Talk:William Shockley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Shockley and the Secretary incident

I added a citation for that. Its from an interview with Gordon Moore. - Jai

[edit] 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

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

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)

[edit] 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


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 [1] 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 [2]:

"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 [3] 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)

[edit] 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:

  • 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 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)

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.[4]
I've edited to text to better reflect what the source says (dropping the POV "trap"). -Willmcw 00:18, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton source

  • 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.[5]

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)

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."[6] 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,[7] 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."[8]--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)
  • 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.

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 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: [9])
Francis Galton. "Regression Towards Mediocrity in Hereditary Stature," Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 15:246-263 (1886). (Facsimile at: [10])
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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Nectarflowed T 03:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you mean Wikipedia: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."[11] 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#Genetics vs environment. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) User: fresheneesz

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)

[edit] 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.[12] 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...[13] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [14]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Possible Plagiarism

While the article is linked, the sentences from this copyrighted article [15] 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: [16], 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)

[edit] 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".[17] The obit in the Boston Globe was titled: "NOBEL WINNER WHO STIRRED RACIAL CONTROVERSY".[18] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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.[19]
  • ...Stanford physicist William Shockley's incendiary theory of white genetic superiority to blacks in intelligence. [20]
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)
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)
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)
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. [21] --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 [22].
  • Here is another saying that William Shockley's position lends itself to racist interpretations. [23]
  • Here is another one calling William Shockley, the notorious eugenicist and scientific racist [24].
  • Or you can access this book review about him.[25]

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)

[edit] 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)