![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
That criticism had to do with this map: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
That criticism had to do with this map: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)