Talk:MOSFET

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

There are appeared to be an edit war in this article regarding Atalla contribution. Please refer to the section above where I explained in details the problem with Jagged85/Maestro2016 edits. This is from the books written by Ross Knox Bassett, who is professional historian of science.The reason I edited so many article on Atalla is because his contribution were wildly exaggerated by Jagged85/Meastro2016. I think we can add Atalla contribution into the lead, namely that his work demonstrated that semiconductor surfaces problem could be solved and thats very important. Also note articles written by journalists are often themselves influenced by Wikipedia and are not as reliable as academic literature. DMKR2005 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a rewrite of this and other articles, focusing on higher quality sources such as Bassett, and toning down or removing much of the content spammed around by Maestro2016, would be a good improvement. When you revert an IP that's pushing the Atalla narrative, put a link to this discussion section in the edit summary to make sure they've seen notified, and let's see what they have to say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit war continue. Maybe we should move this page to semi protected status? DMKR2005 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked for semi-protection. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#MOSFET. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ! And I will probably add some information on Atalla in the lead since his work is very important DMKR2005 (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:DMKR2005, @User:Dicklyon—Would you please lift or have lifted the semprotection on this article? Asked because there are many small issues, and reliable editors cannot make incremental changes, completely unrelated to this 4-month old edit war matter. More generally, why are individual editors not being blocked for edit warring, rather than the article as a whole being protected? Bottom line, restrictions need to be fully warranted as a response to a presenting editorial problem, and, regardless, need to be as short-lived as possible, for the sake of the encyclopedia. (Please don't ask for our registration as an alternative; such is not allowed by our current responsibilities.) Signed, a former prof, and former longterm registered editor. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree. Atalla and Khang were not the inventors. They were just confirming the invention by Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick.Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick.^[1]

They didn't even buid the device, they just assembled the team that confirmed the Frosch and Derick study. Their team included E. E. LaBate and E. I. Povilonis who fabricated the device; M. O. Thurston, L. A. D’Asaro, and J. R. Ligenza who developed the diffusion processes, and H. K. Gummel and R. Lindner who characterized the device.^[2] Wikain (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have initiated a separate talk thread to discuss this point below. It’s not a matter of personal opinion, I have cited 6 sources including Bell Labs social media accounts, all of them, and a prominent historian of transistors, all chronicling Attalla and Kwang as inventors. I am requesting that this subject be discussed and settled here, before reverting the heavily sourced edits that were made. 4houka (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also your comment lacks accuracy. This is not related to the sock puppet account. They did not invent Atalla and Kwang’s contributions, for which they were inducted in the national inventors hall of fame. His editing issues, do not impose themselves on a well established fact. I will be reverting my addition back, and you are welcome to invalidated the 6 sources that have been providing citing the invention, but removing the content in an anecdote, is a deviation from well accepted practices. 4houka (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

To confirm, I request that you not continue reverting without consensus. The issue is far from an edit war, it’s a matter of historical accuracy and should be discussed here on the talk page, with careful consideration of reliable sourcing.

Your claim that Atalla and Kwang are not to be acknowledged for the invention of the MOSFET is not supported by broader sources records.

Numerous reliable, and formally related sources on the subject, have attributed the invention to them. This includes Bell Labs itself, National inventors hall of fame, the Stuart Ballantine prize, and numerous technical history research clearly identifying both as the inventors of the MOSFET, without Atalla’s surface passivation, the MOS in MOSFET wouldn’t exist

Specifically, you are to provide, clear, material demonstration of the unusability of these 6 sources.

1. Bell Labs LinkedIn post on the 1959 MOSFET

2. Bell Labs X post on the MOSFET

3. Bell Labs video discussion

4. Bell Labs awards and history page

5. EEJournal, “A Brief History of the MOS Transistor”

6. National Inventors Hall of Fame entry for Martin John M. Atalla

All links here

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nokiabelllabs_on-this-day-in-1959-the-mosfet-transistor-activity-6746120685271162880-uUuB/

https://x.com/BellLabs/status/1340354467485638659

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6fBEjf9WPw

https://www.bell-labs.com/about/awards/

https://www.eejournal.com/article/a-brief-history-of-the-mos-transistor-part-1-early-visionaries/

https://www.invent.org/inductees/martin-john-m-atalla

Earlier work by Frosch and Derick is a relevant background and can be discussed in the MOSFET article, but it doesn’t justify removing or downplaying Atalla and Khang’s credited role in the MOSFET’s invention. Any proposed change should reflect the full body of sources rather than relying on one interpretation, and be explicitly settled in the talk page first as per policy. 4houka (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Some of these sources look weak, but To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology by Bassett writes "Perhaps the best example of this discontinuity is John Atalla, the inventor of the modern MOS transistor" p. 146. I think it's fair to describe him as inventor. Hi! (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that it’s fair. Also two of the sources are Bell Labs itself. 4houka (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

All the aforementioned people worked there, and they explicitly called them out as the inventors. 4houka (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Top Qs Fact Check

Regarding the statement:

"In 1955, Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick accidentally grew a layer of silicon dioxide over the silicon wafer, for which they observed surface passivation effects."

To begin, the proper prepositional construction is arguably is "from which": as it is written, the suggestion is that the measurements leading them to conclude passivation effects were made on the modified silicon wafer, and so their conclusion proceeded from that measurement and sample (not for it). But this is a grammatical issue, and not the primary problem.

The primary problem stems from the two citations that follow the statement, and how they were used.

First, the "for which they [Frosch and Derick] observed" element directly contradicts the first stated source. Second, Neither appearing source appears to support tha suggestion that any aspect of the discovery was "accidenta[l]".

Background. Two citations appear. Current citation [4] is to a Foreward, of a series of journal articles, in an edition devoted to the Frosch-Derick discovery. Current citation [5] is to the Frosch-Derick patent. [This is a fine pattern of sourcing—a secondary source, followed by a primary source that underpins the the secondary. (A further secondary source or two would be of benefit, see following.)]

In re: the First issue: The secondary source cited does not state that Frosch and Derick made the passivation discovery, rather, authors Huff and Riordan (journal issue editors) state in citation [4] that after the initial discovery, "[o]ther researchers soon showed that such a dielectric layer could also passivate the silicon beneath it...". Hence, the statement fails verification, insofar as the source contradicts the WP article statement.

In re: the Second issue: The editorial adverb "accidentally" is at issue, because (i) while perhaps common knowledge to subject matter experts, it is not sky-is-blue common knowledge for the general reader, and (ii) it is not supported by either of the two sources following. Hence, the statement also fails verification in this regard.

Discussion. Either Forsch and Derick made the initial passivation measurement (as the WP sentence suggests), or they did not (as the cited Huff and Riordan secondary source suggests). If the sentence is correct as it currently stands, a further couple of secondary sources, overriding the statement from the Foreward, must be used to justify the passivation discovery assignment to Frosch and Derick. (We did not seek evidence for this conclusion in the patent, [5], for that would be WP:OR; a secondary source needs to state this.) This aspect of the statement is hereby challenged.

And then, if the silicon dioxide wafer construction was indeed serendipitous, as suggested, a source (not a WP editor) needs to say this, to avoid WP:OR. Once again, the patent cannot be used to support this (for WP:OR reasons), and it is unlikely to in any case. And current secondary source citation is only to the Foreward of the journal edition, and not to any particular journal article—and the Foreward does not state anything regarding the construction being "accidental". Hence, "accidentally" is flavor added editorially, unsupported by existing citations. This aspect of the statement is hereby also challenged.

By challenged, we mean that we believe that this statement cannot be allowed to remain as is, and so we ask that the editors controlling the article make an appropriate edit to rectify these WP:VERIFY violations.

Note, it might be argued that some article that follows the citation of the Foreward, citation [4], in that same journal edition, does indeed state something relevant regarding the passivation statement, or something regarding "accidentally". Then, it is those source(s) that need to be cited—author, date, title, work, URL, etc. Follow-on editors cannot be expected to seek out uncited articles, on a speculation that verifiability might accomplished nearby. That speculative time-wasting is not what WP:VERIFY expects. So,

Requests: (i) Correct the matter of the first observation of the passivation effect, to new secondary sources (whether it was Frosch and Derick, or another). (ii) Cite the actual source of the editorial perspective, or remove the adverb, "accidentally". (iii) Support the corrections with quotes, or specific page numbers, for the new citations, to make follow-up verification efficient. (iv) Once the sourcing-citation matters are resolved, check the entirety of the statement to see that it accurately reflects the clear, general conclusion of the articles cited (and not sidebars or speculations therein).

Finally, this edit request should serve as a further argument that protections to this article are to the detriment of the encyclopedia. The time taken for this edit request entry was about 20-fold what it would have been to WP:JUSTFIXIT.

Cheers, a former STEM prof, and former registered editor here. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This article, apart from nuanced analysis of individual sentences, top to bottom, makes short shrift of compliance with WP policy WP:VERIFY—there are entire sections and subsections that have long been lacking any citations, and the same is seen paragraph after paragraph in others.

The article needs a {{refimprove}} tag, and should have had it even before the 15 January 2019 {{unreferenced section}} tag added by User:Rutilant. Signed, the same former STEM prof, and former registered editor here. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)