Talk:Silicon Valley/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

A question

With respect to "He also cited a lack of women role models and noted that most famous tech leaders — like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg — are men." How many women does anyone encounter that are as kamikaze nuts as those three? Who drops out of Harvard to start their own computer programing business when there is no personal computer industry? What stinky hippy gets their start in industry by dropping acid then building devices to defraud Ma Bell? Certainly not the average woman. They have common sense, get their degree, then look for a good job, working at an established firm. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See Tapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation) User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Janis Joplin just proves the rule. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Takes a monster to "break the mold" These people are hardly role models, more teaching opportunities about the dangers of aggression and obsession. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"What Failure Taught Me - Vani Kola" A confession that success as an entrepreneur required "being delusional." User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Woman drops out of Harvard and starts business User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A question to your question: besides talking about how seemingly few women are in top positions in Silicon Valley, aside from being start-up foundrers, how are we actually highlighting a few of the prominant women of past and current… For example some people may question their politics and feminism, etc.; but, nevertheless, what about leading executives (and some of them socio-polical figures) like Carly Fiorina (formerly Lucent and HP): Meg Whitman (Ebay); Marissa Mayer (Google, Yahoo!); Padmasree Warrior (Cisco); Mary Meeker, (partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield); Susan Wojcicki (Google); Sheryl Sandberg, (Facebook COO); etc.? And there's also a list of well over a hundred other women.. Is it enough to point out how you believe there's historic bias, or should you also point out those women who have pioneered change and those that are indeed in the midst of things, doing their thing? I think the TALK here has become so caught up in the back and forth of the usual pathology, that it's seemingly neglected the highlighting of some very significant women that have made quite remarkable headway. And they've done it with national visibility… regardless of what you (personally) may think of them (politically or otherwise).

Then by the way, what about people like Tim Cook, who is obviously not a woman, but openly gay! That's a big statement for feminist and LGBTQ issues alike, which for many people are somewhat linked causes. Many people in the LGBTQ community are feminists or represent women's issues… including gay men. A good part of what's common here is stereotypes and expectations of gender roles. While I think it's important to reveal some significant and ongoing critiques about Silicon Valley life, and its many apparent biases, etc.; it's also appropriate to show some of the recent breakthroughs. And make it a bit more central to the article, than what's probably currently existing, namely in this section. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I want to make it clear that I also comprehend that there can be segregation that occurs by a division of labor within a given company. In other words, I understand how executive positions are not the same as some of the tech areas of the company… and so on. Indeed, living in Silicon Valley and knowing some of the gossip and insight of these companies, I realize that it's often been said that there's difference in culture and representation amongst their many divisions. People that do the administrative work have often been (traditionally) separated from the other employees… the "tech geeks" and so on. That's as compared to people in finance, human resources, marketing, etc…. they can be a different set from the actual "techies." And then, aside from that, the upper management and high executives, board members, etc. Beyond rumor, maybe this can be pointed out, if evidenced? Right now, I don't think it's too obvious; but, it can either be proven or disproven… because I know the idea is out there. Myself, I get.. but that's because I have insight and I can determine what's said between the lines. But, other readers of this article may not really get the depths of all this, clearly. Whether or not we mention powerful women executives and a gay CEO at Apple, do they make these connection? Do they make the differentiations? Ca.papavero (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is: If the woman or LGBTQ person is significant in terms of Silicon Valley history or culture, we should have an article for them and information in the article about that significance. Tim Cook might be an example, although I'm not sure of what. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. Gays/LGBTQ issue w/in Silicon Valley: Well… I am impressed by Tim Cook's coming out, as well as how it's suddenly made a huge statement across the nation and even around the world. For example, just recently, even IBM has followed with statements about RFRA/ Religious Freedom Restoration Act states and positions on gay rights. What is more, because of the power and breadth of such Silicon Valley companies, this has made world-wide sensation. I don't think anyone should dismiss or downplay the significance of Tim Cook's coming out. It's just as big as Hilary Clinton's openness about feminism from the White House years ago (among other things) and her regards from across the nation and the world. To borrow a cliche, it was a "game changer." Similarly, take a look at the world's first openly visible AIDS victims/advocates, such as Rock Hudson, Ryan White (inspiring the CARE Act), Magic Johnson, Greg Louganis,Keith Haring, etc. After they came out with openly "HIV positive" status, the world could not deny the issue. Cook's coming out, as CEO of one of the world's largest, most powerful, most visible corporations — that impacts everyday life — is incredible. It does all that and more. It may seem like a bold assertion, but I think it's almost as similar as having our first African-American President (POTUS), i.e. Obama. As further example, when France appointed a gay ambassador to the Holy See, there was some push back by the Vatican, but some re-affirmation from France, staying on their position. But, with Tim Cook, it's very difficult to overlook him… and like it or not, he's been appointed as Steve Job's successor. Apparently the Board of Directors is behind Cook, too. The world has rather been forced to accept it… and that's incredibly unprecedented. Do you think there's people at the Vatican that use Apple products? Are they about to boycott the company? If they did… well, that would be equally sensational, wouldn't it? In my opinion, it's uncommon and bold enough to note in this article, as well as the article on Cook himself (of course); but, I'm not sure it has enough of a following to create an entire separate article. Yes, I know of many out gays in Silicon Valley, as well as even groups. There's books and groups noted on this subject, even as early as from the 1990s, etc. Think of the history of Michelangelo Signorile, Digital Queers, etc. While it's not altogether a new phenomenon, it's never been so high profile, as regarded from a CEO as per example. But, I'm not sure there's enough "out" and notable high-profile persons to fill an article on the topic, unless such an article came forward with some other premise beyond Cook and top executives/person of Silicon Valley… who happen to be gay or LGBTQ. At this moment, I'm not aware of there being a need for an article on "Gays/LGBTQ persons of Silicon Valley" Not even the article about LGBT culture in San Francisco is entirely accurate or inclusive of life in the South Bay/Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley… at best merely footnoting it. So, I would suggest developing these areas within the existing articles, before separating them out.Ca.papavero (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up-Suggestion: By the way, I hate to say it, but these talks about diversity, demographics, etc. have become rather scatterbrained in their organization at this talk page. New and valid points have been made in the paragraphs; but, by subject area and section, they could be merged and better organized. That's if its's at all possible at this point?! (laughing sarcasm). Plus, we're now adding indention after ideation as a reply to each other. This paragraph is indented six spaces, for example. At that, I was questioning whether or not to continue the thread, or start another section just for LGBTQ issues. I decided not to do that, because of adding further to confusion and mess. So, is there a way to create better sectioning, and subtopics to these talking points? I newer to this discussion, so I don't want to undertake that. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Never try to refactor a talk page discussion; a punishing exercise; it always seems to someone that their important point got left out or dismissed. Editing someone else's posts is a no-no. You might suggest a summary in a new section at the bottom. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I rather agreed, but then I thought again. Can we at least re-section it. In other words, put the sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the table of contents under section 2? That way it would be 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4… and so on? Is that even appropriate? They're all dealing with demographic issues. Every time I look at this talk page, it gives me a headache! And, frankly, I'd be surprise if you found this comment! (Lol). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Was hard to find due to the section A List, I'll reposition it. As to your headache, even making pies is hard work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

History and its timeline; how and when Silicon Valley originated

I just added a few paragraphs to the History section; whereas, I realized there's a few gaps in the overall timeline. For example, I changed the header to the area, now known as "Roots in telegraph, radio, commercial and military technology" (adding in words telegraph and commercial) to reflect the additional considerations. In the opening line of this section, it reads: "The first ship-to-shore wireless telegraph message to be received in the US was from the San Francisco lightship outside the Golden Gate…"; but, although it provides a citation, it does not give a year or even any circa point of reference. A reader would have to look-up Spanish–American War and maybe conclude that it occurred from April 25, 1898 – August 12, 1898. Still, from there, this article jumps all the way to mention of "In 1909, Charles Herrold started the first radio station…" So, we don't really have a clear idea of how far its jumping along the timeline, although it could be guessed that it's significant, by several decades. My own additions about early telegraphy, occurring from 1849 to 1853, are now placed between those paragraphs; although, by logic, it my be preceding what's said in the first paragraph. Plus, there's still more considerations and additions that could probably be made. All of this could further question and disrupt the timeline that's presented in the article. At that, I'm not sure that the timeline is all that accurate from proceeding sections into the the succeeding ones. Consider the sections History|Background and History|Social roots of the information technology revolution. Maybe this has to do with how the article was developed and written, such as will piecemeal additions? Maybe it has to do with assumptions of how and when Silicon Valley began, weather its the "roots" of that history, to more recent history. In any event, this should probably be re-examined. Ca.papavero (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I have a source for ship to shore, and maybe the first radio station, although I'm not sure that radio station has much to do with Silicon Valley itself, or even the history of radio as it was so ephemeral. I've made a lot of additions to the history timeline. Perhaps the most difficult is appropriately handle the industrial and defense history, which is important as background, but not in a direct line to such things as Facebook. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well… that's basically what I'm questioning. I do think that something should be said about early valley history, namely how parts of earlier Santa Clara County history developed into that of Silicon Valley (if not also the greater region, of course). A lot of that has to do with early military relays and reconnaissance; agricultural machinery; telegraph and some aspects of commerce, etc.; then, how that was converted into more developed technology and infrastructure, namely during and after the war. That also doesn't consider things like Lick Observatory and developments into the Space Age and NASA, etc. Or combining military intelligence with space exploration and commercial communications…. this can get incredibly tangential. What's included in the article now about "History" can span an entire era from (per se) the Civil War and the Spanish-American War and into World War II… as well as into the Carter and Reagan Era of NORAD and SDI, then into Clinton's base closures and modernization of the entire program. These histories, as I would so far surmise, are not exactly the same, but they may touch and overlap in many areas. So, for that matter, I could take what I just added about Telegraph hill and so on, then lead further into the story of Herrold and his radio experiments and enterprises; still, reaching beyond that into countless directions. What would be the focus? On this Talk Page, I'm not referencig anything, but maybe you get my point. For now, if I get a chance, I'll take a look at history of San Jose, the Santa Clara County and so on, to see if these points or interests are in fact said anywhere else. Maybe it can be developed here and then splintered off, such as to something called "Early Silicon Valley History" or something of that sort. Or it can be merged into those other existing articles. I do think it's a relevant and significant topic, but how to go about that… it's a greater consideration. Could (or should) a template or such be created for that? Just some thoughts. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way… see the difference between Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Valley. That's a starting point. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit to Santa Clara Valley which is where I think most history that does not relate to the computer and internet industries belongs. The computer industry grew out of the electronics industry which grew out of the defense industry which grew out of mining and agricultural machinery manufacturing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of agricultural machinery see FMC Corporation now a defense contractor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know about FMC. And other similar history. Its well known amongst those that recall the early years, from the 60s and even into the 90s. Not directly "Silicon Valley" history, but military and other, I was also just recalling Henry J. Kaiser and his legacy.

Here's another question: how do we separate the geography and ecology of Santa Clara Valley from its land use and history? That article really does't do much of that, if only in its introduction. It jumps right into history. And its also incorporated the concept of the "South Bay," which overlaps many discussion points. Go figure… there's more said about ecology at the article for Santa Clara County. As far as I know, there's also no coordinating Wikipedia Project for these topics, if even for the greater Bay Area region. Indeed, there's even related topics like Historical ecology, of which this region can contribute greatly. (That's a big hint). Ca.papavero (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a fan of projects, too much history of being told that some nonsense a project has "reached consensus" on overrides well-sourced material. With respect to historical ecology there is certainly a dynamic as the region moves from Pleistocene megafauna to hunting and gathering, then cattle ranching, then orchards, then industry, then suburban offices. Changing patterns of water use are key as they collide with the limits of the resource. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of that. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:Prisencolinensinainciusol on 11 June 2015

Just countermanded those. It appears that User:Prisencolinensinainciusol has never visited Santa Clara County or has not spent any significant amount of time there. As anyone familiar with Santa Clara County knows, there are multiple unincorporated CDPs within the region (see Template:Santa Clara County, California) due to the wild expansion of San Jose's city limits under city manager A.P. Hamann. If we list Stanford as well as remote outlying cities like Gilroy and Morgan Hill (which arguably until recently were not really part of Silicon Valley until the rising cost of housing started to drive people to look for housing in insanely far places like Los Banos), then it's hard to say why we shouldn't include all those CDPs in this article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no precise inclusion criteria for that particular section, so perhaps the entirety of named places in the county and maybe also San Mateo and some others should be included, either that or just link to those articles. Also, because of WP:NOPIPE, it's unnecessary to list out the full link and then pipe several of those place names.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you just reverted my edit back to your edit without modifying your incorrect text, which makes no sense. The text you reverted back to refers to "cities." Do you understand the difference between a city and a CDP? Please do not insert inaccurate information into Wikipedia, or your edits may be identified as vandalism and reverted on sight.

Furthermore, you haven't presented any argument for why unincorporated areas should be included. It makes no sense to include them, because anyone who really needs that information can look at the articles and infoboxes for the nine Bay Area counties (in which they are listed in detail). The article is cluttered enough as is and is perfectly fine without them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not seeing any movement here on the part of Prisencolinensinainciusol to either (1) make a good faith attempt to clean up the article text as it currently stands so it makes sense, or (2) explain why unincorporated areas should be included in this article. After all, including them would seem to violate a number of Wikipedia content policies, most notably WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And we already have CDPs listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am countermanding Prisencolinensinainciusol's edits again. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Chips section too skeletal

The "Chips" section needs to be fleshed out. It only mentions one, albeit notable, integrated circuit (aka "chip") developed by Intel. There are/were many other semiconductor companies that deserve mention. I don't think there is intentional bias here, just that only a minimal amount of effort has been put into this section. --Tim McNerney (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Silicon Valley

If anyone wants to modify the geography of Silicon Valley to include areas outside the valley not generally considered part of Silicon Valley there should be a discussion about it, instead of the edit wars that have been present here. JVittes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Silicon Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151210215140/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/13/ellen-pao-gender-lawsuit-silicon-valleym to http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/13/ellen-pao-gender-lawsuit-silicon-valleym

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park

An IP-hopping edit-warrer continually inserts a comparison to Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park into the lede, apparently to publicize that development. I and at least two other editors (User:Jooojay and IP user 107.77.230.50) have reverted, but he or she keeps re-adding. I've explicitly asked the IP editor to bring it to the talk page, but that has not happened, so I am doing so.

Does anyone think this should be included in the article, or in the lede? TJRC (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be excluded. There's no justification for singling out that one particular development, over the thousands of technology parks in the world, and it would be wildly inappropriate to list even a fraction of them here. It is also a nonsensical comparison, as Silicon Valley is far larger (and not precisely defined) than a random technology park. Murph9000 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It strays away from the topic of the article in the lead, not good not good. Dannyniu (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I now consider it to be bad faith spam linking / vandalism, and have dropped appropriate warnings on the last couple of IPs. There's nothing constructive about it, now that they have ignored clear good faith messages in the edit summaries and on the talk page. It adds absolutely nothing of value to this article, and actually harms the content. Murph9000 (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan's Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park, along with Silicon Valley, are the two main areas responsible for the most technological and scientific innovation occurring in our world. Taiwan, by itself, files one of the most number of patents in the world every year for various inventions and technological innovations. Taiwan is also files the fourth largest amount of invention and innovation patent applications in the United States Patent Office. Additionally the number of big companies and startups in Taiwan keeps growing every year, further contributing to the high amount of intellectual talent concentrated in Taiwan. Hence, Silicon Valley and the Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park are equivalent peers in the arena of technological innovation and both deserve some momentary mention. Please read the following sources about Taiwan's top leadership position in the global innovation race:

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-22/in-global-innovation-race-taiwan-is-tops-in-patents-israel-leads-in-r-d.html
2. https://www.articleonepartners.com/blog/top-5-countries-where-u-s-patents-originate/
3. http://www.iam-media.com/patent1000/rankings/Detail.aspx?g=810cb891-7fd2-4112-b36d-5605132e67db

27.100.18.164 (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It is disruptive to the lead paragraph of the article, and tells the reader nothing about the subject of the article, namely Silicon Valley. The article is not about the global technology market, just Silicon Valley itself. There is clear consensus against mentioning this technology park, and especially against giving it an unduly prominent mention in the lead (which significantly distracts from the purpose of this article). The repeated spamming of this link in the lead is only promotional, it adds nothing of value to this article. Taiwan's status and achievements in the global technology market are covered by other articles, not this one. Murph9000 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not belong in this article, completely irrelevant. And the bouncing IP edits are still happening. Should we protect this further? Jooojay (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First picture should be a map

The first picture is just San Jose suburban sprawl with no landmarks indicated. But a picture is worth a thousand words alongside the text explaining what cities it comprises. Something like Google Maps's picture, but showing all the mentioned cities, Highway 101, and San Francisco. Easier said than done, I know, I don't know how to edit the map at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Bay_(SF),_California :-) -- Skierpage (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. This has been suggested several times in the article's history but discussion keeps getting archived without the matter having been addressed, see e.g.

I know we have the standard coordinates link to external map sources, but it would useful to have a map in the article so that not only the location but the extent of Silicon Valley can be seen, perhaps with some of its major landmarks, or some indication of its historical development. I am sure there are plenty of Silicon Valley-based graphic designers who could put something together. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that a map would be helpful here. —Stepheng3 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, after all this time, I don't think just saying "there should be a map" is working. The first problem is that someone has to come up with that map, with appropriate permissions. Second is agreeing about its validity (especially if someone dismisses it as "original research"). For both of these, this article might be relevant. Their map is approximately the convex hull of San Jose, San Mateo, and Fremont, a pretty decent definition, and generic enough not to have copyright problems if recreated from allowable sources. However, considering that Santa Clara Valley doesn't have a map, it's not surprising to see one lacking here. Santa Clara County, California has one, but the country includes a mountainous, rural eastern half, along with a non-tech-oriented southern portion. Calbaer (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias

Do you find this page to be biased? Kylierogersk27 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Kylie Rogers

Kylierogersk27 - bias to whom or what? More details are needed. Jooojay (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic edits

I propose to eliminate the following cities:

• Belmont
• Burlingame
• Emeryville
• Millbrae
• Oakland
• San Carlos
• San Ramon
• Union City

Any objections? The last time I checked, being home to a world-class animation studio (Emeryville), a Big Oil company (San Ramon), or a substantial number of Silicon Valley commuters (Union City) does not qualify a city as part of Silicon Valley. Otherwise, there is no clear distinction between the core Silicon Valley cities (San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, et al.) and other cities like Burbank, Houston, and Patterson. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Sorry, but I don't understand what you are proposing here? What is your criteria for what cities are eliminated here or not?Jooojay (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The criteria is that Silicon Valley cities have economies that are dominated by the tech industry (Mountain View, Cupertino, and Menlo Park are the best example of this), as opposed to tangentially benefiting from the tech industry. Many Bay Area cities serve as bedroom communities for people who work in Silicon Valley, but themselves are not home to any major tech companies. Or they are only home to relatively minor satellite offices, as opposed to headquarters facilities which are home to the lion's share of key personnel. For example, San Ramon is home to a major AT&T office campus, but most of AT&T's people are concentrated in Dallas, Texas. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Coolcaesar - Are you working off of some sort of document/citation? Or is this your own personal theory? Jooojay (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal theory, based on having been raised in Silicon Valley and worked in multiple Silicon Valley cities.

I can pull sources but it will take months because I'm overloaded as is. I have to warn you that in that event I will constrain this article to the traditional view of Silicon Valley as including cities only in central Santa Clara County and southern San Mateo County, which is what's supported by most reliable and neutral sources anyway. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (per WP:NOT) for people who try to promote other cities as being part of Silicon Valley. I have no sympathy for those who haven't been able to actually live or work in the Valley of Heart's Delight. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think your should do this to the Silicon Valley article, Coolcaesar because Wikipedia isn't the place for your personal ideas or theories, or original research. What might make sense is some sort of citations regarding the change in the definition and locations of Silicon Valley over time. But please don't go deleting chunks of an established WP article based on your perceived experience. Jooojay (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silicon Valley. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907002807/http://www.innovationjournalism.org/ij4/presentations/turouskalidavidnordfors.pdf to http://www.innovationjournalism.org/ij4/presentations/turouskalidavidnordfors.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329094048/http://www.paloaltohistory.com/stanford-research-park.php to http://www.paloaltohistory.com/stanford-research-park.php

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) 04:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Map in sidebar

The map in the sidebar is inaccurate for two reasons. First the Bay Area is not synonymous with Silicon Valley. Second, what is shown is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area, not the bay area. Neither San Joaquin county nor San Benito county is considered part of the bay area.--2601:640:4080:5960:E51B:1F15:743B:B6A0 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silicon Valley. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327235113/https://recode.net/2015/03/27/live-the-pao-v-kleiner-perkins-verdict/ to http://recode.net/2015/03/27/live-the-pao-v-kleiner-perkins-verdict/

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) 05:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"For for"

The introduction in italics includes the words "For for the geographical valley". But when I open the "edit" page to remove the superfluous "for", it isn't there! So all I can do it mention this here, in the hope someone with the right technical knowledge can make the change.213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed (albeit with a strange typo in the edit summary!).  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Demographic Characterization

The section on schools reads "Schools in less favorable demographics such as East Palo Alto, California must depend on state funding." While the financial disparities are indisputable, describing demographics of a community as unfavorable is inappropriate and should be changed. --Akselx (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to "schools in less affluent areas...". Feel free to edit it yourself if you see further improvement possibilities. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Civility

Coolcaesar please review Wikipedia's guidelines on civility at WP:CIVIL, name calling is not okay. - Jooojay (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if you disliked the tone of my edit summary, but I have no reservations about calling out vandalism when I see it. You are invoking WP:CIVIL in bad faith to shut down discussion of edits (particularly this one) with no basis in Wikipedia policy. That's like a graffiti artist accusing the police or landowners of infringing his right to free speech when he gets arrested for tagging.

Please review Wikipedia core policies, particularly WP:V and obtain a reliable, verifiable source for your edits. The long-established consensus has been that Gilroy and Morgan Hill are not part of Silicon Valley. The editor making the change to consensus text bears the burden of showing that the meaning of the term has changed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Coolcaesar - all you needed to do was add in a citation to support your edit, also a basic rule of editing. We talked about this on this exact talk page about this (above). Instead you accuse me of vandalism. I don't see your link to any consensus here. I agree with you there should be a removal of Gilroy - but show me the citation first. Jooojay (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The consensus text did not and has not included Gilroy. Let's see. Here's 26 July 2017. 23 August. 19 November. No mention of Gilroy in the lede paragraphs in any of them. Oh, and by the way, one of those is your edits, so you know full well what is the consensus text. So stop pretending it includes Gilroy.

The first mention of Gilroy was this edit on 23 November 2017 by User:MrBarkley, which is clearly unsourced vandalism.

I belatedly caught and reverted that vandalism on 29 January 2018. Then you reverted it back. Here's a tip from an editor with over a decade more experience: before you go around talking about what is the consensus text, make sure you know first what it is. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry Coolcaesar but are you implying that a past edit history on WP is the same as a consensus? I really am not following you on this one. The WP article currently says Gilroy too. I agreed with you - lets remove Gilroy, can you please find a citation? Why are you attacking me nevertheless? You realize we want the same thing here, right? Jooojay (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The past edit history was the consensus. For many years. You are mistaking vandalism on 23 November 2017 for consensus. Wikipedia policy does not require a source just to pull out obvious vandalism. That's insane. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, you seem to have a lot of experience here, so it is somewhat surprising that you misunderstand what is and is not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM which says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Emphasis added. An edit adding unreferenced content saying that Gilroy is in Silicon Valley is in no way, shape or form "vandalism" since Gilroy is just a short drive south of the southern city limits of San Jose on 101, and Gilroy is in Santa Clara County which is the core of Silicon Valley. This is a good faith content dispute, and it is most certainly not vandalism. So, please stop all false accusations of vandalism, since continuing such accusations is a form of disruptive editing. You do not get to define the geographic limits of Silicon Valley based on your own personal definition that includes only certain parts of southern San Mateo County and your favorite cities in Santa Clara County. Instead, we need to consider what highly reliable sources like the San Jose Mercury News says, and the Silicon Valley Historical Association], which says "Because Silicon Valley is an economic region, it now includes territory down to Monterey, north to Santa Rosa and east as far as Sacramento." That is a pretty expansive definition but the solution is to work toward consensus instead of making improper accusations of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I associate the term consensus with voting or through discussion, especially on WP and not edit warring. The body of this article reads Gilroy still and we've talked about this earlier on this same talk page. Not sure why this isn't clear or obvious to you still, WP is created by a community (so please be nice). I honestly don't have time or energy for this minor disagreement, best of luck to you. Jooojay (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just got around to responding to Cullen328's response. I have to respectfully disagree.

Your argument is based on the incorrect predicates that "Gilroy is just a short drive south of the southern city limits of San Jose on 101, and Gilroy is in Santa Clara County which is the core of Silicon Valley." Actually, it's 15 miles, and if one looks at the distance from the actual urban development boundary at Metcalf Road, it's more like 20 miles. Until 2003, driving to Gilroy from downtown San Jose was an excruciatingly difficult 45 to 60 minute drive on the South Valley Freeway. The stretch of that freeway from Blossom Hill Road to Cochrane Road was notorious during the 1980s and 1990s for harrowing stop-and-go traffic and frequent rear-end pileups. Which is why anyone who grew up in Silicon Valley back in the 1990s would not consider South Valley to be part of Silicon Valley, because for much of their history, Morgan Hill and Gilroy were rural cow towns that were hardly within safe or reasonable commuting distance of San Jose. Even after the 2003 widening of the South Valley Freeway, that's still mostly true. (Try staying in Monterey over a weekend and then driving from Gilroy to San Jose in the morning on a regular weekday.)

Also, it's clear from recent news coverage that despite that 2012 article, the Mercury News is still adhering to the traditional definition of Silicon Valley as equivalent to the Santa Clara Valley and adjacent portions of the southern Peninsula. This article from January 2018 and this article from December 2018 wouldn't have been written that way if the Tri-Valley in Alameda County were already part of "Silicon Valley." The point is that Silicon Valley is the place where the business deals and innovations actually happen. Tech work has spread to many other places, but in most of them, the work amounts to maintenance or quality control.

With all due respect, I'm skeptical of the Silicon Valley Historical Association as a reliable source. I specialized in the history of technology as an undergraduate (to the point where I personally pawed through Doug Engelbart's papers at Stanford's archives for my senior thesis) and never heard of that organization under its prior name, the Santa Clara Valley Historical Association. It seems to have a lower profile than other historical institutions like the Computer History Museum (which I visited twice and enjoyed very much). If you look at the Association's Website, the book descriptions are peculiar. At least two appear to consist primarily of compilations of individual company histories, and one can infer from the cover designs that those books were probably intended to be usually laid out flat rather than stored sideways.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

“The” Silicon Valley

Random question here but do many people refer to the region as “the Silicon Valley” rather than simply “Silicon Valley”? If not, why is this the case (historical significance)? It seems like there are some situations where “the Silicon Valley” might make the article flow better, but I won’t change anything unless I know that enough people say/write it that way. — Pf1127 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pf1127: SV native here. You will almost always hear the term used without the article before hand, especially by locals. Usage of the article is largely done in formal situations (i.e. THE silicon valley organization) but not always (Silicon Valley Bank or SV leadership group don't use the article, for example. I do not recommend making the article as a whole use the "the", it's not consistent with popular usage. Cheers! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Locals hardly ever use the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Various errors and odd edits introduced by User:Cristiano Tomás on 3 April 2018

I'll concede up front that two-thirds of the edits were constructive (which means summarily reverting isn't justified in this case), but one-third were not. I don't have time to type out right now all the errors thus introduced. Here are a few of the most obvious ones:

• Ampersands are generally avoided in formal English prose unless they're part of a proper name, like AT&T.
• Wrong photo for eBay. That's actually the North San Jose site for PayPal which has since been spun off again as a separate company.
• Bad photo for Cisco. It's in shadow.
• Bad photo for Intel. That's the side of the building.
• Bad photos for Facebook and Apple Inc. It's better to be consistent with all ground-level or all aerial photos, rather than an incoherent mishmash.
• Switching to the San Jose skyline from an aerial photo was a poor choice. The skyline, standing alone, fails to convey two of the most important aspects of Silicon Valley, the heavy reliance on low-rise tilt-up concrete construction and the relatively low population density. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your comments! A couple responses:

• I changed the & to "and" in the lead sentence.
• I also removed the ebay photo, as it is indeed the wrong photo.
• In regards to Cisco, that is the best image of a Cisco Building and the only of the HQ Building 10, so I believe it is definitely the best image to represent Cisco.
• In regards to Intel, this image offers a view of the building and its logo. The only other image is mainly parking lot and indiscernible as Intel.
• In regards to FB & Apple and "mismash": The images there offer the some semblance of scale (or recognizability in Apple Park's case). No ground-level images exist on the commons showing Apple Park or FBHQ (in FB's case there are a couple images from across the street, largely covered by trees and with a barely visible sign). As we all know, Wikipedia is constantly getting improved on and added to. When suitable images of FB and Apple Park get uploaded to Commons, I will be the first to substitute the images out. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with variation between ground level and aerial photos until "perfect" images (in regards to shadow, point of view, whether its the "side of a building" and so on...) can be uploaded.
• In regards to the skyline image, I see your point! I've added a view of the SC Valley to the infobox.

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Focusing on the skyline issue, have you ever visited or lived in Silicon Valley? I'm beginning to suspect that you have not. The current pictures in the infobox and the article still fail to adequately convey the relatively flat skyline of the Santa Clara Valley, which is immediately obvious to anyone who's visited five or six world cities. The aerial photo I took readily conveyed that information. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The "downtown San Jose skyline" photo is not very representative of SV, but is an OK photo of what it says, which is the densest bit of SV. This discussion seems to be way out of date. Do you have suggestions relative to the current state of the article? I have lots of aerial shots you might want to consider if any of them make your points better, at User:Dicklyon#Aerials (quite a few are on takeoff and landing at SJC – e.g. File:Taylor Street single-point urban interchange on CA-87.jpg shows the general flatness). Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Taylor Street photo accurately shows the flatness of the valley floor, but it doesn't show downtown San Jose. My photo shows both. Unless you have a better photo, such as one shot in the spring that also clearly shows downtown San Jose, I'm planning to flip the skyline photo back to my photo soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I finally got around to fixing this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Notable companies section

The notable companies section is a magnet for spammers/COI/paid editors. This makes it a really biased version compared to just looking at the category which is already linked in that section (Category:Companies based in Silicon Valley). I would propose to keep just the Fortune 1000 part. --MarioGom (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think keeping it confined to Fortune 1000 companies and perhaps a few other companies with high notability (but perhaps not large enough for Fortune 1000) would be a great way to skim down the list. I agree it is full of hugely irrelevant companies. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Issues I see are:

• The list of Fortune 1000 companies isn't readily available on the internet, so it would be difficult to maintain.
• The current list of notable companies includes many which no longer exist but are of historical interest, as well as other companies which are of interest but not in the Fortune 1000. They would be lost if it was removed.
• Although it seems as if this section would be a target for spammers, it isn't. In the year I've had the article on my watchlist I've only had to revert one addition.

Dan Bloch (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No map

Why isn't there a map here (or lot of other places) like in the San Francisco Bay Area article showing the location within California? And then things like San Francisco Bay show an aerial view, but not a clear drawn map of the state? What's the policy on this? —Diblidabliduu (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Diblidabliduu:I think this map is alright, although it's not in any way official: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nat507/24855343734 —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"this map from the internet" doesn't seem like proper attribution. Benjamin (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's best not to use any random maps. If one is put it should be one used by a reputable organization and with multiple versions displaying the multiple definitions of silcon valley. The crux of the problem is that there is not a consistent definition on the boundaries of the valley, so it is rather impossible to make an 100% accurate map. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then you only add an "as defined by..." tho. Diblidabliduu (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Related areas

I do believe adding a list of related areas in relevant to the lede, the list that was included was concise, and only included areas with major presence from the likes expanded modern SV staples of Facebook, Intel, and Tesla. This mainly serves to highlight Silicon Valley’s influence, and the lede should contain a quick rundown of this information, and the influence in these areas highlights this greatly.

User:Danbloch is right to be mindful of unrelated jurisdictions, but the listed items included usually discuss the impact of technology within those regions. I think a new section going further into depth on SV’s broader impact on other communities, along with this short addition to the lede would bring greater attention to how those areas also impact the SV region. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:DEA:3657:BE04:83EC (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this logic, I’ll re-add the text, but we do need a full section to further clarify the impact Silicon Valley has had throughout the world and within its nearby geographic regions. Asianologist (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviation 'SV'

The abbreviation 'SV' is sometimes used for Silicon Valley -- see the discussions above, but also in reliable sources:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

What would be a good way to add that to the article? --Macrakis (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That abbreviation is a rather rare neologism used primarily by people who do not regularly live and work in California. It's like how people who played SimCity (the original 1989 DOS version) too much as children say "San Fran" (because that was the 8.3 DOS filename for the San Francisco earthquake scenario), but Bay Area natives always say "SF" or "the City."

In NorCal, the only time SV is mentioned regularly is in the name of local nonprofit SV@Home. The Mercury News also uses "SV" in certain headlines where Silicon Valley would be a mouthful (such as when they're writing about the Silicon Valley Community Foundation), but if you read the actual text in the articles, they always write out "Silicon Valley" in full. People in Silicon Valley simply say Silicon Valley or "the Valley" for short, never SV. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "SV" is important enough to include here. It's not widely spoken, unlike the many people around the Bay Area who say "SF" (ess eff) when talking about San Francisco. "SV" only appears as a typographic shortcut. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy issue with image File:Map of Norcal highlighting Silicon Valley tech clusters.png

There is a new discussion on the talk page of this image, unclear where the data is coming from and when. It appears at first glance to be inaccurate and confusing thanks to the color coding. Jooojay (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent change to aerial photo of Silicon Valley in infobox at top

I'm challenging this edit by User:Cristiano Tomás, for which he failed to supply an edit summary. (I always do because I take WP's civility guidelines seriously.) I am proposing to revert back to my photo as more representative of Silicon Valley.

To be fair, I will concede that the photo by User:Dicklyon has three major advantages: it is somewhat clearer, it is more recent (2019 v. 2014), and it was shot on a smog-free morning in January rather than a smoggy June afternoon. However, my earlier photo has multiple advantages: almost twice the resolution, taken on a real digital camera (not a cell phone), depicts typical valley smog, and includes a much broader range of Silicon Valley development, including downtown San Jose, part of the West Valley, and Mineta San Jose International Airport, and not just a limited portion of North San Jose, Berryessa, and Milpitas. My photo also gives viewers a much more accurate sense of the overall size of the Santa Clara Valley, as distinguished from a small part of its northeast corner.

Any objections before I proceed? --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Having waited for over a week and seen no objections, I am going to revert that edit as proposed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Fortune 1000 Silicon Valley companies

Per the warning about editing the list with discussing first, I propose that ServiceNow is added to the list proceeding "the following are in the Fortune 1000". Per this Fortune 1000 list the company is in spot 703, and it is based in Santa Clara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zathu (talk • contribs) 20:27, July 21, 2021 (UTC)

That looks appropriate given the current criterion for inclusion. That being said, that list is starting to get long, and maybe we ought to trim to Fortune 500. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added it. But if anyone wants to trim to Fortune 500 per TJRC, I would support that too. Dan Bloch (talk)