Talk:Traitorous eight

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fairchildren[edit]

I always heard this group referred to as the "Fairchildren", an obviously more positive name. There seems no middle ground, and I do not know the attribution of either term. How to resolve this? - Gnetwerker 08:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shockley called them the traitorours eight; as far as the other terms, you'd have to dig. Raul654 12:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fairchildren refers to the spinoff companies from Fairchild, not the men who founded Fairchild. Google "fairchildren" and the results are pretty consistent. JoelWest 22:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"(Naively, Shockley envisioned the operation of the Laboratory as if the researchers were the Knights of the Round Table and he were King Arthur.IEEE Spectrum)" This does not give any useful information (King Arthur is seen in very different ways), is mysterious at its best and POV at its worst, and the "IEEE Spectrum" note is just incomprehensible. --Oop 10:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, it doesn't appear to exist. A search on http://ieeexplore.ieee.org of the 23 articles in IEEE Spectrum that mention "Shockley" shows nothing of the sort. JoelWest 22:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I worked with some of these people, and the original version is correct. I have reverted your changes and provided a reference. It was trivial to find. -- Gnetwerker 22:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oop that the King Arthur comparison is unencyclopedic and/or POV, so I have removed it. I have also modified that paragraph slightly to make it clear that the opinions certain authors have about Shockley are just that: opinions of certain authors. People have very subjective opinions of each other, so let's try to keep it to objective facts whenever possible. Thank you for the reference, Gnetwerker. -kotra 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no record of Shockley ever using the term "traitorous eight," and his wife denied that he ever used it.[3]" Well, taking that for granted, then shouldn't the article be named "Fairchild Eight" instead, and have the term "Traitorous Eight" redirected to it? I think it's wrong to substitute neutral names by mockery names. January, 3, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.157.162 (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a historical name and history may not always agree with your PC views. Wikipedia is not censored. Taza insane (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I merged Fairchildren into this article as there is no need for two identical articles on the subject. Obviously, a decision needs to be made to use the current title or not per the above discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized[edit]

The name is normally capitalized in both Google news archive and Google book search results. The first sentence mentions other neutral names, and capitalized them. So I see no reason why this name wouldn't be capitalized. Dream Focus 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book evidence shows that it is far from being consistently capitalized in good sources. We should stick with lowercase per MOS:CAPS. The other terms incorporate proper names, so those words (but not "eight") are capitalized for that reason. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really show anything other than both are used, sometimes one more than others, it changing year by year. Can you compare news sources? See proper noun#Proper nouns and proper names. It is referring to a proper name so it should be capitalized. I'd like some more opinions on this. Dream Focus 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPS says the threshold is "consistently capitalized in sources". I see no logic for concluding that it's a "proper name" otherwise. But yes, more opinions would be great. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy[edit]

It would be a nice addition to have a section outlining the spin-off genealogy and the diffusion of this group's influence among the various Fairchildren. — MaxEnt 11:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Traitorous eight. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]