Talk:Silicon Valley/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed change to first sentence

Instead of just saying it is a "region", can we describe it as an "industrial region", with the industry being the high-tech industry? Appalachia is described here as a "cultural" region. Wall Street, a very similar well-known metonym, is actually a place. Detroit was/is a place, as are/were Madison Avenue, Greenwood District, Tulsa, Hollywood, etc. To say otherwise risks implying this is what Santa Clara Valley is actually called, which it isn't. If Silicone Valley had a Wikipedia article, it should absolutely not be labelled a "region" that happens to coincide with the S.F.V. The looseness of the term (is San Fran included? East Bay?) also demonstrates why calling it a "region" is extremely problematic. 2600:1012:B024:8975:502F:8B09:C90A:F0C9 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a moment and read the previous discussions on the matter, it is no where near as simple as you put it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MayowaObatuase.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Challenging reversion of my edit on this date

I'm challenging this reversion of my edit by User:Binksternet.

I had pulled back the article text to how it previously stood in July before it was apparently vandalized by User:Joe Calder around July 6, 2022.

The Mathews book clearly discussed Santa Clara Valley as synonymous with Silicon Valley, but has been pulled by Stanford University Press from Google Books. So I substituted a cite to the newly-published Todd book from University of California Press on the history of the Valley of Heart's Delight.

Todd is clearly treating the Valley of Heart's Delight, the Santa Clara Valley, as synonymous with Silicon Valley at numerous points in her book. This is clearest in this sentence on pages 6 and 7: "I examine the evolution of the Valley of Heart's Delight into Silicon Valley." So I'll acknowledge that perhaps I should have cited to pages 6 and 7 instead of page 2. But my edit is otherwise correct. Furthermore, regardless of whether my edit was correct or not, the cited sources clearly do not stand for Calder's unsupported and overbroad assertion that Silicon Valley includes San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. It is ludicrous to revert an edit as failing verification (as to one source) to an edit that was already failing and had always failed verification for all three sources cited. Coolcaesar (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that Joe Calder change back in July. I don't agree with it 100%.

The Valley of Heart's Delight was purely an agricultural nickname, and it has never been formalized with a boundary. The "evolution" of one nickname into the other is also an evolution of boundaries and perceptions. The one is not the other.

If Silicon Valley were to "roughly" correspond to any single California county, that county would be Santa Clara. But Silicon Valley is most certainly inclusive of portions of San Mateo County, from the very beginning, and various later observers add some of Alameda County and even San Francisco for its tech presence. Silicon Valley is not synonymous with Santa Clara County. How best to represent this fact to the reader? How can we avoid misrepresenting Silicon Valley as being Santa Clara County? Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should be removing the Glenna Matthews book Silicon Valley, Women, and the California Dream as a reference. That book is scholarly and authoritative. Matthews says that Santa Clara Valley (not the smaller Santa Clara County) was the Valley of Heart's Delight, and it evolved into Silicon Valley. If we are talking about Santa Clara Valley, a lot more of San Mateo County is included, and parts of the East Bay. I think we should tell our readers that Silicon Valley "corresponds roughly to the boundaries of Santa Clara Valley." Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Silicon Valley is NOT a valley

Over on Simple Wikipedia, it is made clear in the lede that the Silicon Valley is "...not truly a valley..." Up through THIS edit, I had made that clear over here in Main Wikipedia. That edit included the quote:

"The first thing to understand about Silicon Valley is that it’s not a valley. Technically speaking, it’s an alluvial plain."

This info that "Silicon Valley" is a misnomer was promptly deleted, lasting less than one hour. The question for us editors here is:

- Which version of this story is accurate?

  (Silicon Valley is a valley, or Silicon Valley is not a valley.)

It is absolutely clear to me that Silicon Valley is NOT a valley. If you stand in a valley, you look to one side and you see mountains. Then look to the other side, and see more mountains (or at the very least, hills). This is obviously not the case for the majority of Silicon "Valley". Yes, you can look to one side and see mountains. But turn your head and you'll see the San Francisco Bay.

I do not intend to stick around here to engage in whatever debate you all might wish to present. The answer in my own mind is crystal clear. Simple Wikipedia is crystal clear. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard is Verifiability, not truth, that is, content needs a reliable source. Simple Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the source that you added is an opinion piece and so is also not a reliable source, per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable for statements of geology. Actual geologists classify Santa Clara Valley as two kinds of valley: a longitudinal valley and a graben, which is a tectonic depression. The alluvial plain formed on top of these. So it's both a valley and a plain. We can throw out your cited source for reasons of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: a non-expert making statements in fields of study that he has not studied. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember that simple answers are often wrong. Simple Wikipedia is wrong in this case because the actual situation is more complex. Your preference for simple answers is troubling, especially when you announce you will not stick around to listen to reason. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet: "Your preference for simple answers is troubling, especially when you announce you will not stick around to listen to reason."

I never stated that I will not be reading what other editors will offer here in discussion and debate. I indicated that I do not intend to be engaging in said debate. ...and so here I am engaging.

You, Binksternet, know quite well my reason as to why I wanted to present the argument, and then leave. It is because you have demonstrated this propensity for WP:Ownership of articles, in the most toxic of ways. I see in the Archives that you have done so here in this article as well, many moons before I arrived here:

You: "Your arguments are basically a WP:Synthesis of sources..."

Cristiano Tomás's reply: "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?"

So this appears to be a pot/kettle situation.

I myself have better things to do with my time.

But since I have returned to posting here, I will add a rebuttal of substance before I depart (hopefully for good, this time): My argument was not rooted in ANY reference whatsoever. It was based on the dictionary. I attempted to make that perfectly clear when I opened this Talk section by explaining exactly what a valley is (look to one side, look to the other side). Here is the dictionary definition:

Valley (noun): "an elongated depression between uplands, hills, or mountains, especially one following the course of a stream."

There are those who see the HP Garage to be the center of Silicon "Valley". Stand here, and anyone can verify for themselves. Mountains on one side. Bay on the other. There is absolutely nothing between this garage and the Bay that could be considered uplands (let alone hills, let alone mountains). This is NOT a valley. And this is the exact same situation for many, many of companies that Silicon Valley is famous for, including the Googleplex/Amphitheatre, Yahoo, the Computer History Museum (/Silicon Graphics), and perhaps most notably, Stanford. Or go back to its tech roots. Do the same at the location of Ampex. Same situation. No valley there whatsoever. Mountains only on ONE SIDE.

Case closed.

In my own book, that is. I am certainly open to anyone who wishes to present an argument which might convince me that the common, widely accepted, standard definition of the word 'valley' is not applicable in this case. I have yet to see any that has struck me as persuasive.

Should the final consensus here arrive at a rejection of the English dictionary meaning of the word 'valley' in favor of some exclusive jargon definition (which I have yet to be shown), then I will see that as a win for pedantry. A loss for common sense. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be difficult to top your stubborn refusal to accept that the lower elevation surface area between two mountain ranges might very well be called a valley. I won't even try. Instead, I'm putting my money on geologists who study this stuff. All of them call the Santa Clara Valley a valley. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Fully concur with Binksternet. If you stand on Stevens Creek Boulevard in West San Jose (especially the stretch with the car dealers west of Valley Fair), you see mountains to your west. Mountains to your south. Mountains to the east. That's a valley. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Dan Bloch complained, "Discussion goes in talk pages, not in edit summaries."

So I will follow up my last post here...

In my revert just now, I added a new reference with this quote: "A valley represents a low area of land located between elevated regions such as hills or mountains." (My emphasis, quote from here.)

There are SEVERE PROBLEMS with this article. Or more broadly, including the articles on Santa Clara Valley and the San Francisco Peninsula. Notice that the SF Pen article never once mentions Santa Clara Valley. The one use of that character string is as "Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority", which is a separate thing. Point being...

If your view is accurate, apparently held by everyone here except for me, that SF Pen counts as a valley, then why does that article not state this?

Now look at the SC Valley article... Check the history, and you'll find that it was quite stable for MANY YEARS letting readers know about Silicon Valley, "...since it is not an actual valley..."

This info was presented clearly over the span of Mar 4 2014 - Sep 2 2021 ("As Silicon Valley is not an actual valley..."). More than 7 years.

Why did it change?

Binksternet showed up on Sep 13, 2021 and proceeded to engage in a RADICAL REVISION. Now I would fully support even a radical revision if it was well sourced. But if it was, I do not see such supporting sources. He certainly did not present them here in this section of this article's Talk. No one has.

Quite to the contrary, Binksternet was called out for loose editing HERE:

"Firstly, this border does not follow either the popular or contemporary definition of Santa Clara Valley. Secondly, WP:Original research, this border was drawn by a user and does not include any sources. If you'd like to re-add it, please demonstrate sources in the talk page."

That criticism had to do with this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Santa_Clara_Valley_in_California_-_red_border.jpg

It is clear to me what the problem is. But I am absolutely willing to go along with CONSENSUS. If anyone can show a definition of 'valley' which indicates that there is such a thing as a "Bay Valley", and for whatever reason, folks here see that to be superior to the basic, widely understood definition that a valley is this stretch of land found down between hills /mountains, then we would be done here.

I say 'here' for a very specific reason. Because the work which would then need to be done is to 'fix' the Simple Wikipedia article. Also 'fix' the article on the SF Peninsula. Etc.

But those articles do not need fixing, because it is absolutely bizarre that anyone would try to redefine what a valley is. That Silicon Valley is part of some kind of "Bay Valley" system, or whatever. And what is even more bizarre is what is happening here. That you all appear to be going along with this "bay valley" concept, while utterly rejecting the English dictionary.

This is not my first time experiencing this type of bizarre editing approach. And that is why I have been reluctant to engage with certain editors here. Wikipedia Policies exist to help us AVOID wasting time and energy as has been happening here. You all are refusing to conform to the policy on Consensus. NO ONE is willing to present a single place where this "Bay Valley" concept is a thing.

I have hope that common sense will eventually come around here. But since that has not been happening, I have very little desire to continue investing my time in this.

WIKIPEDIA IS BROKEN.

And it is broken because of things that I have highlighted here, in this post.

It is clear that the Santa Clara Valley ENDS where the SF Peninsula begins. And therefore, Silicon Valley is, in large part, NOT A VALLEY. Please prove me wrong. Either that, or cease and desist as another option you all have. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me be really clear. You don't have a consensus. Since you don't have a consensus, your last edit is in violation of WP:3RR. If you don't revert it, I'll report you.

I'll reply to your comment above, but reverting the change now is non-negotiable. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source saying that Silicon Valley isn't a valley. Your arguments basically boil down to "When I look out my window it doesn't look like a valley", which, even if it's true, is WP:OR.

The previous version of the article you cite says that it isn't a valley because it includes parts of the San Francisco Peninsula, which is quite different from the argument you're making now, that it's an alluvial plain and not a valley.

I have filed a WP:3RR complaint. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Toxic superfund sites

We should have a section about high-tech pollution, one that talks about the toxic superfund cleanup sites in Silicon Valley. The Wall Street Journal wrote a piece in 2010, The New York Times wrote a piece in 2018, and The Atlantic wrote a piece in 2019. Of course local news has covered the problem, for instance NBC News in 2014 and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2019. India Currents published an article in 2020 saying that Santa Clara County's 23 superfund sites were the largest number of sites in any US county.

Suffice to say that this problem is definitely part of the literature about Silicon Valley. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Challenging deletion of the law firm section on 4 August 2021

I'm challenging this edit deleting the entire section I had added to the article about Silicon Valley law firms. User:Cristiano Tomás stated: "law firm section is barely notable and not deserving of a section".

In most of the developed world, low-rise suburban offices are usually seen as too tacky for law firms, except sole proprietors and mom-and-pop small law firms. It's always fascinating to see how most large law firms' offices are all found in high-rise towers in downtown areas, with one or two exceptions. The exception is usually the office in Silicon Valley, which is usually found in a two-story structure in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, or Mountain View. Those law firms rarely venture beyond downtowns unless they have a very good reason.

If you read the history of Silicon Valley, a huge portion of that history is the history of big deals and big lawsuits, and lots of lawyers are often involved. (For example, The Social Network (2010) used depositions as a framing device.) That's why big law firms keep piling into the Valley, rather than staying in San Francisco. And that should be noted in the article. Coolcaesar (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the law firms section was well-founded, and it should be returned to the article. For the same reasons, the venture capital section should be expanded. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)