offspring, considered to be due to that the parents possess more ordinary genes than extraordinary genes.
 * The study was published in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association. According to the APA's description page, the publication "uniquely provides peer review, scientific and legal input, and editorial guidance from psychologists and lawyers."  This is a fine reference; I think we need references showing the theory is not widely established before removing it.  If you want to ask him, User:Rikurzhen might be able to comment on the theory off-hand.--Nectarflowed T 20:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The same issue of the journal also prints negative letters from reviewers. One of which reads: "J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black-White IQ gap." In any case, I don't think it's necessary to add all this to the Shockley article. We don't really know the IQs of his children. Speculation about Shockley's genetic contribution to them would be original research. -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Like many controversial papers, this one is published with both positive and critical reviews. Richard E. Nisbett's above quote refers to criticism regarding applying models of heritability within groups to inter-group differences, which in the case of this paper is the IQ difference between ethnic groups. This criticism is commonly leveled by critics of the genetic hypothesis of the IQ difference between ethnic groups.  It doesn't apply to the statement of heritability between parent and offspring, and the phenomenon of the regression towards the average refered to in the Rushton article is not controversial.  For clarification, what is controversial is arguing that the different averages that are regressed to in caucasians and blacks are representative of the genetic contribution to IQ.  'Regression toward the mean' here means that, for example, the siblings of White children with an IQ of 120 have an average IQ of 110, which is a regression toward the average IQ of Whites, which is about 100.


 * I think the reason Shockley's statement about his children should be retained is that it shows his beliefs about IQ and evolution were broader than just being an issue of difference between ethnicity. If it is retained, it will be misunderstood by most readers if we don't explain its scientific background. Best, Nectarflowed T 01:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to add an internal link to Wikipedia's article on regression, then that's fine. But to link to a report writtn decades after his death to try to explain why his children were purportedly less intelligent does not make sense. We might as well link to somebody's study on why phycists make bad parents. -Willmcw 02:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * This section is on genetics. He made a statement that is not self-explanatory about his personal experience with genetics.  I think we should explain it.  I think this is like someone observing that when planes go very fast there is a loud sound.  In that case, we would mention that the person was likely referring to a sonic boom.
 * Here is a more thorough explanation of this phenomenon, from columnist Steve Sailer: "We each carry two sets of genes. You might have gotten lucky and gotten dominant genes that granted you a huge amount of some desirable trait. But your recessive genes are also a random selection from the average of your ancestors' genes, weighted by their closeness to you on the family tree. At the moment of your child's conception, you and your mates' four sets of genes are completely reshuffled [...] In merciful contrast, the exceptionally dim tend to have children who are a little smarter than they are."--Nectarflowed T 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, this paragraph is on his children. I've wikilinked "regression" to Regression toward the mean, so readers should be able to figure out what he meant. That should be enough, without sending them to a controversial 60-page report. -Willmcw 03:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * A single sentence, such as the removed one is all that is needed to explain his statement, not a "60-page report." The link to the article is provided as a reference, since it is a genetics fact that is not well known.  Readers should not be required to click on a link and scroll through a statistics article in order to fully understand his statement.  Your original reasons for removing the sentence no longer stand, and you haven't offered any new ones.--Nectarflowed T 04:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Two points: a) The sentence draws a conclusion that is not in evidence. That Shockley's children were less intelligent than he was, and that this lack was due to a mechanism explained by a controversial theory. b) If you want to introduce Rushton then I think we need to characterize him and his involvement with the eugenics movement. It might be worth creating a separate paragraph to explain why a central concept of eugenics - that smart men breed smart children - evidently failed in the case of Shockley. I could also bring in more of the info from this LA Times article about how Shockley's racism reflected back on Graham's eugenic sperm bank. But I think we are talking about adding quite a bit more text in order to really treat it right. I thought the article was balanced before, but we can expand the eugenics and racial stuff. -Willmcw 04:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * This takes time to go over this, but I'll say it again: regression toward the mean is not a controversial idea. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with Rushton.  The Rushton article is a reference, published in a peer-reviewed journal.  Yes, Shockley's influence on Graham's sperm bank is relevant.  When you call it eugenic, note that many sperm banks offer similar practices today, something the LA Times article praises this original sperm bank for.
 * What's at issue with the sentence in question is that readers will misunderstand his statement without it. The sentence does not claim that his statement is true; it provides the genetics background that he was likely aware of (he did extensive reading in genetics) Best, Nectarflowed T 05:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ...considered to be due to... certainly does claim that the statement on Rushton's interpretation is true. A better introduction would be ...considered by Rushton, head of the Pilgrim Foundation, to be due to.... If it's not about him then let's leave him, and his citation, out of it. I'd expect we'd have the necessary articles on this encyclopedia which can explain regression in genes. Cheers,  -Willmcw 06:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly which text on the linked site are we using as a reference? Is it the text above? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.


 * The text being used as a reference was: "Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children." Rushton is a controversial source though, even for uncontroversial bits, and I see regression towards the mean provides two references that are better:


 * J.M. Bland and D.G. Altman. "Statistic Notes: Regression towards the mean", British Medical Journal 308:1499, 1994. (Article, including a diagram of Galton's original data, online at: )
 * Francis Galton. "Regression Towards Mediocrity in Hereditary Stature," Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 15:246-263 (1886). (Facsimile at: )


 * From regression toward the mean: "Francis Galton investigated geniuses in various fields and noted that their children, while typically gifted, were almost invariably closer to the average than their exceptional parents. He later described the same effect more numerically by comparing fathers' heights to their sons' heights. Again, the heights of sons both of unusually tall fathers and of unusually short fathers was typically closer to the mean height than their fathers' heights." Cheers, Nectarflowed T 07:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about using something along the lines of this following sentence? It was well known in genetics at the time, known as regression toward the mean, that high IQ parents tend to have lower IQ offspring, due to that the parents possess more ordinary genes than extraordinary genes. --Nectarflowed T 07:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the better source. The text you suggest is mostly fine, but can we please leave off the ..due to [what?] that the parents possess more ordinary genes than extraordinary genes.? That is the text which presumes why intelligence is passed down. Regression to the mean does not depend on an exact cause. The particular combination of factors which allowed Shockley to express his intelligence would be not occur again, and even with his exact genes the circumstances (environment) may not have fostered the same intelligence. The truth is we don't know what the factors may have been, or even what the outcome was, except for Shockley's remark. Overall, I think we'd be better off not over-analyzing a comment from an estranged father about his children. -Willmcw 08:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

In genetics, regression towards the mean is not a controversial idea. For example, it will happen for any quantitative trait where a single allele can have an effect on phenotype (e.g. genetic dominance). The correlation or lack thereof between two parents will also created the appearance of regression if you compare just one parent to a child (e.g., mother to child). Height is a good example of a trait that regresses -- tall fathers have tall sons, but on average not so tall. However, keep in mind that regression doesn't destroy variability overall -- it just makes a child more like the population average than his/her parents. --Rikurzhen 15:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I can't think of a reason why a regression effect would be expected to operate thru an environmental effect. Genes have to behave that way, but environments are not bound by genetic laws. In the West, environments have only gotten better overall with each generation. --Rikurzhen 15:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) I can't be sure about this w/o doing some harder thinking. --Rikurzhen 17:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Regression of Shockley's children
Paragraph under dispute: (contested text in italics)
 * "Shockley had a stormy relationship with his three children, once being quoted as saying, "My children represent a definite regression." Shockley would have been aware of regression toward the mean, which was well known in genetics at the time, that high IQ parents tend to have lower IQ offspring.  In genetics, this is considered to be due to that the parents possess more ordinary genes than extraordinary genes, though environment may also regress toward the mean.  By the time of his death in 1989 of prostate cancer, he was almost completely estranged from them, and his children are reported to have only learned of his death through the print media."

Why so much attention to the meaning of that one remark? Discussions of the theoretical bases of the inheritance of intelligence are properly discussed in other article. Unless Shockley said it, or someone said it about him, then it doesn't belong in this article. -Willmcw 02:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Shockley was aware of regression toward the mean, as every biologist or geneticist would be. He's using very specific language in his quote, language that laymen will surely miss if they don't have a background in biology or genetics .  His quote is incomplete without explanation.  Regression toward the mean used in this genetics context is uncontroversial, and we have no grounds for removing it.


 * Willmcw, we've been going over this for a long time. If you still disagree, I respectfully suggest this may be resolved the fastest by submitting this to Requests for mediation.  --Nectarflowed T 03:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you mean request for comment. Mediation is extremely slow. And we have a link to regression, for those who wish to learn more. Going beyond a link to the technicial statistical term and into theories of intelligence inheritance is unverifiable original research - we don't know what he was thinking or intended. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the correction. Shockley was a geneticist and his comment on the regression of his children is incomplete without noting the genetics context he was coming from. Best, Nectarflowed T 05:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In what way was Shockley a geneticist? He had no formal education in the field that I am aware of. -Willmcw 06:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * He was an accomplished scientist who devoted his later life to the study of genetics, and he came to describe it as the most important work of his career. The PBS bio explains: "Although he had no training in genetics, he studied the field energetically." That study is the basis for all of his public views in later life, and it is maybe for these genetics views that he is most widely known (negatively). --Nectarflowed T 06:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to call him a "fan of genetics", or an "untrained, amateur genetic theorist" then those would be accurate designations. But he had no formal training, was never hired to study or teach genetics, never carried out his own original research in genetics, and never conducted genetics experiments. Can you find some references to him as a geneticist? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am speaking in shorthand when I call him a geneticist. He was only an amateur geneticist, but he devoted his later life to the study of genetics, was regularly involved in debates with geneticists, and is sometimes described, even by critics, as a "Stanford physicist and Nobel laureate-turned-behavior geneticist."(e.g.)  The point here is that he was aquainted enough with genetics to debate professional geneticists and was very familiar with these basic view points genetics has on the heritability of intelligence.  Indeed, that was his area of greatest interest, which was the basis of all of his public views on genetics. --Nectarflowed T 10:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting source. The same sentence mentions that Shockley was receiving support from the Pioneer Fund, a fact which we haven't included in the article yet. -Willmcw 10:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The description on the request for comment page has been edited by a user there, and I've now edited it again, as it didn't seem accurate. The description I left there was "Does Shockley's comment about his children's "regression" necessitate a note on his genetics background?" Please feel free to change it or comment if this doesn't seem like a good summary of what we're talking about. Best, Nectarflowed T 02:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think quite catches it. We aren't talking about his genetics background: that is already covered earlier. We're talking about a theory of inherited intelligence. Therefore, "Does Shockley's comment about his children's "regression" necessitate a note on a theory of the heritability of intelligence?" Or, more sensationally (if we want to attract other editors), "Shockley participated in the 'Nobel Sperm Bank' in order to increase the number of intelligent people, yet his own children were not notably intelligent. How do we explain this apparent contradiction?"  ;)  -Willmcw 05:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC) PS - thanks for bringing it here. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's what I wrote in the RfC: Does Shockley's comment about his children's "regression" necessitate a note on a theory of the heritability of intelligence, or is a link to regression toward the mean sufficient? feel free to edit or amend -Willmcw 05:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you not objecting to linking to regression toward the mean, but you are objecting to defining it?--Nectarflowed T 19:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''Regression toward the mean: a principle stating that of related measurements, the second is expected to be closer to the mean than the first. Regression toward the mean is a statistical phenomenon which causes outcomes to be more likely to fall toward the center of a statistical distribution.''
 * Regression toward the mean is a statistical phenomenon that applies to many circumstances. It is not a "genetics effect". -Willmcw 22:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The regression toward the mean of genetic traits such as height and genetic IQ (the portion of IQ that is considered to be genetic) is a genetics effect and is established as such. Users such as Rikurzen or Fastfission might be able to verify this.  Regression toward the mean occurs when inheriting genes because of genetics features such as that parents pass on not only their genes that are active, but also their genes that are passive.--Nectarflowed T 22:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you not objecting to linking to regression toward the mean in article, but you are objecting to defining it in article? Best, Nectarflowed T 22:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The statistical phenomenon does not depend on genetics. That is a particular explanation that is not referred to in the quotation that we have. I would have no problem, except for unnecessary duplicaiton, with adding the definition of "regession toward the mean" that I posted above. -Willmcw 23:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regression toward the mean occurs when inheriting genes because of features in genetics such as that parents pass on not only their genes that are active, but also their genes that are passive. How is this not a genetics effect?--Nectarflowed T 01:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should change the RfC to ask whether regression toward the mean is a statistical or a genetic effect. That appears to be the core of the difference between us. That, and whether we should asert a connection between genes and intelligence. -Willmcw 01:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Please feel free to change the RfC if you think it can be made more accurate.
 * My positions on the first point is that regression toward the mean is occuring in this context because of genetic mechanisms, making it a genetics effect.
 * Regarding the second point, the connection between genes and intelligence is established and uncontroversial, something other users can confirm. See IQ.  This isn't asserting a connection, it's noting the 'genes and intelligence' background Shockley was coming from.

The "regression" quote appears in this article, excerpted from a book: "Darwin's Engineer", by David Plotz, Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 5, 2005. The article is not available online, but it is in any library which carries the newspaper. The book is available for purchase online. -Willmcw 23:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Does regression toward the mean occur in genetics?
Regression toward the mean occurs when inheriting genes because of features in genetics such as that parents pass on not only their genes that are active, but also their genes that are passive. This isn't baseball or economics. Why do you want to remove regression toward the mean from its genetic context here? As I understand it, your argument isn't actually that it isn't occuring in a genetics context here. --Nectarflowed T 03:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am arguing that intelligence is composed of a mixture of genetics, environment, and miscellaneous factors. Regression is a statistical phenomenon that does not depend on any particular mechanism, whether that be genes or baseball bats. I am further arguing that we are going beyond explaining the meaning of "regression towards the mean" and are positing a particular mechanism, a causation. Shockley only said what he said; for us to say "this is what he relaly meant" is presumptuous of us. -Willmcw 04:41, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Sperm Bank
I feel that "distinguished and healthy-looking" (referring to Graham's later donors) is a poor summary of what the referenced article actually says.


 * ''Graham was nothing if not a canny businessman. He realized that his customers didn't necessarily share his enthusiasm for brainiacs. Sure, applicants sometimes asked how smart a donor was. But they usually asked how good-looking he was. And they always asked how tall he was. Graham realized that he could take advantage of the Nobel drought to shed what he called the bank's "little bald professor" reputation. Graham recruited donors who were younger, taller and better-looking than his laureates. "Those Nobelists," he would say scornfully, "they could never win a basketball game."


 * In the '80s and '90s, Graham and a series of assistants scoured Who's Who and haunted college campuses to find the renaissance men that his customers craved. The roster of donors never included another Nobelist, but it did have an Olympic gold medalist, successful scientists and computer whizzes, several hotshot businessmen and various young prodigies.

"Distinguished" is vague and raises false connotations. "Healthy-looking" isn't the issue, but actual attractiveness of appearance. Hence, my changes on this. PKtm 22:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Much better, thanks. -Willmcw 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Shockley's diode equation
Is this the shockley that made shockley's diode equation? If it is, i'll add it later (probably a link from this page to an as yet nonexistant page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.112.70 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 February 2006


 * yes he did invent the diode equation. I would have put it in the article, but I don't know when he made it, and the article's main organization is chronological. I'll put it in the "see also" section. When it is put in this article, note should be made of the neglect of photon recycling effects in Shockley's diode equation - a reason that he apparently didn't use his own equation to compute the limiting efficiency of photovoltaic energy conversion under the assumptions of the detailed balance theory. Fresheneesz 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sureabout the diode? I think you mean Walter H. Schottky who's entry leaves something to be desired. It's marginally better in the German Wikipedia though there he is missing his 'H'. -- DrJunge (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's nothing to do with Schottky. Sources are easy to find:  . Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Shockley and the Secretary incident
I added a citation for that. Its from an interview with Gordon Moore. - Jai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.75.175 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Style
OK, why is it that punctuation on this article (any many others) appears outside of the quotation marks rather than inside like almost every commonly accepted style guide demands? Is there a style guide for wikipedia that I'm unaware of, that for some reason demand adherence to some non-conventional gramatical guidelines? If so, where is it? I figured I'd ask this before I simply went around and started changing the punctuation in articles. --Astarf 07:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple reason: it could be edited by someone from Britain or another country. That usage is more common in the UK.--Gloriamarie 23:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Avid Rock Climber
William Shockley was also an avid rock climber. He often climbed in the Shawangunk ridgeline in New Paltz New, York. In 1953, he had a made a first ascent (FA) with Doug Kerr. The new route was then named Shockley's Ceiling after a distinctive overhang on the route.

Ref: Shawangunk Rock Climbs by Richard C. Williams.


 * or . Is this the same Doug Kerr with the octatherp origin?  That would make him about 17 at the time; sounds likely.  I'll ask him.  Dicklyon 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, different Doug Kerr, he says. Dicklyon 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Traitorous Eight
Shockelys biographer claims (Broken genious, p 181) there is no record that Shockley ever called them that, and his wife denies it too. I changed the wording to conform to Shurkin.DonSiano 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism
While the article is linked, the sentences from this copyrighted article are very similar to what's in this article.

PBS.org:
 * He began giving speeches on population problems, an issue that had interested him since his wartime trips to India. In May of 1963, he gave a speech at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota suggesting that the people least competent to survive in the world were the ones reproducing the fastest, while the best of the human population was using birth control and having fewer children. He had slipped into eugenics.


 * In an interview a year later with U.S. News & World Report he fell into the trap of discussing race. He pointed out that African Americans as a group scored 15 points lower on IQ tests, and suggested the cause was hereditary.

Wikipedia:
 * In his later life, Shockley began giving speeches on population problems, an issue that had interested him since his wartime trips to India. In 1963 he gave a speech at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota suggesting that the people least competent to survive in the world were the ones reproducing the fastest, while the best of the human population was using birth control and having fewer children.


 * In an interview with U.S. News & World Report in 1963, he "fell into the trap of discussing race," as one biographer writes.[3] He noted that intelligence research showed a genetic factor in intelligence and that tests for IQ indicate that African Americans have an average IQ 15 points lower than the population average.

Only the quote is credited to the PBS article. That's a pretty big swath of identical text.


 * Certain plagiarism. For now, I just quoted PBS instead.  A more serious rewrite would be needed to make it not plagiarism. Dicklyon 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the June 2005 diff:, where User:Nectarflowed inserted the PBS text in place of what was there before, if it read it correctly. Dicklyon 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics, etc.
Let's try to flesh out and stabilize this section by including well-sourced material from reliable references, not by throwing out one way of describing it and replacing it with another. Any statement that someone might disagree with should come with a reliable source. One or two refs for a whole section is probably not adequate. Dicklyon 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a better balance to this section. Two quotes from journalists saying essentially the same thing, without any balancing quote from Shockley is surely overkill. I have therefore removed one of them and will add one from Shockley from his book ("well sourced").DonSiano 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ummm this is a little unbalanced. this man is famous for semiconductors, not for eugenics. we can't have long sections about things that aren't all that important. hitler was an environmentalist, but we don't go on and on about it. 71.112.7.212 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ - Shickly is indeed famous for his racial viewpoints. They have been widely reported. Being noted makes something notable. The subtitle of the Shockley etrny in the TIME magainze top 100 scientists is: "He fathered the transistor and brought the silicon to Silicon Valley but is remembered by many only for his noxious racial views". The obit in the Boston Globe was titled: "NOBEL WINNER WHO STIRRED RACIAL CONTROVERSY". So it is appropriate for us to reflect that in our article. -Will Beback · † · 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * his racist old age didn't change the world, his semiconductor work did.  it is ok to include a little of it but it is unreasonable to make it longer than the sections that are really important.  hence, i've trimmed it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC).


 * He apparently thought his later work was as important as his earlier work, and he was certainly well-known for it. I restored the anecdote about Shockley that you deleted but left out the two block quotes from the "media". -Will Beback · † · 05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the two block quotes from the "media" should be left out as unencyclopedic and redundant. DonSiano 14:16, 10 April 2007

(UTC)
 * I also believe that the Hitler quote has no place here and should be removed. It adds nothing except a NPOV vio.  DonSiano 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is a NPOV vio, as it is neutrally presented. However I don't think that it adds anything useful or informative to the bio. -Will Beback · † · 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero and Ramdrake
It looks like Zero's edit takes out a lot of text going by the red highlights in the diff, but if you look at the text, there is not much change. I don't see a POV shift from the edit, but on the other hand, I don't see the older text as a problem. Can we discuss the issue? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly. My main objection is the rant wording that dysgenics would compromise "Western civilization", and the wording which seems to imply Shockley is correct in his beliefs, rather than being the racist argument that we're all familiar with. If a direct quote of his can be supplied that says exactly that, I'll let it stand. However, if the wording is interpolation, it does look to me like a significant POV shift.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, calling it a "rant" is mildly inflamatory. I agree that there may be a leap to be able to say specifically what Shockley "believed" or why he "worried" without a citable reference.  But labeling him as a racist is also POV.  I think that "dysgenics would compromise Western civilization..." is a true statement, as it would compromise the future of any population.   --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken for my own wording. For your second point, I can come up with a number of reliable sources that do label Shockley's views as racist, if you wish. For the third point, the original wording talked about a lowering of worldwide human quality. This to me does the same job, and it avoids the POV that the "Western World" is the epitomy of civilzation (which to my eyes is basically implied in the other wording). Hope this makes things clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Western World" could be too narrow -- good point. As to Shockley being a racist, I think that the term is vague, and not germane to the discussion of what he thought or feared.  A man can be right about one thing and wrong about another. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My main objection to the previous text was that it's too vague. I think 'worried' summarizes Shockley's viewpoint more clearly than 'believed' and subsequently explains the motivation for his activism.
 * I don't think the scare quotes around "dysgenics" belong there. Dysgenics is a rarely used but well defined term, and the article seems to indicate that he re-/invented the term.
 * As Shockley believed, dysgenic lowering of intelligence would lead to the (partial) collapse of civilization which would subsequently/assumingly lower the general quality of human life. "Western civilization" is a widely used term for various cultural, social, and technological achievements attributed to the Western World, possibly it should be linked to western culture, but in the context of the article Western civilization fits better imo.
 * It's my opinion that my edit was an improvement and portrays Shockleys viewpoints in a more logical and neutral fashion to the casual reader who isn't well read about the subject. --Zero g (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, the use of the word worried, unless it's a direct quote, implies that you know of Shockley's state of mind. That would be unencyclopedic; we're not writing an essay or a drama here, just a neutral encyclopedia. While it is easy to document that he believed in something, it is altogether another matter to say that he was worried about it. Also, I again reiterate the wording which seems to present the Western civilization as being the highest point of achievement in human civilization. That, to me, is also POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll change worried into believed then and reword "western civilization" into a more PC manner. --Zero g (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Racism
Why is there no mention of Shockley's racism? Tanzeel 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is, implicitly. It's just NPOV-oriented.  This is an encyclopedia, and labeling the man as a racist isn't appropriate.  The section Beliefs about populations and genetics covers what he said and did that relates to his views on race; the reader can draw his own POV conclusions, as it should be. -- PKtm 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say Shockley's alleged racism is a huge issue. He made headlines in the early '70's for his beliefs and his enthusiasm promoting them. I was a freshman at Yale in 1974 when he was scheduled to speak at the Engineering Center. I picketed outside the building with scores of other students and faculty, and the crowd became energized when university President Kingman Brewster, an old New England Republican, turned up in suit and tie to demonstrate with us. Later, we learned that Shockley had not been allowed to speak, as after his introduction, the audience began applauding... and never stopped. After 20 or 30 minutes, Shockley left the podium without having said a word. I personally disagreed with this tactic, but the bitterness with which many regarded him, especially during this period of post-60's racial strife in America, was palpable. I don't have the details of his activities at this time, but they may be easily researched. I believe Wikipedia is not strictly an encylopedia in the traditional sense. I like the fact that it strives to explore all aspects of a person's life, and Shockley's is a great example of a life made more fascinating by the mere fact of it's bizarre internal contradictions. He is not unlike Louis Aggasiz at Harvard, a brilliant scientist who refused to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection!--Don 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you are aware that original research or observations cannot be put into an article. This article is about verifiable facts about Shockley, a man who is widely respected in chemistry and physics and awarded the Nobel Prize and selected as one of the 100 people of the 20th century by Time Magazine. Those are facts that show him being widely respected during his life and after his death. Also, eugenics is not the same as racism. Gold Nitrate 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of books that connect him with racism; but if something is to be said, it needs to be true to a reliable source, and the source cited. Here's one that says his racism is "notorioius". Dicklyon 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no question that the subject has been called a "racist" numerous times, often in reliable sources. I'm not sure of the general wisdom of using categories like this for individuals, living or dead, but if this category applies to anyone it would be this subject. Regardless of that, the allegation of racism has been made so often that we should make some mention of the charge. One neutral biography says: Still recognized as an innovative physicist but tainted as a racist... We should try for the same formulation; that is, we should say he has been called a racist, but we should not call him a racist ourselves.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Applying the category tag is probably going too far. Dicklyon 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this subject seems to be about the "beliefs about population and genetics" section, could someone explain how this is at all NPOV? As far as I can tell this is an apologist interpretation of his remarks. As well, there are blatant factual errors: "The Left made much of his concern about Black intelligence so as to brand him a racist because (as he stated) this stance countered their claim that all people are identical." Where, anywhere, does anyone argue that all people are identical. The "Left" (and who exactly are we talking about? Can you at least pick an organization, rather than refer vaguely to half the political spectrum? ), nor anyone else, makes this claim. There is a SCIENTIFIC claim that skin colour does not affect intelligence. That, I think, is basic common sense. Furthermore, a reference is needed for "Shockley reasoned that because intelligence (like most traits) is at least partially inherited, the Black population would, over time become much less intelligent countering all the gains that had been made by the Civil Rights movement." and "Although Shockley was concerned about both Black and White dysgenic effects, he found the situation among Blacks more disasterous." Until those are verified as quotes, they are just the opinions of the editor. 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that this stuff needs to drawn from reliable sources. You should feel free to remove anything that's not, as it says in WP:BLP.  To help here, I recently bought a copy of "Shockley on Eugenics and Race," an edited collection of his writings and talks (Roger Pearson, 1992).  If anyone knows more about this book, let us know; I'm going to assume it's a reliable source, and I'll look for some quotes that seem to characterize his positions.  It would be even better to use good secondary analyses, so I don't have to be making decisions about what to quote, but this is all I have.  Dicklyon 03:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding your good intention, Shockley is not a living person thus BLP is not applicable. --Kevin Murray 05:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Still, let's respect WP:V and WP:RS.  I guess that means that passages without reliable sources can just be fact tagged instead of removed. Dicklyon 06:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Kevin Murray 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The man was clearly explicitly racist in the most literal sense of the word, and his published and oft-repeated views on the subject are probably the most high profile expressions of racist thinking in any western society since WWII. You have to go back to Himmler and the eugenics of the Nazis to find anything quite so unabashedly extreme, and as time goes on Shockley will probably be more notable (infamous) for this aspect of his life than for his mainstream scientific work.  This article has to reflect that.  Generations to come may find it most remarkable that a high ranking and arguably well respected scientific figure could - well into the 1960s and 70s - be voicing indefensibly racist views (though it is shocking to find them being defended here by some on this discussion page).  One really for a "Notable Racists" category....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.248.64 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with children
I have tried to edit the article to match the citation given. Is this material even relevant to the article and in what context? Right now it is under the death section but needs help. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it's not a citation, that would be plagiarism! But the information in the text you have removed and the text in the source match very closely, the last section of the source reads:
 * "His reputation in tatters, he retreated to his home on the Stanford campus, sending out an occasional blast of anger, completely estranged from all but his loyal wife, Emmy. He had few friends. He hadn't seen one son in more than 20 years, rarely spoke with the other, and only occasionally spoke to his daughter."
 * And I think his personal life and relations (especially with his family) are relevant for a biographic article. I really can't understand why they would not be? Apis 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that the section in question can't be improved upon, but I don't feel qualified to do so. --Apis 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in Original research here, imho. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this material even relevant and in what context is it being introduced intio the article? Rather than talking about his "stormy relationship" with the kids, just stick to the facts as presented in the citation. Why is this contensious? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to begin with, the new sentence you added: "seen one son in more than 20 years, rarely spoke with the other, and only occasionally spoke to his daughter" is a word by word copy from the reference. That is plagiarism (wp:cp). The other problem is that what you removed is covered in the article, perhaps you could say "stormy relationship" borders on original research, but I don't think that warrants removing all of that text. How about changing it to:
 * "By the time of his death he was almost completely estranged from most of his friends and family, except his wife. His children are reported to have learned of his death only through the print media"?
 * I think a persons relationship with his family is relevant to ones life? I can't see how it's not relevant?
 * (And what I meant by "lets discuss this on the talk page before making further edits" was that we should come to an agreement on the talk page before making edits, not make a comment and then revert...)
 * --Apis 22:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds better since it is just reporting facts and not making a judgement as to what their relationship was. I won't revert it again. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion Tag
Atheism is not a religion, so I mean to remove the Atheism religion tag. There are guidelines for the use of the tag on the Template:Infobox_Scientist page. But since that page is locked down, and since all discussion there has long since ceased, I am removing atheist and other inappropriate tags on various Scientists infoboxes, notwithstanding those guidelines.

I add that I brought up this matter over a month ago and received no response. In addition the field was a matter of serious contention, which remained unresolved. So the legitimacy of the infobox guidelines is a matter of serious question.

For these reasons, I aim to continue removing the atheist tag. Of course, I will await any discussion of the matter before reverting any edits here. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A lack of religion is also noteworthy. The point of the infobox, and that particualr field, is to inform readers about the subject. I don't see how deleting it improves the project. Please get a consensus before going on a campaign to delete information.   Will Beback    talk    20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Thanks for waiting for further discussion. I'll take my objections to Template_talk:Infobox_Scientist. I hadn't been monitoring that template, but it's probably a good place to centralize the discussion, since it doesn't just apply to this article. tedder (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific depth and balance
As an engineer, I found the lack of substantial information on, or technical depth of Shockley's achievements in this article incredible, especially given the relative weight given to his political views, personality and other trivia. There is no mention whatsoever of his development of the mathematical model of a FET - arguably his single most significant legacy today. - Gary Turner (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEBOLD tedder (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs about Population and Genetics
The whole paragraph appears to be well written and neutral except for the sentence "However, Shockley's views about the genetic superiority of whites over blacks...' sticks out as being POV. He never stated that whites are superior, he was most worried about high birth rate for Negroes with lower-IQs (as opposed to the lower birth rate of high-IQ Negroes). The sentence should be rewritten without the word 'superiority' included. --God Save the South (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * TIME magazine wrote: WILLIAM SHOCKLEY A 1956 winner in Physics for his part in Inventing the transistor, he went on to espouse white genetic superiority and to donate, at age 70, to a "Nobel" sperm bank.. Do we have a better source saying that they are wrong? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Time magazine is exactly that, a magazine. There is no onus upon it to provide a neutral point of view, infact if it did there would undoubtedly be a decrease in sales. Magazines make sales by offering a view, not the opposite. --God Save the South (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's considered a reliable source. What's your source to the contrary? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is NOT considered a reliable source, unless you want to include FOX News as a reliable source. This is a feature piece, not a reliable reference work.  If you think "news" magazines or newspapers in general are reliable enough for to form a basis for encyclopedia articles, I'm afraid you've missed the boat.  You quote them as reliable only because they support your own belief in this case, selective sourcing is inherently POV.
 * The burden of evidence is not upon me. I want to remove something I believe is POV, as it was only presented as an opinion in an opinionated magazine. An interest in Eugenics does not correlate with racism and certainly does not indicate any thoughts of white supremacy. Shockley's opinions divided man by IQ, not race. --God Save the South (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've provided the evidence. If you have a more reliable source then we can talk further. Otherwise it's just one Wikipedia editor's opinion versus a leading national news magazine. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more sources:
 * ..and the transistor pioneer William Shockley to assert genetic racial superiority.
 * ...Stanford physicist William Shockley's incendiary theory of white genetic superiority to blacks in intelligence. 
 * That brings the count to 3-0. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't be so naive as to believe that the NY Times and Wash. Post stress neutrality in their columns. They are reliable sources for facts, if tempered to filter the rhetoric.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * There are sources who claim different.
 * From: http://thescorp.multics.org/19schock.html
 * In fact, as this book shows, Shockley was not a "racist" in the sense of hating Blacks or anyone else. His concern was with humanity as a whole. As he put it in a 1969 press release "I propose as a social goal that every baby born should have a high probability of leading a dignified, rewarding and satisfying life regardless of its skin colour or sex. To understand hereditary cause and effect relationships for human quality problems is an obligation of the scientifically responsible brotherhood. I believe also that this goal can best be achieved by applying scientific inquiry to our human quality problems."


 * I think that hand picking sources which support a particular POV, especially when the claims made are questionable and some even determined as libel in court, isn't encyclopedic and creates a distorted view of reality. I suggest the proper thing to do is to quote statements made by Shockley to properly present his viewpoints. --Zero g (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is clearly a divisive issue.  Many statements from then until now have attempted to shoot (or at tar and feather, i.e. discredit by labeling) the messenger in order to destroy the message.  Shockley spoke and wrote publically on the subject, let him speak for himself.
 * I didn't "hand pick" the sources, I searched Google for ["genetic speriority" Schockley] and found those easily. Asserting genetic inferiority is not the same as asserting racial hatred. I've never seen anyone write that Schockley hated blacks, just that he thought they were inferior and that the reproduction of infoeriro people should be minimized. The source you provide is some minor magazine reviewing a book by Roger Pearson, who's hardly a neutral observer. And it doesn't say anything about the genetic equality of the races so it's not really relevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you search for ["genetic speriority" Schockley] you are hardly going to get a wide range of results. That is bias during the research process. Unless Shockley has ever stated himself that Whites are superior/blacks are inferior, then it should be removed. Anything else is mere speculation by individuals less educated on the subject (than Shockley). --God Save the South (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time magazine all say the same thing, and if no one disputes their reporting, then we should assume they are reliable. We don't need to find a quote by Schockley. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, there's the rub... someone has disputed it and that someone was Shockly himself, therefore you DO need to find something more substative than clearly POV comments labeling him as something he denied - you continue to willfully misinterpret and echo the same false claims in order to discredit. This is very definition of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting, are racists less neutral than anti-racists in this matter? Is there a Wikipedia policy that excludes people with particular political or ideological opinions? A censorship of some sort? If so please point these out. I'd say Pearson is quite notable and that his opinion matters.


 * I also apologize for assuming good faith. The sources you provided contain rhetoric, not fact. They don't discuss Shockley in depth either. This makes as much sense as googling for "jesus was gay" and adding a sourced assumption of Jesus being gay to the Jesus article. --Zero g (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources cited by WillBeBack contain notable opinions, not rhetoric. And you're right that racist POVs have no place at Wikipedia. Also, perhaps Francis Crick calling Shockey a racist here you would find of more substance.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policy excludes racist POVs and sources? Given racist allegedly are capable of dropping black IQ scores by 15 points I assume they're not a fringe minority? --Zero g (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS, for one, and WP:SOAP for another. There are more. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promulgating racist views; it is meant for encyclopaedic, neutral article. And the condemnation of Shockley as a racist is common enough that it should be non-controversial. WP is not the place for racist ideologies. Also, you've been reported to WP:ANI for this post. We'll see what they think.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad to see that the WP:ANI discussion didn't go well in regard to your point of view. I hope this settles future arguments when you try to discredit sources from persons who, as a matter of fact, don't even self identify as racists. --Zero g (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's silly, what people literally say in public isn't exactly the only valid source for a biography. One can deduce things from standpoints and actions and numerous other sources (relatives, friends, colleges and so on). If there are reliable sources (like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time) there is no reason it shouldn't be in this article. --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) If anybody had doubts about Shockley being called a racist, here are some of the refs I found:
 * Here is one letter where Francis Crick calls Shockley a racist.
 * Here is another saying that William Shockley's position lends itself to racist interpretations.
 * Here is another one calling William Shockley, the notorious eugenicist and scientific racist.
 * Or you can access this book review about him.

I don't think there's any paucity of reliable sources calling Shockley a racist.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1st link doesn't call Shockley a racist directly. The 2nd link doesn't call Shockley a racist. The 3rd link is rhetoric and the article isn't about Shockley. The 4th link doesn't call Shockley a racist.
 * How about finding quotes of statements by Shockley that are racist instead of these gossip links? As I asked earlier on, should the Jesus article make the allegation of Jesus being a homosexual based on people saying he was? If not, what makes Shockley different? --Zero g (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1st link says: These endeavors were virtually shipwrecked when Shockley came out with his racist formulations
 * The second link says: William Shockley's position lends itself to racist interpretations
 * The third link says: William Shockley, the notorious eugenicist and scientific racist
 * The fourth link says The book is Shurkin’s attempt to understand Shockley’s life and career, particularly why he went off the rails, inviting condemnation as a racist and biological ignoramus.
 * Therefore, it is a common and widely held opinion that his views were racist, no matter what you think of it. And if his views were racist, then he was a racist. So far, you have been presented by myself and other editors with seven reliable sources stating that Shockley (and/or his views) were racist. You can't just wave your hand and discount all of them. That's not how Wikipedia works.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I sugest you take a look at WP:Verifiability, note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
 * And on a side note: If there are reliable sources claiming that Jesus was homosexual, then there is no reason that shouldn't be mentioned in the Jesus article. Actually if there were such reliable sources, I think something like that would be important to point out. One could (and people probably would) argue that saying Jesus was homosexual is an exceptional claim and thus required exceptional sources (in line with WP:REDFLAG). What is being discussed here is hardly an exceptional claim though. --Apis O-tang (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If Shockley was a living person these sources wouldn't be adequate. I also find it awkward that there are no quotations of Shockley's speeched and work being used to make the accusation of racism. Given the circumstances I've expanded the recent edit with sourced counter claims of Shockley being demonized by the media. I guess that should settle this? --Zero g (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon reading your refs, one of them doesn't support what you said, so I put it with the opposition. I also corrected to show that Roger Pearson seems to be the only one to make the apology of Pearson's position. And these sources would be adequate, whether or not Shockley was alive. Please read up on WP:BLP. Criterion for inclusion is verifiability and notability.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, Pearson will do. --Zero g (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the scorpion could be considered a reliable source? I've certainly never heard of it before. And even if, I'm not sure Roger Pearsons, another eugenicist and racist, objections are particularly relevant in that particular case. (I mean he's basically defending himself from being demonised as well). And it's one person, it's not a whole lot of reliable sources claiming he was misunderstood. --Apis O-tang (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can only dismiss racists if they are of the extremist kind like KKK spokesmen. Most Eugenicists aren't extremists either. So your argument is rather weak, especially considering that despite googling up some random shout-outs there's only one decent source by a notable figure stating Shockley had racist views. --Zero g (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need to list them here, but there are many reliable sources that have called Shockley or his ideas "racist". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that I don't think Roger Pearson's opinion is particularly relevant in this article. And I think that if you where to try and read what has been written about Shockley and eugenics, you will agree that they are both generally considered racist. Eugenics might not have been considered extreme back in 1932, but it sure is today.--Apis 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not making a good argument for why Pearson's opinion is irrelevant. Saying every racist and eugenicist is an extremist is like saying every Muslim is an extremist. The term 'extreme' is also as POV as it can get. Next it's very difficult to subsequently proof someone is a racist, next exclude them, regardless of the content of the source. Am I correct to assume you would remove an article from Shockley about conductors because he was 'racist' and hence his opinion does not matter? --Zero g (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure Shockley's opinion on conducting would be relevant, but I'm not all that familiar with his range of expertise. On the other hand, if he had an opinion on solid-state physics, I most likely wouldn't mind as long as it was relevant to that subject (racist or not). I didn't say every eugenicist is an extremist? I said eugenics is considered extreme. And I don't see why it matters whether extreme is POV or not, since I haven't put that in any article? Please stop trying to remove things just because you feel they are inconvenient. --Apis 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is getting totally out of hand. It is clear the intent of most of this section is to tar the man with a negative smear by piling on the evidence that he was a racist. It's clear enough from the content given he was concerned about regressive evolutionary tendencies and the scientific evidence shows blacks have lower IQs, which is a highly heritable trait. The man was speaking the truth based on the evidence at the time, which has yet to be refuted. Valid comments should be restricted to those made by Shockley himself. Perhaps the comments by Francis Crick could be left to stand (although very POV) because of his reputation as a scientist, especially considering his instrumental role in the field of genetics. But to be fair an opposing view should also be included. It's quite irrelevent and very POV to start including comments by this journalist or that critic in order to illustrate how certain groups felt about Shockley. For one they should address/attack the ideas, not the man, and a regurgitation of them here is not appropriate to the scope of the article (perhaps in biography, NOT in an encyclopia article), not neutral in POV and is clearly meant to demonize the man as a punishment for not prescribing to the conventional dogma on the topic. An article on one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century is not the place to debate social/racial issues just because he chose to voice his opinion on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. I've restored the deleted material.   Will Beback    talk    21:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I made many points in the previous explanation you declined to discuss. Please discuss changes before revert. I am not the only one that finds this irrelevent and POV. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahmercy (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you're 70.245.209.94. This is a biography of Schockley. Ernst W. Mayr is not a random journalist or critic - he's an eminent scientist with expertise in the field. Why did you delete his view?   Will Beback    talk    22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained my reasons in detail (unlike those who have been reverting my changes). After reading the article on Dr. Mayr, I agree his POV on matters of race and intelligence should be considered based on the merit of his work. But is he an expert on William Shockley and Shockley's views? I'm not opposed to critics of Shockley's opinions, although it is obviously getting pretty far afield from the main topic posting other scientists' opinions of Shockley's views on a controversial topic. It's also clear there is an agenda behind these posts. The nature and tone of the article is no longer neutral POV in the least and hiding behind Wiki policies doesn't change that. I've reviewed the other articles you two are actively editing and many seem to involve the topic of race and intelligence. As an electrical engineer and researcher on electronic states and DFT, I'm primarily interested in Shockley based on his work on drift and diffusion and help compose the main portion of the original article on him. I will not let this article devolve into a forum to throw mud on the man by reciting every personal attack on him because he held some views that were unpopular. I would suggest we avoid a war over this and simply work toward a neutral-factual article. - Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahmercy (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel Kevles is a notable historian of science. Why did you delete his view?   Will Beback    talk    00:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons I've stated twice already. Everybody gets it... Shockley was a racist, or at least his views on eugenics were considered racist by some (perhaps many). A quote from a prominent scientist (although I'd never heard of Mayr, as I'm sure the lay read hasn't either) and a counter from another, when taken in context with the rest of the article, is more than enough to get the point across. There is no justification in bloating this section out of proportion to the whole (it's already the second largest, nearing the first on his much more relevent work on holes and electrons). Listing a litney of basically redundant statements from little-known sources (or any sources), definitely creates a sense of strong sense of POV against Shockley('s ideas) and degrades the overall quality of the article. The read is perfectly free to explore this aspect via their own google search, as Will Beck and Ramdrake appear to have done. There is a name for scrounging explicitly for negative comments about someone, it's called muck-raking, and it isn't becoming of men as educated as you guys. Give the reads some credit. -Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you invoking WP:UNDUE? You may be correct if you consider scholarly sources and wrong if you look at news and other reliable sources. I think adding content on his work in physics would improve the article. But, your comment above that, "the scientific evidence shows blacks have lower IQs, which is a highly heritable trait" is not likely to persuade your fellow editors of your interest in balance and scientific objectivity. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The anon IP editor has a declared POV that motivates his removal of well-sourced opinions about Shockley; but WP:NPOV suggests that all points of view be fairly represented.  Removal of these items is not a step in the right direction.  It would be better to add more well-sourced information and opinions about Shockley.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What I stated is a well established fact by empirical evidence that has been repeated thousands of times on samples of millions of individuals. It is certainly not controversial, although the meaning or implications may be.  Don't assume you know my POV please, you don't.  I have explained my position in detail at least three times now and the reverters don't bother to engage in discussion, or reach a compromise, they simply add a cursory sentence and revert.  This is clearly not the protocol required by wikipedia.  And yes, I'm citing UNDUE Wsiegmund.  Obviously there is dispute about how appropriate these opinions are and their value in the article, I am not the only reader with a problem with this content.  It should be removed until an acceptable compromise is reached.  Citing UNDUE, if you feel your position is the majority position, please confine citations to well recognized reference works.  If you feel it is the minority view, then why does it take up the majority of the section, with only a single contrary reference cited?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What you've stated is that "the scientific evidence shows blacks have lower IQs, which is a highly heritable trait. The man was speaking the truth based on the evidence at the time, which has yet to be refuted. Valid comments should be restricted to those made by Shockley himself." I don't know if the first part of this is "a well established fact," or how widely it's accepted, but independent of that, I don't think the conclusion follows that "comments should be restricted to those made by Shockley himself."  The man is widely known for the public stance he took on these issues, and published commentary on his position is appropriate stuff in the include in the article.  You'll find the same in most article and bios on him.  If there's undue weight, let's discuss that, and find balancing viewpoints to quote, perhaps.  But simply removing material and stating UNDUE and balance and talk in the edit summary is not really making your removals more acceptable.  I'll revert again, unless someone has beat me to it.  This should in no way suggest that I don't admire Shockley for his technical contributions; his "Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors" was the conceptual bridge from solid-state physics to engineering that allowed generations of engineers and scientists to make incredible fast progress.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree comments by those other than Shockley may be appropriate and Shockley's stance on these issues is not really disputed (although his stance should be established based on his own words, not the reinterpretation of others). There is constant complaint about the volume/nature/source(s) of these comments from numerous users (see other comments here, above and below).  Shockley was outspoken about controversial political topics and those that disagree with him wish to demonize him for that.  Scientists who have studied Shockley's work realize he laid the foundation for and sparked the technological (computer revolution).  Certainly his scientific work has had a far greater impact than his political opinions.  This is source of the problem.  The section on politics is nearly as large, and taken with the section on Race, and viewing the article overall it is clear the political portion is overwhelming the article and being used as a sandbox (proxy) by those with an axe to grind.  That being said (again), there should be room to for a balanced compromise on this issue. I haven't been simply removing the material, I have now explained in detail FOUR times why this material should be curtailed.  I'll repeat is again, it is out of proportion to the scientific work, doesn't conform to the UNDUE guidelines, doesn't represent NPOV and keeps debate stirred up over this article rather than allowing it to become stable.  The William Shockley page is not the place to debate by proxy through numerous quotes from various pundits the race/intelligence issue.  There is a whole section of Wikipedia devoted to that elsewhere.  I think a reasonable compromise it to leave the quote from Mayr to Crick.  This the most insightful comment and is a strong rebuke by a noted scientist to another scientist (well-known, possibly even to the lay reader) and is more substative than simple name-calling.  Pearson's remark in defense of Shockley should stand in order to add a modicum of balance.  This should give a clear picture of issue.  We don't need a recitation of every (or even numerous) quotes from journalist/historians/others who many have weighted in on the issue.  Please don't accuse me of reverting without explanation... read the above comments and you will see I am already repeating myself on these issues and the only one that is engaging in acutal discussion on these points, unlike some others whom I will decline to mention.  Regards. BTW: Love the technological "trick" employed in the FOVEON, very nice work.


 * We're only talking about a couple of brief statements, not an unduly large paragraph, so I don't see the issue here, and so far you haven't got anyone agreeing with you, so it would be good to stop the edit warring. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't bother to read the rest of this discussion page, I'll quote just one here, for your convience... "As an engineer, I found the lack of substantial information on, or technical depth of Shockley's achievements in this article incredible, especially given the relative weight given to his political views, personality and other trivia. There is no mention whatsoever of his development of the mathematical model of a FET - arguably his single most significant legacy today. - Gary Turner (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)"

You can find this at the bottom of the page (not that you are actually interested), in a new section created out of the same concerns I am raising. You are not complying with UNDUE, you have no arguement as you do not address the points I've taken the effort to outline here, and Frankley it is insulting to come here and post one sentence to the effect of saying, blah blah you're still wrong and then revert. You are not trying to reach a compromise or to engage in any real productive discussion. Therefore, I will continue to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The solution to the lack of depth about technical contributions is to add more sourced info on that, not to remove other sourced stuff that you don't like. The next time you "contribute" by removing, you'll get a good long block, I expect, so take this chance to change directions and contribute positively instead. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah... so it doesn't actually matter that others do agree with me, now that I point out their comments, you drop the issue. I've seen no serious discussion of any compromise on this issue yet, except from Wsiegmund.  Therefore, I must remove these citations/opinions, as they do not conform to the wikipedia guidelines give in UNDUE. Obviously you are asserting you hold the majority opinion.  Therefore, please use citations from recognized reference works.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is Scully that her comments on Shockley should be included here? She is a law professor, neither a notable public figure in this field (such as Crick), nor an expert on Shockley. According to WP:V exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Since Shockley himself denied the claim of being a racist, the burden is on the the editor to include credible material otherwise. Scully's remarks provide no such original material and, in fact, simply presuppose it as a given or accepted fact (i.e. "notorious")rather offering actual evidence in support of her/the claim. Also at issue, UNDUE (Wikipedia policy) states minority opinions should not carry as much weight as this section has grown to cover and (if you wish to argue these the Majority opinions) quotes should be restricted to reference works on the topic. This section meets neither standard and is clearly a POV (as attested by the degree of constant controversy over this section) attack on Shockley meant to discredit his ideas through recounting personal attacks rather than elucidate and/or simply explicate his views. This is very unencyclopedic and reads more like a gossip column rife with he said/she said name smearing. IMHO most of this section should be removed as largely irrelevant. Give the reader some credit. Provide the information no Shockley's belief from established source and let the reader draw their own conclusions. We don't need a litany of condemnations from various sources in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - In the current state, the section on race has been condensed to be more in context with the entire article. All of the information in the this section is indicative of Shockley's views, although it would be nice to see a few cogent quotes from Shockley himself explaining his position, especially since he wrote a book on the subject. There are also two direct quotes from the most relevant sources lambasting Shockley's views and a single rebuttal. This seems to get the point Ramdrake, Beback, Lyon, et. al. were promoting included, even though I'm not sure these really qualify as citations from "reference works". I think their points are appropriate to include since this was a notable aspect of an important part of Shockley's life (at least important to Shockley himself). As I read this section now, it seems much more concise and to the point and more matter-of-fact/encyclopedic as well as balanced. I'm sure we have edit wars to look forward to in the future on this one, but for now I'm like to congratulate our editors on the current compromise. Maybe there is some hope for this wikipedia thing after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Failing the Lewis Terman IQ test
I watched documentary "BBC Horizon - What Makes A Genius" and they mentioned that William Shockley was one of the rejects in Lewis Terman's IQ test and went here to read more about it- since I found it incredible fascinating how someone winning the nobel price would not score well on a IQ test but found no information at all. Google led me to a Stanford publication: http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2000/julaug/articles/terman.html where it is also mentioned:

"We also know that two children who were tested but didn't make the cut -- William Shockley and Luis Alvarez -- went on to win the Nobel Prize in Physics. According to Hastorf, none of the Terman kids ever won a Nobel or Pulitzer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.0.168 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anachronism with regard to Arthur Jensen
Arthur Jensen is still living, and statements about him anywhere on Wikipedia are constrained by the biography of living persons policy. I've seen other Wikipedia articles that say that Shockley influenced Jensen more than Jensen influenced Schockley, and indeed Shockley was older and published earlier about race and IQ issues. Who has a reliable secondary source at hand about who influenced whom? I may have one, but I'd have to dig into some indexes to find the specific point. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shurkin's book on Shockley is a fascinating read.
An interesting life written about by a skilled author makes for an absorbing biography. I have started reading Shurkin's biography of Shockley and I am impressed with Shurkin's careful sourcing and balanced discussion of Shockley's career. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Statements about populations and genetics section needs better sourcing.
I see that there continue to be I.P. edits putting words in Wikipedia's mouth that really belong in Shockley's, and making statements in the "Statements about populations and genetics" section of this article about living persons that aren't verifiable in sources. I encourage editors to read the Shurkin biography of Shockley (which is meticulously sourced and very even-handed in its treatment of Shockley's life) and the current reliable sources about human intelligence while watching edits of this article. (I have cited both resources to this talk page on previous occasions.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That intelligence is largely influenced by genetic inheritance is a hypothesis (which Shockley believed), not a fact.
I see that there has been an edit back and forth today about whether Shockley acted because of what he believed about the causation of human intelligence, or because of what IS about the causation of human intelligence. Simply put, Shockley acted on his beliefs, which are still in dispute today. I won't join in on editing the article again until after a decent interval, but I wanted to note for other editors here that I have already provided a link to an extensive source list (which I am still updating today and later this week) on the factual issues underlying much of Shockley's activism in later life. -- 23:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Close. We only know what he stated, not what he believed. Any statement that he believed something could at most be backed up by primary sources. Instead, we use statements we can attribute to him and let readers draw their own conclusions as to what he believed, if that matters to them. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In any event, what Shockley wrote (the citation comes before rather than at the place where the edit-warring was going on) doesn't establish a fact by itself. (Especially, that would be unlikely to establish a fact in an area outside Shockley's acknowledged area of expertise, which was physics.) With that noted, I will do an inconsequential copy-edit (for English prepositional idiom) now at the place where editors were reverting back and forth recently. Any editor who could put a pinpoint cite to exactly what Shockley wrote on that issue in that sentence would have my hearty thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By any accepted scientific standard the heritablity of intelligence is very, VERY well established by meta studies, twin studies, studies that control for socio-economic conditions and many others. This is as much of a verifiable fact as any such fact can be established.  It is a better established fact than the heritablity of height, eye or hair color.  There are specific genes linked to it.  Please stop with this petty reverts to advance the idea that it is not, inspite of the science, just because some may find it an unwanted fact.  There is board consus on this, although a very radical and vocal minority vociferously oppose it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not correct - there are no specific genes connected to normal levels of intelligence, and there is a great scholars that do not see intelligence in the normal spectre as necessarily having a high heritability. The 1996 APA report specifically states that the degree of heritability is not known. About reading Schockleys mind it is a red herring - we know he believed the hypothesis because he said he believed it writing "Shockley said he believed" is merely stupid.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain wp:Civil. We don't define current medical science by what was known 14 years ago, particularly in fields which are changing as rapidly as that of genetics. For instance, identified several genes linked to specific causes of IQ less than 70. Of course we would not need to write "Shockley said he believed ...", we would prefer to write "Shockley said '...' ", or  "Shockley wrote, '...' " or  "Shockley said, 'I believe that ...' ". As editors we should not be engaging in conjecture as to the intent behind attributed writings. LeadSongDog  come howl!  20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely mentioning the word "stupid" is not incivil unlesss its directed at someone which it wasn't here, but at a hypothetical action. I happen to spend a lot of time working on the articles about the race and intelligence controversy and I can tell you that there is obviously not a consensus that intelligigence in the normal area (IQ below 70 is not in the normal area but is pathological so that gene is irrelevant to this debate) is mostly genetically determined - I also haven't read any current textbooks in genetics that say that it is. It is true that within genetics there may be a more pronounced tendency to believe in importance of the genetic determination of intelligence, but that tendency is not found in other fields such as psychology or anthropology. To argue that that is "established fact" can only be based in ignorance of the actual debate and data.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, who said IQ's below the normal range are not relevent to the issue, you did to "prove" your point. IQ's below 70 are absolutely relevent here. It is a perfect example what Shockley was talking about, such individuals should be sterilized to prevent an increase in the prevalence of these genes, which, if widespread, would lead to a lowering of the IQ of the general population. Go grind your axe somewhere else please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.122.122 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

<- Simply wrong, IQ is mostly inherited, that's a fact supported by twin tests, high statistical r^2 and beta scores and genomic studies. Sorry, but hard science is proving this the case everyday, and if genetics isn't responsible for IQ, then why are you smarter than a poodle (I assume you are), because you have HUMAN genes, not because of daycare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.96.97 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 October 2010


 * Your comment was originally in the wrong place. I have moved it solely to show the sequence of discussion here, without changing talk page text. I happen to personally know the lead investigators of the Minnesota Twin Study, and what you say is not the way they would sum up the results of their many years of research. You should read the articles by Ned Block, who is very astute about genetics, to understand why your comparison with poodles is fallacious in regard to the point at hand. In any event, the article here is a biographical article about a person now deceased, and Shockley's place in the scientific debate about IQ is well sourced (not least because Shockley saved all his personal papers and donated them to Stanford after he died) and the proper subject of this article. Wikipedia is all about reliable sources, and if you have sources to suggest, I would be happy to hear about them. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's all heasay Weiji and it doesn't matter what their personal feelings are anyway since those haven't been scrutinized by peer-review. Let them publish said POV and then you will have a source to cite them, understand?

Your recent changes not only introduce more POV and disrupt the stable concensus the article had achieved in the previous few months, but, more seriously, are logically inconsistent/incoherent. Please discuss major changes and try to reach a concensus before destroying the stability of this section. I changed the section back to the stable version and added citations to address your concerns, but immediately added and changed the content back to your version without any discussion here. Do you really consider yourself NPOV on this topic? Thanks.


 * It seems you and Will Beback are tag-teaming on this section (WP:GANG).


 * I've been watching this section for awhile. Communist Catherine and WeijiBaikeBianji, why are you trashing this section?  You are obscuring Shockley's logic of differential propogation, why?  Plz discuss hear first, thenaks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.97.160 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, please refactor your personal attack against other editors, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I am not a communist. Worldwide communism gained a lot of advantage as against the free world in propaganda battles during the Cold War, because the United States had such unscientific and unjust policies as de jure segregation. The Berlin Wall would have fallen sooner (or, in the best case, never have been built) if only Jim Crow had been abolished sooner. Many persons who are opponents of violations of human rights by all governments (communist or noncommunist) are also aware of the scientific facts that William Shockley missed. Second, please come forward with current, reliable secondary sources that show what the latest scientific consensus is on IQ trends in the United States population and on the distinction between malleability and heritability of human abilities. The late William Shockley is not privileged above other persons who took controversial positions on issues in having his opinions granted the voice of Wikipedia when they are related in a biographical article about him. Wikipedia must speak with the voice of current, reliable, secondary sources by Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A source important for editing this article.
William H. Tucker's meticulously researched book on Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund provides a lot of historical context to the activities of William Shockley and cites many statements to persons who corresponded with Shockley (whose letters appear in the William Shockley papers at Stanford University). This will be an excellent source for further improvements of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's available in Google book search (at least some relevant pages). Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. That will help for verifying detailed quotations from this source. The Shockley papers at Stanford are a good source for a lot of Wikipedia articles, because Shockley saved all of his correspondence--even some of his laundry lists, as his biographer notes--and thus the words of a lot of his collaborators about their plans and goals are best found in reliable secondary sources by authors who have dug into the Shockley papers. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The book Shockley on Eugenics and Race is a strongly POV source and a dubious source for most Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps there is no getting around sourcing some parts of this article to Shockley on Eugenics and Race, but I should point out to other editors who haven't researched the origin of that book that it is from a publishing company (run by the co-author of the book) that is strongly point-of-view pushing on the issues discussed in the book. The book would not be a reliable source for most Wikipedia articles, by the Wikipedia reliable source guideline. Reliance on that source for this article will definitely call for further editing of the article on the basis of other sources for neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with this. In an article on Shockley, his own printed words in scholarly chapters of this book are necessarily a prime reference source on his work and thought. If this scholarly work is deemed strongly "POV", while newspapers and magazines are judged to be ok sources for references, then one can only despair for wikipedia.DonSiano (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should never rely mainly on primary sources, regardless of their quality. See WP:PSTS. Shockley's abilities as a scholar of race and intelligence have always been questioned, which is one reason why the book should not be used except as a source for Shockley's views. Even then, we should reply on secondary sources as much as possible and use the book sparingly, for illustrative quotes and details.    Will Beback    talk    19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Will Beback correctly states Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. A great many of the  articles on Wikipedia currently suffer from deviations from neutral point of view, in large part because they are sourced to "primary sources" rather than to reliable secondary sources. Referring back to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines will help make this issue more clear. I suppose that there will always be websites that present Shockley's point of view largely in his own words or in the words of his followers, but whether or not there are self-published websites like that, Wikipedia is to be edited as an encyclopedia is edited, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Following up on this, I see that there are still quite a few edits to article text that are not backed up by current reliable sources and that appear to be attempts to put Shockley's opinions on the Internet in the voice of Wikipedia, a strong violation of the core  neutral point of view policy here. The late William Shockley did do a service to scholarship by saving all of his correspondence, including correspondence with white-supremacist organizations and their funders and leaders, and then donating his personal papers to the Stanford University library. That has allowed careful scholars such as historian of psychology William Tucker and Shockley's biographer Joel Shurkin to discover many of the previously hidden connections between his public statements on race issues and the groups seeking to take advantage of having a spokesman for such statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Who lurks at 134.39.114.97?
Someone called Matt, I guess. Get a life, Matt. Moletrouser (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes
I am overwhelmed by an irresistible temptation to do my climb by moonlight and unroped.
 * This quote seems unconnected and irrelevant. We've already established that he was a climber. Did he do the climb by moonlight unroped? What mountain? What does this add to the article?  -Willmcw July 2, 2005 22:57 (UTC)
 * Quotes are often provided in articles as a glimpse into the subject's beliefs and personal life. Granted it doesn't may him look the way we want him to, but I think it should still stay ;)  --Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. But you know that is not a true assertion. What does this quote tell us about Shockley? We don't even know if he did make the night-time ascent, only that he was tempted to do so. Who cares? -Willmcw July 3, 2005 00:48 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to tell me it's not true that William Shockley is Satan? Citations please.  His quotation may metaphorically be about life.--Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)


 * How about a citation for the quote? It may be about many things. Without the source and context we don't know what it's about. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 01:15 (UTC)
 * It was taken from the PBS bio; context not given.--Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, I saw it there and also in a page of quotes by people named "William". (Yes, the Internet is a strange place). And one fellow uses it as his signature quote in computer forums, which makes the meaning doubly enigmatic. Of course some of the great mountaineering lines are noted for their understated simplicity. "At the top we nibbled Kendall mintcake..." goes Hilary's droll report of the first ascent of Everest. I guess this goes on the list of things for editors to look up the next time a good biography is in hand. I suspect there may be an interesting anecdote in there somewhere. As it is, it's like saying, "I thought about going to Paris." I won't delete it, but I hope we can explain it someday. Cheers, -Willmcw July 3, 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Shockley on ...
This book was listed both under books by Shockley and books about Shockley, with the wrong Isbn in one case. Since it is a collection of his published writings, edited by Pearson, it belongs only in the "books by" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.236.70 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarify This Sentence
The sentence "He also admitted that his kept some of own work secret until his "hand was forced" by Shive's 1948 advance." needs to be rewritten. The use of the first 'his' looks suspiciously incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esbboston (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My typo... Woz2 (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

US Medal of Merit is not on the List of Honors.
Earlier in the article, it says he won the Medal of Merit in WWII, but this is not listed in List of Honors.Landroo (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

William Shockley had an exceptionally well documented life
I see another editor has recently tagged this article (correctly, in my opinion) as needing more sources. I would like to suggest two sources. William Shockley, as was known during his life, took care to save all his correspondence and to record nearly all of his telephone calls. This is a bonanza for biographical researchers, as Shockley donated his papers to Stanford University upon his death, and researchers who go into the Stanford archival collections can review boxes upon boxes of Shockley's correspondence and press clippings. Two researchers who have done so have written books about what they found in Shockley's papers.





Both books have a lot of thoroughly documented details about the most controversial aspects of Shockley's public activities, and Shurkin's book is of course a biography of Shockley, based not only on Shockley's papers but also on extensive interviews with Shockley's family and colleagues. These would be good sources to rely on for future edits of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the hatnote about improving the references in this article. Of course the article still needs improvement, but the major references on Shockley's life are already cited here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rock climbing
William Shockley was an excellent rock climber in his day. He could impress any casual rock climber. Google "Shockley's Cieling" for a great route he pioneered! Someone at Wikipedia with the necessary editing skills should mention this IN HIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY, not just buried somewhere else (like this). There is no reason to omit such an amazing **fun** fact on his main page. No wonder people think "geeks" are boring. The boring ones seem to be writing Shockely's page and leaving out the kinds of things that pull people into science through alternative means. Shockley proved scientists were "xtreme" before it was even cool and co-opted by marketers. Please, just one or two sentences to bring some well-rounded, fun humanity to this really great guy's wikipedia entry! Oh, and climbing WAS important to him. He loved it. The page is about him, not just a one-dimension view for one-dimensional readers. I would change it, but I would probably need an hour just to learn procedure and etiquette. Please, give this man his due for being a multi-dimensional *human*. Thanks, whoever! --Bruce Francois — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.76.207 (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for any of that? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 edit
User has reverted the fairly large amount of edits I made and requested that it be discussed here. His concern is in regard to the source material. While I can understand the concern, none of what I edited changed the context of the content. My intention was to clean up bad grammar and overly wordy phrasing, plus I changed a few adjectives and adverbs to reduce the level of hyperbole a bit. For example, I changed "incensed" to "angered". Otherwise, the majority of the edits were structural to the sections and organization of the content.

A review of this article's history shows that WeijiBaikeBianji is one of the top editors of the article as well and a significant contributor to this Talk page which seems to put this User in the Steward category in my opinion. In fact this User has advocated for a "top to bottom [review] for coherency, due weight" which was my intention. Does anyone else have concerns about the structural and grammar clean up edits I attempted to make? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My key concern is looking at what the sources actually say. The article definitely needs top-to-bottom revision, including revision of the kind usually done during Guild of Copy-Editors (GOCE) edits, but this article, especially, because of the controversial public activities of the article subject, needs to be very carefully sourced to the most reliable sources on his life. I have become very wary of GOCE edits on controversial articles, having been a participant in the Guild myself. Sources matter for an article like this. I have all the key sources at hand as I type this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough, then lets get down to specifics. What was changed that is not an acceptable paraphrase of the source material or are you saying that what is in the article now is incorrect? Since you have the "key sources" in your possession, please elaborate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Pearson, etc.
There are two problems with these edits.

First, BLP policy requires that we describe living people in a neutral or non-controversial way. Calling Pearson an anthropologist was a neutral label, calling him a white supremacist is not. Perhaps the source calls him a white supremacist, but unless he agrees with the label himself, calling him that without attribution is a BLP violation.

Second, you replaced a sourced summary with an unsourced one. I can't make sense of your edit summary ("Please provide rationale for that source"). My rationale is that your edit replaced sourced content with unsourced content. If you genuinely think making these paragraphs unsourced was an improvement, it raises questions about your competence to edit these articles.

I'm going to make one more attempt at removing the disputed material. As I said in your user talk, with suspected BLP violations there needs to be a consensus for the material before it's added back, so I suggest you not keep restoring it. 154.127.48.63 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to agree with 164.127.48.63 that many recent edits are problematic. There is no encyclopedic justification for describing a subject's positions as "ill-informed", for example. MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your comments. While away from typing, I was rereading the section about Shockley in, to prepare for sourced edits. Yes, let's make sure all the edits to this article are well sourced. (I found by viewing the article history that much sourced content has been lost from this article over the years, as I.P. editors have deleted it.) Meanwhile, please remind me what the latest approach is here on Wikipedia to using group-edited external websites with biographical information about deceased individuals as external links in Wikipedia articles. Just now, while looking for something else, I was surprised to discover a rather detailed website about Shockley's advocacy of eugenics,William Shockley which does not appear to be used yet anywhere in this article. I am, of course, most happy to dig into professionally published books like the Shurkin biography and the Tucker history of advocacy movements to source articles here on Wikipedia, but some of the readers of Wikipedia are very fond of external links when they are available. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that the Southern Poverty Law Center website is not appropriate for citing here. Its information about Shockley is neither authoritative nor neutral. As for the book, I can't evaluate it because I can't see it, but its title suggests it should only be used with caution. Not all books are Reliable Sources. This one may well be; the author is a legitimate scholar and the publisher a major university. MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Melanie, good day. I see as I look at your user profile that you have a connection to Stanford University. William Tucker, the psychology professor (who mostly now writes about the history of psychology) who wrote the book I think we are both discussing, spent a lot of time in the archives at Stanford putting his book together. William Shockley did a big service to the history of science by saving just about all of his personal papers throughout his life, and then donating all of them to the Stanford archives. Both Tucker and Shurkin were amazed at how much archival material they found when they dug into the Shockley archives. Tucker especially found Shockley's copies of personal correspondence (incoming and outgoing) that helped tie together several personal connections in the movement Shockley participated in that would otherwise have been lost to history, as the other participants in that correspondence sometimes let their personal papers vanish from the historical record. I think you are very likely to have resources available to you that will allow you to check the reviews of Tucker's book, which are generally quite favorable. As you note, an author who is a legitimate scholar and a publisher that is a major university press is one set of signals suggesting a reliable source per the Wikipedia content guidelines on reliable sources. On the basis of those guidelines, it might be good to take a second look at the heavily cited Roger Pearson book now relied on in the article, which is self-published (Pearson owns and operates that publishing company) and written by an author with a rather different scholarly reputation, as should also be visible through checking independent reviews and library holdings. I'm glad to have you looking on as edits proceed. What I will be doing next with the article is simply exhaustively checking the existing source references. Yesterday, I discovered a number of flaws in citing page numbers, as well as references that had been mangled by previous I.P. reverts of sourced content. I will check and double-check the existing references first, and I very much welcome your attention and the kind attention of other thoughtful editors as I turn to RiordanHoddeson1997, Tucker2002, Shurkin2006, and other biographical sources about Shockley to begin expanding and updating this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am no longer at Stanford, but as a student there I actually worked with Dr. Shockley - on one of his projects to teach creative / scientific thinking in elementary school. The article certainly does need work; however I think we should take care that his later controversial theories do not overshadow his scientific work. There is always the temptation to play up the more dramatic aspects of a person's life, as well as to throw in value judgment words like "racist" or "ill informed". MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just done some cleanup along these lines, pulling content and a reference from the Pearson article including the correct Wikilink to that article. Given the controversial nature of the material that's being used, I would say that we are not taking full advantage of actual quotes. It might be better to state some of these things in the actual voice of those who made the statements like Epps instead of using Wikipedia's voice so that no one confuses the opinions of others as statements of fact. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rejection for IQ study
I've removed the content regarding Shockley being rejected for an IQ study as a child. It's long on explanation, but low on connection until the end of the paragraph. I'm sure there is little doubt that the man was intelligent, so this mention just comes across as unnecessary trivia. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unnecssary perhaps; trivia perhaps; but it is sourced info about Schockley that is interesting in its irony. Why remove it?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourced or not, factual or not, very little of it is actually about Shockley, it needs too much "wind up" or explanation just to make it even tacitly relevant to him. This is an encyclopedia not Reader's Digest or a Paul Harvey story. Plus its fairly WP:UNDUE as it starts the article with a claim that he was not considered intelligent by the person who literally came up with the test. If you like the content and want to belittle Lewis Terman or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales he developed, its probably a great little factoid for those articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015, recent source reverts
As some of you may have noticed, there is a bit of an Edit War going on with regard primarily to the references in this article for example in these edits. The primary deletionist and reverter was User John18778, who has since been indefinitely banned for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Then comes IP 122.152.167.189 doing the same for which I have tagged as a possible SOCK. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
The edit warring needs to stop right now. I have requested temporary protection for the page. Remember this page is subject to discretionary sanctions; please read about that at the top of the page. Disagreements must be settled on this talk page, not by edit warring in the article. MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have semiprotection for two weeks. Let's use it to settle disagreements via discussion instead of warring. MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose move to William Bradford Shockley
I propose a move of this to either William Bradford Shockley or William Shockley (phycisist). There are numerous notable William Shockleys, including his father William Hillman Shockley. FloraWilde (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your rationale is to disambiguate other persons named William Shockley. But as far as I know, Wikipedia policy supports having the main use of a shorter term point directly to the main article that might be expected to be pointed at by that term, with a disambiguation hatnote at the top of that article (as now, here). When I do a general search in any online database, general or specific, for "William Shockley," the subject of this article is always by far the top result and main result. Perhaps other editors here are readily able to cite the relevant Wikipedia editing guideline that specifies what to do in cases like this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

William Shockley and the Termite study
Shouldn't it be mentioned that William Shockley was rejected by Lewis Terman when he did his IQ study? Given the fact that his later years spent ranting and raving about the decline of geniuses it would seem relevant. You can't say it's slander or libel. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites Turtire (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This used to be in the article, but it was removed per discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As this issue comes up repeatedly in the sources, with Shockley noted as a person who proposed eugenic policies based on IQ scores, perhaps it is time to revisit this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against its inclusion, but I stand my assessment of how it was added originally. It was long on explanation, short on connection, and given its placement in article seems somewhat inflammatory by making Shockley look any less intelligent because he did not qualify for the study as a child. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources about the life and work of William Shockley
William Shockley led an exceptionally well documented life. He was still a rather young man when he was one of three co-winners of the Nobel Prize in physics for their work on developing the transistor, and thereafter his activities were reported regularly in the public press. Shockley followed his mother May, who lived a long and active life of her own, in the habit of keeping most of his personal papers and correspondence for his entire lifetime. Shockley granted many press interviews and frequently spoke at public events with reporters present. He is also well known to have tape-recorded the majority of his telephone calls later in life. All of Shockley's vast supply of collected papers was donated to the Stanford University libraries after his death. Shockley's authorized biographer, Joel Shurkin, paged through box after box after box of the materials in the Shockley archives while preparing his biography of Shockley, and Shockley's widow even arranged to have the doors of personal safes that Shockley owned blown open so that Shurkin could see the papers inside those.

This article deserves much better sourcing than it has received over the years. The editing pattern of this article for as long as I have been a Wikipedian (since 2010) has included numerous I.P. edits that delete reliably sourced, inline-cited content. An article about a winner of the Nobel Prize who had a well documented life really ought to be a featured article here on Wikipedia, but this article has never even reached "good article" status. It's time for all of us to be conscientious about looking up reliable, published sources about Shockley and referring to those as further edits proceed. This article has not improved significantly for a long time, and is still subject to I.P. deletions of sourced content. In this talk page section, I'll note some sources that are convenient for all Wikipedians to look up. First I will list sources about Shockley's life or work that can readily be found online with a Google search on Shockley's name. Most of these are available as free full-text articles to all Wikipedians. The Time magazine article by Shockley's colleague Gordon Moore cited here, which is paywalled, is widely available in public and academic libraries and I have the full text of the Time article. In a later posting to this talk page section, I will list other useful sources.


 * This biographical article about Shockley's life was written the year he won the Nobel Prize (1956), and later published in book form (1964) and is now posted on the World Wide Web by the Nobel Foundation. It is of course current only to the year when it was written.


 * This article focuses on the development of the transistor but covers the whole course of William Shockley's life. It is posted on the World Wide Web by the Public Broadcasting Service of the United States.


 * This article by the news service of Stanford University, the base of Shockley's activities at the end of his life, reports on a gathering of Shockley friends and colleagues, including Shockley's widow, who looked back on Shockley's career, focusing on his role in the semiconductor industry. It is posted to the World Wide Web by the Stanford News Service.


 * The obituary for William Shockley published in the New York Times covers the whole course of Shockley's life. It is posted on the World Wide Web by the New York Times.


 * This biographical article by staff writers for Biography.com covers the whole course of Shockley's life. It is posted to the World Wide Web by Biography.com, a service of A&E Television Networks.


 * This article from the Washington Post Magazine looks back at the life of William Shockley, focusing on controversy about the invention of the transistor. It is posted to the World Wide Web by the Washington Post.


 * This article about the invention of the transistor commemorates the role of Bell Labs in that invention. It is posted on the World Wide Web by the American Physical Society.


 * This article from Time magazine by Gordon Moore, one of Shockley's colleagues in the semiconductor industry, looks back on the life of Shockley. It is posted (behind a paywall) on the World Wide Web by Time magazine, and the full article text is widely available in print copies of Time held by libraries.


 * This article by staff writers of the Southern Poverty Law Center focuses on Shockley's public statements on eugenics and race, a topic the center specializes in tracking. It is posted on the World Wide Web by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


 * This article from the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings focuses on Shockley's role in developing the transistor. It is hosted on the World Wide Web by PubMed Central.

There are a lot of well documented, published, reliable sources to read about Shockley. Let's read those and do a good job together updating and improving this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC) (Above suggestions of sources updated with comments on each source at time of new signature stamp here.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment that the article "is still subject to I.P. deletions of sourced content" seems a rather backhanded accusation that my removals are unjustified. You've presented an odd mix of sources here - some such as the Nobel Prize Foundation are highly important and prominent, yet you've also mixed in other such as the Southern Poverty Law Center that are far less so. The Nobel Prize Foundation does not mention Shockley's view's on race, and neither does the Mayo Clinic article, or the American Physical Society article. In general, the most prominent and high-quality sources about Shockley's life either don't discuss his views on race, or discuss them only in passing. He's known primarily as a physicist and inventor.


 * This proportion should be reflected in the article. The pre-established version of the article was fine in this respect, but adding multiple lengthy quotes about his views on race is an example of giving excessive weight to low-prominence sources. If the article is to include lengthy quotes from Shockley, the majority of them should relate to his contributions to physics. 43.228.157.51 (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, 43.228.157.51, thanks for your comments. I've added some comments about the sources noted above (with a new signature timestamp after the previous signature timestamp) and I'll add some more sources, with comments, below.


 * This book is a history of the development of the transistor and of the semiconductor industry. It is based on extensive interviews with contemporaries of Shockley and press reports published during his lifetime. It is widely available in libraries.


 * This book is an academic book mostly about the history of the Pioneer Fund, which for a while was the major source of funding for Shockley's public advocacy of eugenic policies. Author Professor William Tucker took care to consult the William Bradford Shockley papers in the Stanford University archives and made a number of path-finding discoveries by carefully examining Shockley's correspondence. Many of the Pioneer Fund grantees and staff have not made their papers available to historians after their deaths, and the fund operated rather secretively during Shockley's lifetime. But Shockley's habit of saving his correspondence, both copies of his outgoing correspondence and all the correspondence he received, allowed Tucker to document and verify many relationships among persons funded by the Pioneer Fund and their exact words at datable moments in history that had been suspected but not proven by historians for years before. Shockley's habits have considerably advanced the historical study of the topic of Tucker's book, and Shockley is described in detail in the book based on his words from both public statements and personal correspondence and also from contemporary press accounts. This book is a major source for updates to this Wikipedia article and is available in most academic libraries.


 * Joel Shurkin's book is the authorized biography of William Shockley, and is based on extensive interviews with contemporaries of Shockley and deep dives into the William Bradford Shockley papers in the Stanford University archives. Shurkin, like Shockley, was long based at Stanford University and knows many of Shockley's colleagues. His earlier book also relied on digging into the Stanford University archives and included reporting on the development of the semiconductor industry. Shurkin makes clear what a wealth of source material he had to rely on for his research into Shockley's life because of Shockley's habit of saving his personal papers:


 * "Uncovering such a complex saga seemed daunting at first. Fortunately, Shockley's family shared one strange quirk. They never threw anything out. Several rooms and the garage at the Shockley home on the Stanford campus were stuffed with documents, letters, folders, computer, video and audiotapes, notebooks, diaries, memos, and files. We had to crack open two safes to get at all the material. And that didn't include the dozens of boxes already donated to the Stanford University archives, more than 60 linear feet of stuff, unimaginable stuff. The Shockley family was in some ways both a biographer's delight and worst nightmare."

- Joel Shurkin


 * "Finally, this book would have been impossible without the kindness and encouragement of Emmy Shockley, Bill's widow. She desperately wanted his story told. Whether this book is what she had in mind, I don't know. I'll find out. She asked for no control over the content and was given none, but she was extraordinarily helpful, to the point of letting me virtually move into the house and set up shop in Bill's office. She had two safes blown open so I could get at the contents. She spent countless hours with me, and even in her 80s had a memory that was almost scary. She was never wrong in her remembrances and her recall of details was awesome. Now beginning her 90s, she has been waiting for this book even longer than I have. No man had a more loyal lover or supporter than Bill had in Emmy. No biographer had a better ally."

- Joel Shurkin


 * "I must also thank the wondrous staff of Stanford's library system. I am never happier than when I'm in a library doing research (we all have our pecularities) and Stanford's library is a joy – beautiful, serene, and full. Bill left his papers and memorabilia to the library and his archives are beyond complete. I spent mystifying months pouring [sic] through the dozens of boxes. I once told a friend the records contained everything except a laundry list and – I'm not making this up – the next day I found a laundry list. I have no idea why he saved it. I have no idea why he saved many of the things he saved, including things – as you will have seen – that he should not have saved."

- Joel Shurkin


 * This book about the life and career of John Bardeen, one of the two Bell Labs researchers who shared the Nobel Prize for the transistor with William Shockey, includes much information on Shockley's work at Bell Labs, based on contemporary published reports and on interviews with contemporaries of Shockley.


 * This book is a study of scientists who have highly visible public careers, based on a doctoral dissertation by the author, and featuring extensive interviews with Shockley and other scientists profiled in the book. Shurkin relies on this book as a source, but it is good to look at the book directly for contemporary context on Shockley's public activities. This book is a bit hard to find in libraries but I readily obtained a copy from my local library, which has a very large collection and an excellent computerized catalog.


 * There are of course plenty of other good sources about Shockley's life, especially because he was fond of seeking press coverage (as is more than adequately documented in the sources already mentioned). The Associated Press obituary for Shockley was published in many newspapers, and there are other short articles about Shockley in many sources, including reference books about scientists, that summarize his life and career and can guide us Wikipedians in what the overall course of his life and career looked like to people looking back on it.


 * 43.228.157.51, there is an interesting template for biography articles on Wikipedia maintained by the WikiProject Biography (I have no role in editing or maintaining the template) that suggests an approach to the publicly expressed political or social views of a biography article subject: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for individuals to espouse their views. However, views held by politicians, writers, and others may be summarized in their biography only to the extent those views are covered by reliable sources that are independent of the control of the politician, writer, etc." In view of that advice, and in view of your thoughtful comment that "He's known primarily as a physicist and inventor", I will try an article edit in a while linking to the template and explaining that there may not yet be good sourcing (at all) in the article for Shockley's political views, as too few of the sources have been independent of Shockley in that section of the article. I'm sure reasonable minds can differ after my edit, which is intended to  fix a problem and  initiate discussion here on the article talk page. Let's read the sources carefully--they are extremely interesting, as Shockley led a very colorful life--and let's improve the article collaboratively to properly reflect the best  reliable sources on his life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on William Shockley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link archive.org/web/20021102173031/http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/lilienfeld.htm with https://web.archive.org/20140509235847/http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il:80/~eugeniik/history/lilienfeld.htm on http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/lilienfeld.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)