Wikipedia

Talk:Silicon Valley/Archive 5

< Talk:Silicon Valley
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Coolcaesar in topic Other tech hubs that have been called the Silicon Valley of their location
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Images

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

User:Cristiano Tomás has repeatedly replaced existing images for which a tacit consensus exists with new images en masse. The replacement images are often of lower visual and technical quality and many are his own photographs. For example, he has repeatedly inserted File:Santa Clara, CA USA - Santa Clara University, Mission Santa Clara de Asis - panoramio (2) (cropped) (cropped).jpg in the infobox—an image of significantly lower technical quality than the alternative image File:Mission Santa Clara.jpg, which has been designated a quality and featured image. Another example is this image of historic Tower Hall which he replaced with File:San Jose State and beyond.jpg, a small and overexposed image with no clear subject. Filetime (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 
 
 
Numerous images inserted by User:Cristiano Tomás are of poor quality and depict subjects for which quality and even featured images exist



@Filetime: Those are perfectly valid arguments to make. However, your assertion that I am simple replacing images with my own images en masse is completely incorrect. The only two images of my own provenance that I added are those of Samsung's HQ (because the older image had grey skies) and the image of Morgan Hill (which, I will say, was a subjective change). To imply as you did in your edit summaries that I was changing as many images as I did simply to put my own is disproportionately inaccurate and offensive.
However, I am open to a reasonable discussion on the rest of the images, to which you have yet to make a single response to the arguments I made in my edit summaries, which is disheartening. I will make my arguments below for the disputed images and leave the page unreverted as to allow for community consultation and input. All other images not mentioned in my argumentation are not one's I care about debating (though in general I stand by the argument that they are improvements). Below I have presented reasonings for the changes I still think need to be made to the page's imagery. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Infobox imagery

Reasoning: Most importantly, the palm tree image in Filetime's infobox is absolutely insufficient to represent San Jose, the largest city in Silicon Valley (and in the Bay Area & all of Northern California). Quite frankly, its a terrible image to represent any city or place. Its subject is literally of a driveway of light up palm trees outside a Safeway (visible here on Google Maps). How this can be justified to represent a key location in the valley in its infobox is beyond reason. My inclusion of the San Jose skyline image remedies that and also serves to show that there is, in fact, an urban center in the valley, as none of the images allude to.

Similarly, I used the cropped image of the aerial view because, simply put, the current square version is too large and the rectangular version allows for a better organization of the infobox. In regards to the Santana Row image, I put it there to give symetry to the mission, but I think a good image of Mountain View, or Sunnyvale perhaps, would be great to fill that square. Overall, the infobox on the right is far more representative of the valley and follows the proper norms of infobox montages, namely representation of relevant landmarks and imagery.

Los Angeles might be 95% single family homes but its infobox doesn't show them because they're simply not relevant to showcasing a city (or location) in its infobox; same thing for other cities (like San Diego) or other regions (like the Texas Triangle. There is no reason for an over-sized aerial view of the valley (the rectangular image shows just as much and fits better into the frame) nor is it justified to just include a palm tree lined street, its simply not relevant, either in location (not a landmark or icon of San Jose) or subject (it's literally just lit up palm trees). Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Left: User:Filetime's Infobox Images --- --- --- Right: My (User:Cristiano Tomás) Infobox Images



Other disputed image changes
Image from Filetime's edit Image from my edit
(Cristiano Tomás) 		Reasoning
 
Stanford University played a major role in the emergence of Silicon Valley
 
Stanford University and its Stanford Research Park played a central role in the development of Silicon Valley.
 Reasons for my change: Simply put, the image of the Main Quad and Hoover Tower is absolutely more iconic of Stanford and more representative. The image of Filetime's edit is a great image, but that library is not even within Stanford's top 5 most photographed or iconic landmarks. The image representing Stanford should be one that is a true Stanford landmark.
Also, the removal of the reference to Stanford Research Park is completely unwarranted, especially because it is mentioned in the text next to this image and also a crucial development by Stanford University in the creation of Silicon Valley. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Your insertion of this image makes no sense in the context of your unwillingness to show two images of Mission Santa Clara. Your photograph depicts a set of structures almost identical to those depicted in the infobox image of Stanford. This image offers a different building of the characteristic material and style. -Filetime (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 
 
 Reasons for my change: ​The image on the right will more quickly be identifiable by the reader. That being said, I don't have strong feelings about this change and the image in Filetime's edit is undoubtably a more encompassing view of the Googleplex. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
For someone so worked up about the palm tree photo this picture shows almost nothing. Aside from the Google logo, what is depicted is entirely nondescript and could reasonably be part of any corporate commercial office in the developed world. Filetime (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 
 
 Reasons for my change: ​In this case, the image from Filetime's edit (left) is too encompassing. The image on the right is a closer up image of the campus, the one on the left wastes too much space showing an outsized amount of the surrounding wetlands and salt ponds.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 
 
DISCLAIMER: I photographed this image.

Reasons for my change: ​In this case, the image on the right (my image) shows a closer up view of the Samsung HQ and also has blue skies as opposed to the grey skies and coloring in the one from Filetime's edits. (And just for context, San Jose is one of the major cities with the most days of sunshine in the country). However, not to spark a conflict of interest, I won't defend this image if there is a consensus to remove it.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This image shows a number of basic technical issues that make the color of the sky the least relevant concern. The building is given no "headroom" and is even cut off on the top. The uncorrected white balance leaves the whole image unrealistically blue while the shadows make the scene feel significantly less sunny than the alternative. Filetime (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 
 
 Reasons for my change: The image on the left has a weird, faded coloration. The one on the right is a closer up image and with better coloring, if albeit a bit saturated.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The first image has been re-exported. There is no need for a lower quality and ridiculously saturated replacement.Filetime (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree and agree with both of you in various respects. Here are my views:

  • Cropping of aerial valley photo (my photo, by the way): I am neutral on this issue, as long as an aerial overview photo of the valley is included in the infobox. The point is to depict the relatively flat and compact skyline of Silicon Valley. It wasn't until I traveled the world as an adult that I realized most city residents around the world don't take that for granted.
  • Palm trees v. skyline: I believe the San Jose skyline is more appropriate for an infobox than a bunch of palm trees outside of a Safeway, but I dislike both photos in their current form because I prefer daytime photos in general.
  • Stanford University: I concur with Cristiano Tomás that the Main Quadrangle and Hoover Tower are much more representative of the campus than the entrance to the Bing Wing of Green Library.
  • Googleplex: The aerial photo is more appropriate than a close up of one corner of one building.
  • Facebook: Cristiano Tomás's close-up view of the campus is more appropriate. The other photo mainly shows salt ponds.
  • Samsung: I dislike both photos but Filetime's photo is slightly better. Yes, the sky is overcast but more importantly, the sun is clearly in the sky and at the photographer's back so the subject is properly lit.
  • The Tech Museum: Filetime's preferred photo, again, has issues but in general is better lit. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And here are my views, in a similar format:

 
consider this?
  • The cropping of the SV aerial and squeezing in the night skyline is great (though we should definitely try to reproduce that aerial when the air is not so dirty). The "relatively flat" skyline of the aerial is one view, but that night shot is another valid view of what San Jose is like. If that's too SJ specific for an SV article, something sort of between would be my picture of the Taylor Street interchange. But I bet we can find something better than any of these.
  • I like the Palm Row better than the Santana Row shot. More iconic.
  • I also agree that the Stanford shot needs to be more iconic, like Cristiano's.
  • The too-blue Samsung shot is not an improvement. Try again; getting both a blue sky and a correct building color would be an improvement.
  • I like Filetime's preference on the Tech Museum.
  • I dislike both Googleplex shots. Try again.
  • Cristiano's Facebook campus shot is much better.
-- Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Geographic pin: the center of Silicon Valley

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding the longitude and latitude coordinates of Silicon Valley as displayed in the infobox, what is the center of Silicon Valley? I have seen plenty of sources placing the center in Sunnyvale, Mountain View or Palo Alto rather than San Jose.

Obviously, these observers are saying that the center of Silicon Valley is somewhat northwest of San Jose, in one of the neighboring cities. That's the heart and soul of Silicon Valley. Everything else is outlying development. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Silicon Valley", being a colloquial and conceptual framework, unlike, for example, a city with government defined limits, doesn't have a 'center', nor a boundary. I don't see much value in ascribing authority to any of these various sources. On the other hand, all of the information above is _interesting_, and might be valuable in the article simply in terms of addressing 'where' silicon valley is. But finding its center? Folly! cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
My intention is not to put it in San Jose, but to show a realistic geographic center of the area. Apple is in Cupertino, Netflix is in Los Gatos, Adobe is in San Jose, Intel in Santa Clara, and so on. The real center of gravity is in the West Valley, no doubt, but to place it as north as the northern border of Palo Alto is misleading, especially given that Silicon Valley is another name for Santa Clara Valley, and placing its center at its border makes no sense. If just taking to account tech hubs, the center should be around Santa Clara/ West San Jose to take into account the significant hubs to the north, south, and west. If we are taking into account, however, Silicon Valley as an actual geographic locale and not just an abstract concept of high tech, then the prevalence of one company or tech hub over another is irrelevant, geography is geography and the northern tip of Palo Alto is not the center of Santa Clara Valley. I agree with @Anastrophe:; trying to find the center according to economic data or tech prevalence makes no sense, we should use simple geography. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
You are confusing geography with the purely conceptual idea of "Silicon Valley". The Santa Clara Valley is a geographical entity which is defined by water borders and terrain. It is not at all synonymous with Silicon Valley, defined by a thick network of technology interconnections. If you take the coordinates of the geographic center of the area, you are making the same mistake.
To me, it looks like Stanford Research Park might have more citations than anything else. I was focusing on Fairchild, but now it seems the old SRI should take the center.
Other relevant "centers" could be argued as 391 San Antonio Road in Mountain View, the site of Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, or NASA Ames Research Center, at the old Moffett Field. Both of these have been described as the center of Silicon Valley. HP Garage in Palo Alto has been called the center. Going back farther in time, Mission Santa Clara de Asís in Santa Clara has been called the foundation of what later became Silicon Valley. Professor Lecuyer in the 2006 book Making Silicon Valley emphasizes over and over that Silicon Valley developed on the San Francisco Peninsula (San Jose is not on the peninsula.) The 2019 book VC: An American History places Kleiner Perkins in Menlo Park at the center of Silicon Valley. All of these are not San Jose. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
And it seems you assume that Silicon Valley is a purely conceptual idea. As a native to the region, I can assure its not. Silicon Valley is very much a real place, as well as a place that exists in the imaginations of many as an abstract concept, but I digress. Also, once again, whether San Jose is the center or not is not my point. I am trying to offer up locations that can meet the multiple definitions in the middle. Based on your findings above, I would reckon that placing the pushpin inbetween Sunnyvale and Mountain View would be the best, lying between the traditional hubs of Palo Alto and Menlo Park to the northwest, Moffet Field to the north, proximity to the newer hubs of tech, like Google in MV, hubs in the south like Apple in Cupertino and Netflix in Los Gatos, and the less newly established hubs to the east in Santa Clara and North San Jose with names like Intel, Cisco, HP, and so on. To be clear, I don't think we should pick and choose one singular place to be the center, but trying to meet multiple definitions and realities in the middle. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I am also a native, and I have to argue that it is purely conceptual, based up the genesis of technology in the region, and the gradual 'magnetic' force it had in drawing people and companies to the region. I was born in Redwood City in 1959. Long through the 1970's, well after the term was coined, nobody even contemplated including Redwood City in 'silicon valley'. Today, it is considered part of silicon valley, both due to the migration and creation of technology companies that chose to base themselves there, and due to its function (today) as a 'suburb' for those working in 'the valley'. So the colloquial definition has changed over the years, as have the boundaries, ill-defined as they are. If one argues that Fairchild is the 'center' of silicon valley, they're arguing for a past center. Arguing for SRI is similar. Basing it on current technology companies, such as the biggest cluster of Google/Alphabet, Facebook, and Apple - well, again, we're basing it on some other metric than 'center'.
I will continue to maintain that there is no such thing as a 'center' for an vague colloquial term that shifts over time, and describes a general concentration of an assortment of technology companies, many of which bear absolutely no relationship to each other, other than being 'in tech' and valued in the billions of dollars. I mean - why bother trying to find a center? As I recall, the geographic center of the contiguous United States is somewhere to the west of Kansas city. But Alaska and Hawai'i are parts of the US - I'd hazard the 'center' of that construct is somewhere far out in the Pacific Ocean. Which is the "true" center? Neither. There is no center, except built upon a specific, arbitrary metric. Anastrophe (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, but we need an actual location for the pushpin in the infobox, so what would you propose? (also, in regards to the "conceptuality" of Silicon Valley, there is undoubtedly a generational gap. I grew up my whole life in the region knowing it as Silicon Valley (born in the 90's in Cupertino), so obviously my perspective would be different than that of someone whose lifetime saw the monicker coined to begin with, but that really isn't what we're discussing I suppose) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Heh - yep, I'm an old fart, that's for sure! We are about to sell the Redwood City home we grew up in, and the disparity between how much my parents spent to buy the home - even adjusted for inflation - and the expected price we will get - for a house built in 1951, old and rather creaky - is, and can only be described as, insane. But I digress. Honestly, I know nothing about how the infobox works in regards to the pushpin. Is it a required feature? No alternative, like a rough border? Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh boy, I can only imagine the price disparity between then and now, it's ludicrous no doubt. Good luck with the sale, I hear its very much still a seller's market. In regards to the infobox, there is a way to use an outline of a place rather than a pushpin but I think trying to define Silicon Valley's borders is an even greater Pandora's box than just using one point as a rough central location. Would you be opposed to putting the pushpin somewhere between Sunnyvale and MV? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on Pandora's box. I've no objection to the pushpin going there - in terms of both historical and current "center", it is probably the closest. Anastrophe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Moving the pushpin northwest to somewhere near Mountain View/Sunnyvale is an improvement. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No "core" city

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Since Silicon Valley is a conceptual/cultural/technological place rather than a geopolitical one, there is no "core" city to list. I removed San Jose as "core" and positioned it alphabetically.

Silicon Valley is not a municipality or county or federally defined combined statistical area. This article should not be treated the same way as normal geopolitical entities.

Silicon Valley is a network of connections. If there ever was a "core" of Silicon Valley it would be Palo Alto, Sunnyvale or Mountain View because of historical connections. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand your position completely, which is why I have disambiguated the term from core city (with whatever connotations that may have) to largest city, which is indisputable and factual, regardless of what borders we define Silicon Valley with. (however, I think you misunderstand what a core city is. It is a term used in urban planning; under no definition would Palo Alto or MV be the core, from a purely urban planning view, but I digress) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, Silicon Valley is not a geopolitical entity or even a general metropolitan area like Greater Los Angeles with taxes collected to pay regional committees organized for urban planning. "Silicon Valley" is a tech network, not subject to urban planning. (Bloomberg reported on how Silicon Valley suffers from a lack of urban planning, with the City of Mountain View making a solo attempt to address the regional housing crisis.) The whole idea of Silicon Valley is the web of connections between technology, ideas and business enterprise.
To me, it looks like you are promoting San Jose again, making sure they are placed at the center of the map or the top of the list. We had the same discussion at Talk:San Francisco Bay Area#SF vs SJ as first listed core city. The recent series of actions by me is pushing back against the excessive promotion of San Jose, out of balance with the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, geopolitical is not the same thing as geographical, and while its borders are loosely defined it is still a geographical place even if no polity governs it. But once again, this isn't a discussion on that matter (though it seems you are bent on disregarding Silicon Valley as a place and only view it as a monicker for the local tech industry, which is your prerogative but you shouldn't disregard those who have different views. After all, a "web of connections between technology, ideas, and business enterprise" surely wouldn't entail culture like Silicon Valley Pride (which is not just tech workers surprise) or Silicon Valley Strong (the local government and non-profit response to Covid) and so on. That the name is overused for things not pertaining to the region does not mean that the region doesn't exist beyond tech campuses and venture capital networks. But anyway, my intent is never to blindly promote San Jose, but to show the urban reality that it is the largest city in the region (and that is the case for my argument on the Bay Area talk page). However, I will hold my case for its inclusion as a core/largest city if consensus is against it. But I do hope you take away from this that Silicon Valley is much more than a "tech network", which is a ridiculous characterization. Also, having stated "with the City of Mountain View making a solo attempt to address the regional housing crisis", I suggest you read up more on local politics in relation to the housing crisis as this is not only not a factual characterization but looks like you read one article and spouted out what one case where MV works closesly with the Greenbelt Alliance (you can find a more informative understanding of new housing construction here on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's VitalSigns site and you'll notice MV isn't even in the top 5 (but Sunnyvale is and of course SJ and SF are basically tied for first). If you're going to have a strong opinion on the region, I beg that you inform yourself better than that. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria: High-tech center or metropolitan area?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Some parts of this article should be removed, as they address the kinds of routine concerns of metropolitan areas such as schools, museums, festivals, newspapers, etc. It would take a giant leap to connect the concept of Silicon Valley with the Winchester Mystery House, for example.

I think the inclusion criteria for this article should be that everything must be directly connected in the sources to the Silicon Valley concept of a high-tech center. The article should not be treated as a normal metro area like Greater Houston or Metro Detroit, because Silicon Valley has poorly defined borders, and it is a cultural construct more than a specific region. We should push the metro stuff into the Santa Clara Valley article. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How are you going to argue that an event like Silicon Valley Pride, for example, is not relevant to this article? Whether you agree or not, Silicon Valley is far more than just a high-tech center, it's a real place with a culture too, not just a tech economy. Silicon Valley has all the makings of any other region, there is no reason they should be omitted from this article.
Areas can have poorly defined borders, as is the reality of many regions across the world, and still exist. Heck, there is even a local tourist booster organization for Santa Clara Valley called Visit Silicon Valley; how you can have a tourist bureau for a tech network? Why is the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) expansion into Santa Clara County called the Silicon Valley BART extension if its not a geographic locale? Why are the UC Santa Cruz's initiatives to increase its presence in Santa Clara and San Jose called the Silicon Valley Initiatives if it's not a geographic locale? Why are schools from kinder to college like Silicon Valley International School (k-12) or University of Silicon Valley named such? Why is the Boy Scouts of America council covering Santa Clara County called the Silicon Valley Council (now known as the Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council following its merger with the Monterey Bay Council covering Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito Counties)?
Not recognizing that Silicon Valley is a real place with all of the makings of any other region (regardless of its loosely defined borders) is only counter-productive and not representative of reality. I cannot come out more against any suggestion that this article not represent Silicon Valley as a region. This is not an article on the Californian (or even Northern Californian) tech industry. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please answer one question: Why does Wikipedia have two articles on the same thing? We have Silicon Valley which you are defending as a metro area, and Santa Clara Valley which also carries the metro area coverage. There is no good reason to have duplicate coverage. My proposal is to separate these into a) the high-tech center aspect from the first experiments to now, and b) the general interest metro area aspect with history, weather, culture, transportation, population, etc. Certainly the high-tech article can talk about festivals, colleges and museums that are relevant—I'm not cutting out the Computer History Museum and such! And the high-tech aspect has its cultural events, too. But everything here in this article should be telling the reader about the world-famous high-tech center called Silicon Valley. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
As we have already said, they are not exactly the same. Santa Clara Valley is equivalent to Santa Clara County, cut and clear, while Silicon Valley is equivalent to Santa Clara Valley PLUS whatever extra areas any single definition add (usually southeastern San Mateo County and sometimes the southernmost portion of Alameda County, basically just Fremont). Therefore, they are not exactly the same, even though they do overlap a great deal. If anything, I would push that Santa Clara Valley should be relegated as a purely geographical article, Silicon Valley is more apt for the region per WP:Common Name. Even if you just adjust for usage within the Bay Area, Silicon Valley way outdoes Santa Clara Valley in common usage, just to show one example. Your proposal risks undermining Silicon Valley as a fully-fledged region and may give the inaccurate understanding to readers that it is merely a monicker of a local tech industry or an ecosystem of tech & venture capital, which is simply not the case. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Pre 1970 history" is largely meritless

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

"Silicon Valley" as a term and as a hub of technology, arose in the 1970's. Telegraphic communications, Ham Radio, Unions, and Sputnik have precious little to do with Silicon Valley, nor as precursors to Silicon Valley. Nor are they specifically "Military technology roots' as the subsection is entitled. Quite certainly, Ham Radios, Unions, and Sputnik had nothing directly to do with 'Military technology' (same argument can be applied to the telegram, with the exception of the single instance of its use ship-to-shore, which is a massive conflation), nor are they truly precursors of "Silicon Valley" - if we take this path, why don't we ascribe the roots of Silicon Valley to the caveman who invented the wheel? Certainly without wheels, there could never have been a Silicon Valley, n'est-ce pas? Moffett field, NASA, Stanford, Fairchild - those are legitimately roots of the technology hub that we refer to in this article. The rest is a fairly pointless digression into things having virtually nothingto do with the topic of this article. I suggest much/most of it should be deleted, as it given far more weight than reliable sources would suggest. Anastrophe (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I couldn't agree more, I've long thought the exact same thing. I have a draft for a far more concise history section that I never got around to finishing, but that only covers relevant SV history, not general tech history. I'll try to clean it up this weekend and ping you to see if it's worth making the change. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk)
Fabulous! I appreciate your willingness to give it a go. I'll keep an eye out for your changes. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you guys are wrong. When work on silicon started here in 1956, the area had a pretty good start already on high-tech companies, often with military funding and Stanford connections, that to varying extents were models of how Silicon Valley would develop. Jane Morgan's book Electronics in the West: The First Fifty Years should be required reading for the history of Silicon Valley, but you've removed it and everything from it. AnnaLee Saxenian's Regional Advantage is another great source, which treats the 1950s and 1960s more concisely, but as a key part of the development of Silicon Valley. The fact that the name wasn't coined until after silicon semiconductors became (for a while) the dominant technology in the region doesn't mean these roots aren't key parts of the topic. I think the major history cut of a week ago needs to be undone and treated much more carefully. With respect to telegraphs, ham radio, unions, and Sputnik, sure some reduction might be in order. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Everything that reliable observers have published about the early beginnings of Silicon Valley should be summarized for the reader. That could be the early Audion tube or San Jose radio broadcasts, whatever authors bring up. Of course the 1939 HP Garage in Palo Alto, perhaps the 1944 wind tunnel at Moffett Field built by the new Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, and IBM's 1943 punch card facility in San Jose should be discussed. All of these things have been described by authors as part of the early development. There's no good reason why we should abandon everything before 1971. A giant helping of library books is in order. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection to history before 1970 being included in the article, certainly, when it is relevant, and when it is in proportion to subject of the article. The absurd, turgid paragraphs, hundreds of words in length, about the telegram and ham radio have nothing to do with silicon valley, the concept, the way of life, its tech roots, the region, or this article. This was my primary argument. Any reference to events in 1849 as bearing some direct historical precedent to what became SV is just silly. A brief overview - a summary - of the technologies/companies/inventions relevant to what turned into silicon valley is appropriate. There is in fact a very rich history of the actual predecessors of the region - e.g. the HP garage et al. I fully support however the 'bold' removal of vast swaths of that which is digressive to the point of absurdity. A sense of proportion should be pursued. Along with WP guidelines and policies. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion criteria of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara Valley and Santa Clara County, California

Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion

Three articles exist on Wikipedia with substantial overlap in geography: Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara County, California, and Silicon Valley.

Should the three articles cover three different aspects with minimal overlap? If so, the proposed inclusion criteria for the three would be:

  • Santa Clara Valley would cover geology, biology, climate, early human settlement, early history, etc. The economic history, schools, and structures sections would be moved to the County article.
  • Santa Clara County, California, would cover the normal metropolitan area concerns such as government, transportation, population, modern history and development, communities, etc. The fauna section here would be moved to the Santa Clara Valley article.
  • Silicon Valley would cover all aspects of the rise of high tech industry in the region, and related culture. The sections from demographics down to and including media would be moved to the County article, leaving behind a short summary of those aspects relating to high-tech industry and culture. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Yes, because otherwise we would be hosting two articles covering the exact same thing: Silicon Valley and Santa Clara County, California, both representing themselves as metro regions. The reason for my proposed formal separation of the three topics is that the actual metropolitan area—Santa Clara County—existed before the 1971 coining of the term "Silicon Valley" by newspaperman Don Hoefler, and it continues to exist today. Santa Clara County collects taxes, regulates the infrastructure, and performs urban planning. "Silicon Valley" is a conceptual overlay on top of this, denoting all the high-tech business activity and related high-tech culture in Santa Clara County and also high-tech activity in portions of neighboring counties San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Cruz. Even San Francisco has been described by some observers as part of Silicon Valley's high-tech network. So let's leave all the metro region material pinned to the Santa Clara County article, and make the Silicon Valley article represent solely high-tech concerns. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think that article should be merged. The other three can easily carry its load. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
All this is to say that Silicon Valley isn't just a tech hub, it's a fully-fledged, multifaceted region like any other and its article shouldn't be reduced to one solely covering the local tech industry "and related culture", which is a grossly inaccurate simplification. Areas can have poorly defined borders, as is the reality of many regions across the world, and still exist. Many places across the world have overlapping regions and identities. For example, the Washington metropolitan area (known as the DMV) makes up the majority of the Washington–Baltimore metropolitan area, but they are separate entities. They share much in common, but they have geographic differences and as a result differences across aspects of their regions, despite being overlapping in a large part.
Moreover, Silicon Valley is clearly a strongly preferred name for regional identification. That's why the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) into Santa Clara County is known as the Silicon Valley BART extension. That's why cultural institutions like TheatreWorks Silicon Valley or Symphony Silicon Valley use the name rather than TheatreWorks Palo Alto or Santa Clara Valley Symphony, because its the stronger name for the regional identity. That's why UC Santa Cruz's initiatives to increase its presence in Santa Clara and San Jose are called the Silicon Valley Initiatives and not the Santa Clara Valley Initiatives. If Silicon Valley and Santa Clara Valley were totally congruent, Silicon Valley would clearly win in a contest of WP:Common Name. An example of this is the Google search trends in the Bay Area since 2004, which clearly show a far outweighed preference for Silicon Valley than Santa Clara Valley (and yes obviously this isn't a reliable source, but just one easy insight into local usage trends).
The fact is that Silicon Valley is a fully-fledged region, reducing it to "a tech network" or "web of connections between technology, ideas and business enterprise" as User:Binksternet has stated is not only a gross simplification, it also completely ignores the regional identity of a community that exists outside of the tech world, which by no means defines the majority of people who go, for example, go to Silicon Valley Pride or take after school programs funded by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation or who get Covid vaccinations at an event sponsored by Silicon Valley Strong. Overlap will always exist, regions are man-made constructs not bound by clear constraints. That's why, for example, someone can be from Cascais, Portugal and have the opportunity to identify with the Lisbon District, the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, the Estremadura Province, or even the Portuguese Riviera, despite the huge amount over overlap between all of those definitions; such is the reality of human geography. Binksternet's proposal would essentially reduce this article to the "Tech industry in the Bay Area", which is simply not accurate (or fair) to the region. (P.S. One thing I think we all agree on is the matter of History of Santa Clara County, California. That article is entirely superfluous and can be condensed and split into the other articles discussed here). Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You are conflating the popularity of the nickname "Silicon Valley" as some sort of official renaming of the area, which has not happened. Certainly the name is popular, and there is no preventing a sports team from using the nickname. But that doesn't make Silicon Valley into the main name of the local metro region. Your arguments are basically a WP:Synthesis of sources used to create a novel conclusion not found in any of the sources. None of the media describing the Silicon Valley Strikers is going to say that Silicon Valley is an official government entity. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Binksternet, to be pedantic, neither "Silicon Valley" nor "Santa Clara Valley" have official status, nor "South Bay" for that matter, because colloquial regions are just that. If we were solely focused on official government entities or designations, then we would be left with only Santa Clara County, California, and San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara metropolitan statistical area, neither of which would cover quite all that merits discussion in this set of articles. That a name is colloquial does not disqualify it from being mentioned in an article as an additional aid to orient the reader, as long as it comes after the official administrative units and has a reasonable amount of currency as a geographic designation. Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Despite having opened this discussion to hear from other editors, User:Binksternet has taken it upon their self to unilaterally remove all references to Silicon Valley as a geographic locale across Wikipedia (and often replacing it with terrible, awkwardly-phrased replacements. You can find all of his actions across dozens of pages here on Binksternet's contributions, which interestingly have all focused on any geographic relationship between San Jose and Silicon Valley; Binksternet has not removed a single geographic reference on to SV from articles of any other city or place like Palo Alto, Stanford University, or Apple Park in Cupertino, except for one edit on Fremont. Here are some examples:
    • Edit on "University of Silicon Valley" where they changed "Silicon Valley University (SVU) was a private, non-profit higher educational institution located in San Jose, California, in Silicon Valley", removing the reference to Silicon Valley... the namesake of the university.
    • Edit on West Valley (California) where they changed "The West Valley is a region of Santa Clara Valley, also known as Silicon Valley..." removing the reference to Silicon Valley entirely, even though it wasn't even the sole geographic reference given here but an alternative.
    • Edit on Netlfix where they changed "Netflix is headquartered in Silicon Valley, in the town of Los Gatos" to "Netflix is headquartered in Santa Clara County, in the town of Los Gatos", despite the fact Netflix is arguably one of the most notable Silicon Valley companies around.
    • Edit on Qmunity District where they changed "The location of the district was chosen due to its being an important center of gay life within the city and Silicon Valley" to "The location of the district was chosen due to its being an important center of gay life within the city and the Silicon Valley high-tech culture" which is ludicrous, and I say this as a member of the local Gay community, that saying the district is "related to high-tech culture" is the least informed characterization of any place that I've read in a long time. Spoken like someone who knows nothing of the local area, yet takes sweeping edits to erase its existence on Wikipedia.
    • Edit on The Tech Interactive removing a reference to Silicon Valley in the lead in one of the largest and most recognizable museums of technology in the region.
    • Edit on Kaiser San Jose Medical Center they changed “Owing to its location within Silicon Valley, Kaiser San Jose...” to ”Owing to its location within the high-tech influence of Silicon Valley, Kaiser San Jose”... talk about awkward, clunky phrasing that doesn’t help the reader at all.
User:Binksternet has clearly shown WP:disruptive editing by opening a WP:request for comment and blatantly ignoring the discussion to unilaterally shape all references to Silicon Valley through the lens they see it through. Why open this discussion if you're not interested in hearing what others have to say and giving them time to comment? Prior to all of these edits, two editors (User:Coolcaesar and User:Joojay) have both already expressed opposite opinions on the matter (suggesting the debate has yet to reach consensus to justify such sweeping edits that fundamentally alter how Silicon Valley is referred to on Wikipedia). Why is Binkster ignoring the ongoing commentary on the matter? Why are they taking unilateral action when they seemingly sought community input on the matter? This is disruptive editing at its finest, with one editor assuming their WP:POV is wholly correct and trying to shape Wikipedia to the mold they espouse. This is getting out of hand. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
As I detailed at WP:ANI, I believe that your actions in the last five years have created the problem we are faced with today. You have often inserted the nickname "Silicon Valley" as the official name of the region containing the topic. The name is not official—it is a popular nickname. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Cristiano Tomás and Binksternet: I came here after seeing one of these clumsy references added to "San Jose Chamber of Commerce". In reality, the organization is strongly tied to just the city of San Jose, but it has long identified with Silicon Valley, going as far as to put "Silicon Valley" in its name until this year. It helped promote the name Silicon Valley, but it doesn't focus on the high-tech industry like the Silicon Valley Leadership Group does. Instead, it's known as more of a retail business advocacy group. But the lede's reference to "business interests ... in Silicon Valley" got warped into "the high-tech Silicon Valley concerns", conflating the geographic region with the one industry that probably shouldn't be mentioned there. Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Sensible way to address the overlaps and redundancies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Silicon Valley as a nickname or state of mind. The name "Silicon Valley" was coined in 1971 by newspaperman Don Hoefler. The idea put forward by Hoefler was that Stanford University's Frederick Terman and the high-tech industries of the area were helping each other to succeed, creating a hotbed of technological advances. "Silicon Valley" is an idea that serves as an overlay to the normal geopolitical place names. High-tech marketer Regis McKenna famously wrote in 2001 that "Silicon Valley isn't a place as much as it is an attitude", one which could be "replicated" in other places.[1] The New York Times's John Markoff parroted this in 2009, writing Silicon Valley "is as much a state of mind as it is a physical place."[2] YouTube co-founder Brent Hurley said in 2013 that "Silicon Valley is more of a state of mind, it's a mentality among entrepreneurs" which could be established anywhere, not unique to Santa Clara County.[3] Brazilian Ambassador Pedro Borio said the same thing in 2016: "state of mind".[4] Venture capitalist Fred Wilson said "Silicon Valley is most certainly a mindset". PC inventor Lee Felsenstein said, "Silicon Valley is a state of mind in a generalized physical area".[5] Rutgers law professor Alan Hyde wrote in 2015, "Silicon Valley, the nickname for the region of high-tech industries clustered around Stanford University..."[6] SFSU Anthropology professor Bernard P. Wong wrote in 2006 that Silicon Valley "is a borderless community without an overall municipal or governmental structure governing the region... The now-famous nickname, 'Silicon Valley', was coined only in 1971..."[7] Saratoga-based tech writer Katherine Maxfield wrote in 2014 that it was in the mid-1970s that "the phrase Silicon Valley displaced Santa Clara County's previous nickname: the 'Valley of Heart's Delight.'"[8] The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reported in 1994, writing, "Santa Clara County has an unusually high number of manufacturing positions as a result of the very successful electronics industry that has located in the county and led to Santa Clara Valley's nickname: 'silicon valley.'"[9] All of these people and more have written about how Silicon Valley is an idea that started on the San Francisco Peninsula and grew to include San Jose. It's a nickname, not purely a place name, and certainly not your normal metropolitan region. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Can Silicon Valley be both a "state of mind" and a regional area? I don't fully understand this logic of it's simply one or the other. Joojay (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It can be lots of things: a nickname, a state of mind, "a generalized physical area", and a technology-rich region of California. What it can't be is a substitute for local government bodies leading from neighborhood to city to county to state to nation. We should not be inserting "Silicon Valley" into that kind of series of place names. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Things named "Silicon Valley" have existed already for many years (in local governments, in neighborhoods, and etc.) based on geographic area, and Cristiano Tomás gave us some clear examples for this and we have the "see also" links. Wikipedia should be mindful of not erasing (or replacing) the history, and I am concerned your suggestions may be doing that. Joojay (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Cristiano Tomás showed that many usages of the "Silicon Valley" moniker exist, but these are all from the nickname of the region. It's not the official name.
I am not looking to remove valuable information. If there are informative sections that would best fit somewhere else, they should be moved, not deleted. I was thinking that more history would be brought in to expand each topic. For instance, the Silicon Valley article should have more tech history, and the Santa Clara Valley article should have more about the huge problem with the underground aquifer dropping 200 feet under the greater San Jose area during the 1950s and '60s. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes and no – some reduction of geographic overlap is in order, but the overlap doesn't have to be reduced to "minimal". I agree with Binksternet that "Silicon Valley" should be more about the tech history, and Santa Clara Valley more about the geography and longer history, with Santa Clara County being the precisely outlined legal entity. Cristiano Tomás also makes some good points, that orgs and events that identify with Silicon Valley might be better mentioned there than in the Santa Clara Valley or County articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Dan. I didn't take the proper time to examine the contents of those sections; I just looked at the headers and assumed. You're right, the demographics section should stay, as it's all about people in high tech, and the municipalities should stay or be expanded past Santa Clara County. But can we remove the stack of six photos of affluent neighborhoods on the right side of demographics? One of them could be moved up to the Housing section with some text saying how housing prices have changed over time, or about the housing shortage. ...I struck through the proposed movement of sections out of the Silicon Valley article. Binksternet (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • It's complicated. "Silicon Valley" and "Santa Clara Valley" are often used interchangeably, and both are used as geographic designations. Neither is used with much precision, but clearly they don't quite overlap, so to the extent that we silo a given topic into one article or the other in the name of avoiding redundancy, we will necessarily exclude someone or something. "Santa Clara Valley" is obviously a more historic term, though I don't know whether it would be considered dated yet.

    In terms of human geography, "Silicon Valley" is better known than "Santa Clara Valley" around the world, but perhaps there's less awareness that it's a real place as opposed to just an industry. Meanwhile, locally, "South Bay" is by far the preferred term in day-to-day speech, but it gets short shrift in our coverage of the Bay Area. It would be inaccurate to characterize the distinction between "Silicon Valley" and "Santa Clara Valley" in black and white, as though the former is all about technology and the latter is not. For example, Apple Inc. makes a point of referring to "Santa Clara Valley" in its job postings and in other contexts, in keeping with the company's founder's nostalgia for the valley's orchard-dotted past. But conversely, others have already listed plenty of non-technology institutions that prefer "Silicon Valley" instead.

    It would be tempting to move anything related to "normal metropolitan area topics" to Santa Clara County's article, but here we run into some difficulty because the Office of Management and Budget has defined the San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara metropolitan area (Q63567726) to include both Santa Clara County and San Benito County. (That's the county to the southeast, not in either of the valleys.)

     – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose For one thing the area that most locals refer to as Silicon Valley neither includes all of Santa Clara County (I have yet to meet anyone that would consider Gilroy as Silicon Valley) nor exclude all parts outside of it, as most people would include at least Menlo Park, if not Fremont. There is a strong identification in the area with the name beyond just technology, as tend to happen 50 years after monikers are created. To pretend that the region does not use the name or that it is used for only a subset of the cultural activities to to actively attempt to erase part of the culture here. JVittes (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, for that matter, the "Silicon Valley Boulevard" exit going northbound on U.S. 101 has always struck me as rather aspirational. I think there definitely is a temporal component to this issue: these days, when someone goes out of their way to say "Santa Clara Valley" outside of a natural geography context, it's usually for a historic, nostalgic, or political reason, whereas saying "Silicon Valley" is no longer necessarily seen as an endorsement of Big Tech. I don't think how we've organized these articles can be blamed for that shift. At some point it would be great to find some reliable sources to cite in the articles regarding the attitudes around these monikers. Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Just to be sure about your viewpoint, JVittes, would you like to see "Christmas in the Park" remain in place under the Events section? In the Museums section, how about the Viet Museum showing the history of refugees from Vietnam? Under Performing Arts, how is Bing Concert Hall part of the topic of Silicon Valley? There are likely to be some points of agreement between you and I. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Other tech hubs that have been called the Silicon Valley of their location

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Some stuff we might include: Other tech hubs that have been called the "Silicon Valley" of their location. A few examples described in prose, a link to the main article. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Main article: List of technology centers
I don't see this happening in the Hollywood article, which is a similar scenario (meaning it is a popularly used term, a place of new technology, of specific industry, and it is a physical location)? Currently this article has a link to "Places with "Silicon" names". Does that need to be further elaborated? Joojay (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it is very relevant to this topic when another place sets out specifically to copy Silicon Valley as much as possible, studying Silicon Valley to see how it might be done. Two such examples written in concise prose would suffice to convey the idea to our readers. The Hollywood page could benefit from the same treatment, with quality sources available such as Iain Robert Smith's book Hollywood Meme. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposal (see WP:COATRACK) and believe the current "See also" link to List of technology centers is sufficient. The article is already too long as is. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silicon_Valley/Archive_5&oldid=1136412103"