Talk:William Shockley/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about William Shockley. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shockley's racist views on the genetics of black people

I am surprised that this article does not cover Dr Shockley's widely publicized and controversial theories on eugenics which basically argued that black people were genetically de-evolving. It destroyed his reputation and career. Please see here and here.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

SPLC is a political activist group, not a reliable source. As I recall, the event you are referring to is Shockley's TV debate where he was arguing that dysgenics for intelligence for stronger for Blacks than for Whites. Over time, this would lead to (possibly wider) genetic divergence in intelligence for those two populations. Is there a particular reason you want attention to this aspect of his writings and interviews on that topic? --Deleet (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read the SPLC links with quotes directly from Shockley himself. He was a great scientist and a terrible person. Paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.51.132 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Schockley's Ceiling

I seem to remember that this route in the Shawangunks, as originally done by Schockley, by-passed the ceiling. Guidebook owners can verify this, unless of course I'm mistaken. Not sure who first managed the ceiling. Badiacrushed (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Shockley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Early work

Hi, it seems that much early research was used without attribution though eventually Shockley relented and cited the work by both Lilienfield and Losev. In the former case it was due to the patent(s) not being noticed by the wider scientific communtity however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference 46 supporting Shockley's difficult family relationships is of suspiciously low quality

In reading Reference 46, that purports to support the quite negative statement that Shockley "was almost completely estranged from most of his friends and family", I find the article has a strong negative bias towards all of Shockley's life and work, and not an objective one. For examples the reference states:

- "yet he lived a life of noisy desperation" in the first sentence
- "was driven by the internal demon of hubris" in the second sentence
- "offended by his abrasive personality"
- "Although he won the highest possible civilian honor for his work, that work has long been forgotten."

And that's just in the first 6 sentences; it continues in that tone. That appears to be a very non-objective source. I'd suggest that sentence be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.239.21 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The PBS article is footnoted: Copyright 1999, ScienCentral, Inc, and The American Institute of Physics. I don't know about ScienCentral, but the American Institute of Physics is generally considered a reliable source. The article, not surprisingly for something coming through PBS, is written in a gossipy style (I think the more polite way to say it is "New Yorker Magazine style"). I don't think that invalidates the comments made - they generally agree with other comments made about his possession of an abrasive personality. I see no reason to remove the sentence about being estranged from his family. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That reference is just describing him as he is widely known to have been -- it's not a negative bias; it's an accurate depiction of what he was like. MrAureliusR_Talk! 04:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Precipitated the unconditional surrender of Japan

Preceded it, yes. But did not cause it. Hirohito had already sued for peace four times but was ignored by the Truman administration.

Where are your sources for this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.132.179.74 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Changed to "preceded".per WP:CONSENSUS. Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)