Talk:Silicon Valley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Top-importance).


Please follow Wikipedia's standards for US city naming. Also, I question that some of these cities, notably Fremont, Union City and Newark, are on the "southern San Francisco Peninsula". -- Zoe

I'm not completely sure and I would hate to be wrong, but it seems a lot of the content on this page has been plagiarised from the book "Silicon Boys", by David A Kaplan. Correct me if I am wrong though. -- J Roberts

If you look at the "Page history" you can see that it's been built up gradually, except for the history which was added by Maury Markowitz, who really does write that well, check out his other material. Stan 14:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just added a small section listing the three universities physically located in Silicon Valley. It seemed appropriate given that the local institutions of higher education also made contributions alongside the local companies. -- Tobycat

Cities in Silicon Valley[edit]

Subheading edited FelineAvenger 17:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alviso is a district of San Jose, not an independent city. (Apparently was a separate city until 1968, according to current Wikipedia entry) FelineAvenger 18:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like an anonymous user added a whole bunch of cities, including adding back Alviso, which is not a city, and adding cities all the way up the peninsula to Millbrae. I'm going to remove most of them, as they really are not part of Silicon Valley (especially given the location description at the top of the article, as being from Menlo Park south). Campbell definitely needed to be added though, and Redwood City might be worth leaving. Also will revise format of cities section to be consistent with the new format for the companies section. FelineAvenger 17:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following cities in based in order of how confident I am in considering them part of the valley. Redwood City (Oracle, Excite), Belmont, San Carlos, Foster City, and San Mateo (Seibel). Most people living in the valley would consider upto the 92 highway (which goes through San Mateo) to be in the Valley. Another piece of evidence for this is Yahoo who themselves list these cities in this page:

Interwalk 10:49pm, 11 March, 2005.

Union City and Newark are usually not considered part of Silicon Valley due to the relatively small number of tech companies located in those cities. Also, the Santa Cruz mountains is almost universally considered a physical boundary for the tech valley, so neither Santa Cruz nor Scotts Valley should be part of the list eventhough tech companies are located at those places. Similiarly, companies like Dreamworks is based in the North bay. Yet another peeve - why is UC-Davis listed? It's not any more relevant then UC-Irvine, UC-Santa Barbara, UC-San Diego, UCLA, etc. The main contributor to Silicon Valley's success was/is from UC-Berkely for the massive amounts of related research, that's why I added it to the article. Dyl 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't even be specific cities mentioned; should just be areas stated. It's silly to be rattling off a list of cities when "Silicon Valley" is not a particular set of cities, but a region. The region is simply northern Santa Clara Valley and surrounding areas. --Fcsuper (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved Morgan Hill out of Silicon Valley cities, to cities-sometimes-assictaed-with-Silicon-Valley (and even that is probably a stretch). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable companies[edit]

An earlier edit removed Siebel and Veritas because they were "non-notable". I think that "notable" is hard to define. These are certainly large silicon valley companies with influence in their markets, so I put them back in. Elf | Talk 18:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Notable" is hard to define, but I want to prevent the list from getting too long. I personally, a software engineering professional, have never heard of either company. The addition of them looked like an advertisement to me, something we discourage here (as you probably know, being a WikiVeteran and all). However, everyone, inside and outside the industry has heard of Intel, Adobe, Apple, Google, etc. How significant are the markets these companies have influence in? As an example of the insignificancre of these companies, Siebel Systems doesn't even have an article yet and VERITAS Software's article is just a stub. I don't think they deserve to be on the list. However, I will refrain from removing them without further opinions. Frecklefoot | Talk 19:10, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Re "getting too long"--how's that go, Wikipedia is not paper? ;-) I know what you mean, though, then it turns into a list rather than an article. Both companies deal in products that are used by corporations, not individuals (unlike, say, Apple or Intuit), which probably means that not as many people have heard of them. But I don't think that means they're not notable. They have large customer bases. In the Silicon Valley 150 list referenced in the External Links, Veritas ranks higher than 7 of the 21 that *are* listed in this article. :-) Siebel is not far below it. I'm also in the software business & I encounter these products installed at many companies. You could do an internet search for either of these and find zillions of references. Failing to have an article here by no means means that something is insignificant. It just means the right person hasn't shown up to write it yet.
And back on what makes a company "notable"--now having browsed through the top 50 on the 150 list (see, you should never have gotten me started!), I'm surprised that whoever constructed the list didn't include Calpine, Ross Stores, National Semiconductor, LSI Logic, and E*Trade, all of which I'd guess many people, even nontechnical, have heard of, and KLA-Tencor, Cadence Design, VeriSign, and Network Associates, which I would hazard a guess are better known and of more interest certainly to technical folks (which this encyclopedia is bursting with, based on the slant of articles) than, say, Knight Ridder, BEA, or Novellus. (Huh--is E*Trade really in SV? Hmmm...) Elf | Talk 20:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for not getting combative. I get a lot of that from my responses when I, personally, am not trying to start a flame war. :-) Back to the list, you do make some good points. For example, Ross Stores is a well-known name, but it doesn't have an article. I just wanted to keep the list concise. For a full-blown list, I'd like to break out a seperate article (just a list). For the in-article list, I think less is more. Keeping names that are well-known to most of the general public was the right approach, IMHO. But I don't "own" this article. I'll go with the will of the masses.
That being said, there are more names that I think should be trimmed from the list:
  • Applied Materials: I added this back when the list was tiny and I wanted to beef it up a bit. Real company, real big, real important, not well-known to general public
  • BEA Systems: Probably only well-known among Nerds Like Us
  • Novellus: Who are these guys?
  • Silicon Graphics: Not very important anymore, but probably still recongnizable to general public; I'm on the fence about this one. Could go either way. Historically significant.
  • Solectron: Never head of 'em.
Anyway, this is all just MHO. Frecklefoot | Talk 21:01, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Both Vertias and Siebel are on the NASDAQ-100 and GSTI Software Index. Does that help tip them to the notable category? --ChrisRuvolo 00:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No worries, they're there. Peace. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'm changing PalmOne to PalmSource. PalmOne is now Palm again, which is already on the list. Feel free to delete PalmSource if you feel it isn't notable. (not joking -- what've they ever done other than lose money?) --Steven Fisher 22:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Was the original Excite based in the Bay Area too? All I know is that Excite@Home was in Redwood City. We could consider adding Excite to the list, since it was once a portal rivaling Yahoo!. Gordeonbleu 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to add Varian Associates to the second part of the list for its great historical importance, and Varian Medical Systems, one of its successor companies, to the main list. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Varian Medical Systems is on the Fortune 1000. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add MobileIron, a leading Mobile device management company.

Citrix has a large operation in Santa Clara... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed again[edit]

I couldn't stand it--people had added tiny companies that no one has heard of. I've said it before: when the list gets too long, it becomes useless. I trimmed the list to more or less companies that are household names or have a big impact on the high-tech marketplace (such as Applied Materials--both Intel and AMD rely on them). If I removed your pet company, sorry. Make a case here. People were using the list to advertise their pet company. I added a note to the list to (hopefully) ward off obscure additions. Frecklefoot | Talk 15:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, these companies ought to be on the page:
  • Solectron (2003 rev - $11B) and Samina-SCI (nasdaq-100) are contract manufacturers for the electronics industy. Solectron was a hot momentum stock during the boom period.
  • Etrade is the well known online broker
  • Xilinx(nasdaq-100), largest FPGA vendor - bigger then Altera (which you left on the page)
  • Juniper Networks (nasdaq-100) - major competitor to Cisco Systems, well-known momentum stock during the 2000 bubble period.
I agree the following are less well known to the general public (but most are well known to investors):
  • Cadence (2003 rev - $1.1B) & Synopsys (nasdaq-100) are dominant Electronic Design Tools companies - known by every chip designer in the world
  • Novellus (nasdaq-100), Lam Research (nasdaq-100), KLA-Tencor (nasdaq-100) are competitors to Applied Materials
  • Maxim (nasdaq-100), Linear Technology (nasdaq-100), Intersil (nasdaq-100) are major analog chip makers.
  • LSI Logic (2003 rev - $2.2B) was the first ASIC company in the world.
  • ALZA is a major pharmaceutical.
  • MIPS and Rambus are influential Semiconductor Intellectual Property companies.
  • Komag (2003 rev - $456M) is a major components manufacturer for the disk drive industy

It is very interesting that the list includes Solectron which was purchased by Flextronics on October 15 of 2007. I don't know whether to delete Solectron from the list. (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Wednesday October 22 2008 7:24 Pacific time Clearly, there are many more high tech companies than I've heard of. I agree that NASDAQ-100 companies qualify for the list, but I didn't intend for the list to be all-inclusive. I just wanted it to give a sampling of some of the high-tech companies headquartered in Silicon Valley. The list has gotten so big that it should be moved from the article into a seperate article of its own. It has gotten too big to be useful. I'd love to trim the article down to about ten companies.

But this is Wikipedia and the will of one does not prevail. Do as you please with the list. I don't own this--or any article--here in the 'pedia. I just developed a paternal interest with the list since I originated it. Frecklefoot | Talk 17:11, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll restrain myself to adding a few that i) have meaningful internal pages and ii) (hopefully) are well-known. I understand your point, but from my viewpoint, web-pages as this one are "prestige" pages, where the authors are impressing on the reader the importance of a place. Otherwise, why describe the history of the place?. dyl

New format for Notable companies[edit]

Since the "list" is getting so long, how does everyone feel about changing the list to something like this:

Adaptec | Adobe Systems | Advanced Micro Devices | Agilent | Altera | Apple Computer | Applied Materials | Atmel | BEA Systems | Cadence Design Systems | Cisco Systems | Cypress Semiconductor | eBay | Electronic Arts | Google | Handspring | Hewlett-Packard | Intel | Intuit | Knight-Ridder | Juniper Networks | Maxtor | McAfee | National Semiconductor | Network Appliance | NVIDIA Corporation | Oracle Corporation | Palm, Inc. | PalmOne, Inc. | PayPal | Rambus | Silicon Graphics | Sun Microsystems | Symantec | Synopsys | Tivo | Verisign | Yahoo!

I've seen this done elsewhere in the 'pedia for lists that get... well... really long. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 20:19, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. Elf | Talk 23:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Done. :-) Actually, now I want to do the same thing to the list of cities, but I'll wait for any backlash regarding this change first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:49, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually the change got me thinking that one issue is the word "notable". So I looked up the Forbes 500 and broke the list into 2 pieces; now the first part isn't arguable. :-) I did NOT look thru the whole 500 list to try to figure out whether there are SV companies that aren't on our list. Someone could do that, but it might be challenging... Also I could argue that any company that has ever been on the Forbes 500 (or Fortune 500, I suppose) should be listed here... because otherwise it would have to be checked every year, and things like PayPal, which I think got bought by eBay, would disappear from the list whereas it's interesting to note that they were started in SV orginally. Elf | Talk 20:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


An anon user just added a rant, which I moved to here (below). S/he cited it, but not very well (who are Pellow and Park?). It seems pretty POV to me. Any comments? Frecklefoot | Talk 18:13, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

"While typically lauded as the engine of the hight-tech global economy and a generator of wealth for millions, Silicon Valley is also home to some of the most toxic industries in the nation, and perhaps the world. Next to the nuclear industry, the production of electronics and computer components contaminates the air, land, water, and human bodies with a nearly unrivaled intensity.
The Valley is also a site of extreme social enequality. It is home to more millionaires per capita then anywhere else in the United States, yet the area has also experienced some of the greatest declines in wages for working-class residents of any city in the nation. Homes are bought and sold for millions of dollars each day, yet thousands of fully employed residents live in homeless shelters in San Jose, the self-proclaimed 'Capitol of Silicon Valley'. Silicon Valley also leads the nation in the numbers of temporary workers per capita and in workforce gender inequities. Moreover, the region has an entirely non-unionized workforce and is as racially segregated as the most big urban centers." (Pellow/Park)

Yup, I was just editing the page while y ou were. I looked up Pellow & Park via Google and they're valid researches who have done a lot of publications on the high tech industry & SV. I made the attribution clearer; see if you're comfortable with the change. Elf | Talk 18:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, it looks good to me. It is POV, but now it's clear that it's a quote and the opinion of Pellow and Park. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 19:09, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The statement about unrivaled intoxination by the nuclear industry, followed by the computer industry is untenable. Just think of the mining industry in Russia or China. What kind of contamination are P&P speaking about? If theirs are "valid researches", it should be possible to find a more specific quote. -- Frau Holle 12:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The entire quote is a study in how to carefully construct sentences to deceive the reader into thinking one fact has to do with another simply because they are juxtaposed. "greatest decline in wages" is due to the volatile nature of the industries - the valley also has the "greatest increase in wages". Lack of unions is actually a sign that wages are good (votes for unionization are mostly rejected by employees). Temps are a reality of a hyper-dynamic economy and the sometimes nearly negative unemployment. It is not the Valley's fault that geeks are generally male, either. Most of the manufacturing has been moved offshore - the photochemical smog is not now what it once was in the 1970s. 10:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my first post so I hope I am doing this correctly. The P/P quote re the "toxic" consequences of IT development seems to me hyperbolic and counterproductive to a balanced account of the area. While a critique to the development is necessary, the startling suggestion that pollution is second only to that caused by the nuclear energy industry is not at all backed up in the article and seems on the face of it rather ludicrous. Much more grounded to me would be to give a fuller account of the political backlash to the development, including statements by actual organizations. As any resident knows (I am a life long resident) there have also been numerous studies by local researchers published in the local media documenting the state of the environment, which in general is much improved since the '60s and '70s. To include solely this quote, which leaves lingering images of vast brownfields and shantytowns, does a diservice to the actual economic, environmental and social issues caused by the rapid development. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Is there a reason this quote is still on there, at least the first part cannot be said to relate to Silicon Valley, how much production of electronic and computer equipment, or even assembling is done in Silicon Valley, or even nearby elsewere in the Bay Area? Is this greater than any other major metropolitan area of equal size? Is the claim even true, that nuclear industry is followed by the production of electronicts in terms of contamination created, more than the coal industry, vehicle use, the oil industry, and aviation industry? Just because it is a quote and it mentions Silicon Valley does not mean it is worthy of being in this article, many people of more notable importance have said many things about silicon valley. I thihk if the content of the quote cannot be corroborated by facts, or if it does not involve Silicon Valley it should not be included in the article. Comments about the manufacture of computer components should be made in articles discussing such issues. As the manufacture of electronic components does not seem to be part of the article (except for in the quote) suggest removing the first quote at least. I will do so in the future if discussion on this goes dead, and it still is the case that people are in favor of removing it. --JVittes 22:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it. Some good observations have been made here for the argument that it is POV and unsubstantiated. And sorry for accidentally removing someone's comments—I don't know how that happened. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the rest of the quote soon if there is no further objections, as that is the concensus here, just a heads up. --JVittes 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geenteen - The Censor[edit]

I added a link to a "San Jose State" site, using the "California State University, Silicon Valley, name ACTUALLY USED BY THAT UNIVERSITY SITE. "Geenteen" erased it, calling it "propaganda'. Where does this guy get off calling a link to a University site "propaganda" and erasing it? Can he censor anything he wants just because he's an administrator?

I'm not Gentgeen, but I'll answer. First, the site you linked to has "California State University in Silicon Valley" as a description of the university, not a name. Second, the GoState link was removed because your site is not an offical San Jose State University site, it's just a site for your campaign to rename SJSU and thus is not relevant to this article. I created an article for your campaign at GoState - you can put your links there. NeoChaosX 17:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The first paragraph has a cite link to TerraServer. I think it'd be great if it actually linked to a satellite photo of Silicon Valley, especially since that's what the sentence that links to it describes. But it doesn't, it just links to the base TerraServer web site. Can someone experienced with using TerraServer and who knows the exact bounds of Silicon Valley update that link so it goes to a satellite photo of the Valley? Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I switched to Google Maps, and you can get a view by clicking on the link, but please remember to zoom out. Terraserver is somewhat user-unfriendly. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Knight Ridder???...[edit]

Should Knight Ridder really be included here? I don't think I would consider them to be a tech company. Their article does say that they've quickly adopted new technologies, but they haven't developed any. They're a newspaper company. They don't develope or produce any hardware or software. So I think they should be removed from the list.

Interesting. You're probably right, but I don't know nuthin' about no K-R except for their media holdings. So I wonder whether someone else has an insight as to why it's listed here when it does state explicitly "high-tech companies". Elf | Talk 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, they were the first to release an online edition of their newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News. They're consistently hailed as the most tech-savvy newspaper available, which isn't surprising considering the location of their headquarters. While they aren't a hi-tech company that develops technologies, I guess they could be called a hi-tech newspaper company. I dunno... Frecklefoot | Talk 21:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah - they're a rapid adopter of new tech, but they're still just tech consumers, not tech producers. If they started marketing web publishing sofware or templates to other newspapers then maybe they could be considered a tech company. I'm gonna move them to other notable companies.

Sillicon valley[edit]

Ottawa has a Sillicon Valley. It refers to the high technology boom area we have. Should this be mentioned? Anyone? --Pat 04:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be mentioned in the "tech centers in the rest of the world" or whatever that section is called. I'm guessing Silicon Valley North is the are you're talking about. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Many new areas have taken on nicknames similar to Silicon Valley. I've seen reference to Singapore as the "Silicon Island" or example. No need to mention any of them by name.Fcsuper 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Silicone Valley?[edit]

"For many years in the 1970s and 1980s it was also incorrectly called Silicone Valley, mostly by journalists, before the name became commonplace in American culture." Is this really true? It sounds pretty bizarre to me. I can see the term used mockingly for someplace like LA with a lot of plastic surgery, but I've never heard anyone think silicon was a misspelling of silicone. KarlM 07:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember it happening, and its not at all unlikely. Prior to the advent of home computers and breast augmentation surgery (which became common around the same time), the average person very seldom heard, or needed to use, either the words "silicon" or "silicone." They were both fairly obscure terms that were spelled and pronounced very similarly, so it would actually be odd if people hadn't confused them back around 1980 or so. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The confusion of silicon with silicon is prevalent among non-geeks---that is, anyone who didn't learn chemistry at a good high school. --Coolcaesar 05:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia's shouldn't be making value judgements ("incorrectly") so I'll revise that sentence a bit in a manner that makes it clear it was journalists and not locals calling it that. Joncnunn 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

There is a user who has been persisting in posting a template comparing Silicone Valley (referring to San Fernando Vally in SoCal where a large amount of pornography is produced) to the subject of this article. I'm treating it as vandalism and have warned the user. Aside from the fact there is no reference that validates the use of the term Silicone Valley (with regard to San Fernando Valley), anyone else care to comment? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, finally resolved with a Disam page and redirects. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore,Hyderabd-Silicon valley[edit]

Bangalore,Hyderabad still have to walk a long road to compete with original silicon valley interms of entrepreneur activities.kundojjala

Plus India has very serious problems with its legal system and government, which makes it harder for startups to form and do business there. They don't have quite the same level of police and fire services as well as trash cleanup, sewage treatment, and road maintenance that we have in Silicon Valley. --Coolcaesar 05:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm wondering if there has ever been a map produced of the silicon valley that would be considered credible and accurate and provide visual reference for those not familiar with the area? --Crossmr 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I know there are some good high-quality paper ones out there, but they are all copyrighted and they cannot be used under fair use. We need one of the WP users with cartography skills to draw one and donate it under the GFDL. --Coolcaesar 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As a Brit can I bump this topic up a bit? - I have no clear conception of the geography related to in this article. Can anybody create something from CC mapping resources?Blakkandekka (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

live in homeless shelters?[edit]

what percent of silicon valley IT people really live in homeless shelters?

Probably alot when the tech bubble burst. Hundreds of thousands of people were without jobs when this happened.--Old Guard 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there has always been the Motel 22 or Hotel 22 phenomenon where lots of homeless people in the Valley sleep on the Line 22 bus (see the articles which I added citations to, in Valley Transportation Authority). --Coolcaesar 22:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The news stories about large scale underclass existing in Silicon valley is total media hype. Makes for sensational headlines, but it's pure bunk. Think about it - IT people make good wages, certainly above national norms. If they are employed, they can certainly pay for at least a room, more usually an apartment. Just browse through the wikipedia articles on each particular town in the valley and note the average household income - much higher then the national norm. If they are un-employed, then most likely they would have moved to other areas where they can get a job (how did they get to Silicon valley in the first place? - it's not like there are thousands of computer programming Joads driving to the valley in their on-the-verge-of-breaking-down model-Ts). Dyl 19:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your view is too narrow. The problem is not IT people, most of whom make more than enough to buy a decent house. It's everyone else who keeps the economy running: teachers, police officers, technicians, and of course, all those other people who work in retail and landscaping and construction. Talk to them and ask them where they live; a lot of the government employees are in state-subsidized affordable housing projects, and everyone else is commuting ridiculous distances from Hollister or Pleasanton or Los Banos, or they're living with ten other people in an apartment designed for three. Try riding "Motel" 22 (I have when my car was in the shop) and meeting the interesting characters who inhabit the bus line.
The more I think about it, it sounds like you need to get out more often. I recommend visiting the superior court in San Jose and watching the arraignments; it is open to the public, after all. That's when you will come to recognize the vast disparities in income in Silicon Valley! --Coolcaesar 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In the news recently, San Jose has exceeded San Francisco for the number of homeless within its limits. Other point: In terms of renting, people are often crowding into small apartments in roommate or family situations where the number of people/couples exceeds the number of rooms. Just take a drive into the city streets south of 280 or east of 101. You'll find those beat up cars you are talking about parked on the streets for miles.Fcsuper 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
All ture, the interesting thing of course it that teachers and many state employees are not anywhere near poor (High school teachers in CA have a median income of $45k vs. $32 for the average American (age 25+)). In most American cities the thought of a high school teacher living in a "project" would be quite strange. Then again, Silicon Valley is the wealthiest metro area in the US with a median household income of roughly $77,000 vs. $43,000 national median. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

pop culture[edit]

I'm going to add places where "Silicon Valley" (california) is referenced or used in Popular Culture. I just need a few more examples --Old Guard 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add this stuff. It just clutters the article. It's a well-known location—it's going to be mentioned in thousands of places. We don't need it in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Silicon Valley of India move proposal[edit]

Hi all, please visit the above move proposal discussion - we need further input. thanks Bwithh 14:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

History section is all wrong[edit]

I just double-checked some of the history section against the Rebecca Lowen book on the history of Stanford through Google Books. The history section is completely wrong. Terman did not participate in the early development of the industrial park and only grasped its importance to the university when it was already filling up with tenants. He was more concerned with developing regional industry and Stanford's reputation by producing high-quality graduates and attracting companies to hire them; it was the trustees who pushed for the industrial park and Terman discovered its relevance to his objectives only after the fact. We need to fix this. --Coolcaesar 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History section needs improvement[edit]

Coolcaesar, you have some valid points there. The history section could be greatly improved. Some "facts" are ungrounded. Some assessments seem incorrect. There are not enough citations. After the Akron and Macon blimps, Moffett Field was an army base, then a Naval Air training base in the 1940s, and housed several patrol squadrons with P2 and later P3 aircraft in the 1960s-1990s. It was not until the 1999 that the US Navy turned the whole airfield over to NASA. NACA and NASA Ames has a long history.

The early history needs more work, and citations are needed throughout. I've added some early technology history (1910-1912) and some references, more needed. There is a big gap between 1910 and 1939. See How Silicon Valley Came to Be -- GeoFan49 08:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DuBridge invented the vacuum tube?[edit]

This paragraph needs citations!

A small marker designates a small house in Downtown Palo Alto as the one-time headquarters of the Federal Telegraph Company, where, early in the twentieth century, Lee Alvin DuBridge developed the first vacuum tube. In the Sixties and seventies, it was inhabited by Stanford students, few of whom possessed a device containing a vacuum tube. (In more recent times, vacuum tubes have become fashionable again, notably in "high-end" audio equipment.)

Nowhere but in Wikipedia is that information to be found!

Lee De Forest invented the triode in 1907, and the first true vacuum tubes were developed in 1915 by Irving Langmuir at the General Electric research laboratory.

-- GeoFan49 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I proprose removing the link:

from External links as it should be in the Bay Area article instead, I think since it is about religion in the Bay Area, not about Silicon Valley specifically. If there is no objection I'll remove it in the future. --JVittes 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Other technology centers[edit]

Is it just me, or are the subsections Other technology centers within the U.S. and Other technology centers around the world just disguised spam? They link to other articles on Wikipedia, but they are so huge, that they're really unbalancing the article. I propose either:

  1. Remove them completely
  2. Move them to a list of some sort (e.g. List of technology centers)

Right now, I just look at them, and it looks like they're saying "Look at us! Look at us! We can program too!" For that matter, Other industrial valleys should go too. Anyone else support this? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless I hear any dissenting voices, I'll make the change in coming days. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been really busy with legal practice recently. But yes, those links have bothered me as well for a long time. I agree with you that all those links should be deleted. None of them is as important as the one and only Silicon Valley, and their relevance is questionable. Silicon Valley generates more patents than any other spot in the U.S. (and probably any other spot on the planet). It's not like, say, in the American entertainment industry where they use the term LA/NY to signify the two cities are equals. The only other major research center in the world that even comes close to Silicon Valley in terms of innovation is Redmond, Washington, but that's only because Microsoft is headquartered there, and Microsoft is still doing a decent job at innovating to keep up with the competition. --Coolcaesar 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes for the top 20 patent producing cities the region produced 14,000 and the next highest, Austin (by itself, has large IBM prescence) produced 1,600, but I thought the Triangle was the largest research center? I may be being prideful but I would think Washington state is useless other than for MS and I don't know much else about the other US tech centers other than that Chicagoland and the DC area(whose tech counties have higher income also) have more tech employment than the Valley and the Bay Area respectively while southern California(all of it) has slightly less tech employment than the Valley. The main reason I think they should stay is because everyone checks the article when they want to find out about a tech region, but might really be looking for a different one.--Old Guard 13:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then I think a separate list is the next best option. I really think these other links are just trying to springboard off of Silicon Valley. Nowhere else really comes close:
  • The Research Triangle is big, but nowhere as big as the Valley
  • I've never heard of "Chicagoland" or DC as being huge tech employers
  • Washington is pretty significant because of MS. Other tech companies have congregated there because of MS.
I used to live in SV and, really, you can't walk 10 feet without tripping over a high-tech company. It really is a geographical phenomena. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia secion[edit]

That paragraph about James is getting a little long. How about:

In the James Bond film A View to a Kill, villain Max Zorin plans to destroy Silicon Valley by detonating explosives between the Hayward Fault and San Andreas Fault, causing them to flood thereby supposedly allowing Zorin to corner on the chip market.

-- 23:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great if someone would just delete the Trivia section entirely. It's pretty dumb in my opinion. Jonemerson 02:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. None of the trivia was notable. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


this article needs a map --AW 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I'm fixing the lead[edit]

Falconleaf made a bad, bad edit to the lead on 5 January 2007 [1] that I just caught. I am reverting the sentences affected back to how they existed prior to that edit. Note that Falconleaf was subsequently blocked for 40 days on 11 March 2007 by User:Infrogmation (a Bureaucrat) after demonstrating a consistent pattern of article vandalism. --Coolcaesar 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Do not rv: I am 10011010070.74.35.252 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Obviously there are enough images here, but you can find some excellent spots for a wide view of the valley by going up Page Mill Road to the south of 280.

I am pulling the planned developments template from this article and modifying the Developments template accordingly[edit]

The user who made those edits is clearly not a California native (judging from his/her user page), probably has never visited Silicon Valley, and does not understand what is a planned community. A planned community is something that has been master-planned like Seaside, Florida or Valencia, California, so that the street grid and zoning are aesthetically pleasing and coherent. While a few communities near Silicon Valley were master-planned, such as the Stanford Industrial Park, Redwood Shores, and the Silver Creek and Evergreen neighborhoods of San Jose, much of Silicon Valley was not master-planned and does not meet any intelligent definition of planned community. For example, San Jose has numerous examples of weirdness in its street system (the gaps in the sidewalk system, unpaved streets, the missing part of Chynoweth Avenue) that would not have occurred if the city as a whole was master-planned. San Jose, Mountain View, and Santa Clara have several instances of residential zones placed too close to light industrial zones. --Coolcaesar 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am identifying two deletions as possible vandalism and countermanding[edit]

In the 9 months since I did a thorough review of this article, anonymous users have removed the gallery of companies (most of which I took) and the reference to the number of patents from San Jose and Sunnyvale, without any warning of explanation. I am reinstating those edits effective immediately. If anyone wants to challenge those edits, I am happy to take either matter to ArbCom. --Coolcaesar 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Livermore and Pleasanton[edit]

I have removed "as well as the East Bay cities of Livermore and Pleasanton." from the opening paragraph. Anyone who has lived here can tell you that they are not part of Silicon Valley, not even close. Geographically or industrially. 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Geographically they on the opposite side of a small mountain range to Silicon Valley, though the nasty 680 Sunol commute and >10 miles of farmland and 10 more of mixed land. Livermore and Pleasanton, combined with Dublin (California) make up what is called the Tri-Valley area. This is NOT SILICON VALLEY. 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Industrially, the Tri-Valley area is not noted dot-com or silicon territory. The fact that Larry Ellison snagged Peoplesoft for Oracle in Pleasanton does not make it part of Silicon Valley, just as Intel's plant in Leixlip, Co. Kildare does not make that Silicon Valley (Silicon Bog?). Livermore's main employer is the Laurence Livermore Laboratory, which performs research on making new weapons of mass destruction amongst other things. Pleasanton and Livermore are not considered Silicon Valley by those who work there, or those who live there. Maybe some realtor (Real estate agent in English) may claim it - but a map will dispel that nonsense. 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reality Check'. I've lived recently about 100 metres from the Pleasanton line, and in Sunnyvale, and I know no one who considered that to be part of Silicon Valley. I've also lived right by the top of 17 and don't know anyone who considers the Santa Cruz Mountains to be Silicon valley or indeed ANY "Valley" but I will leave that bit of nonsense for now - I guess someone thinks that having a Seagate facility up in the sticks can flatten a mountain range into a valley, while taming 10 miles of wild mountainous EMPTY territory along highway 17. This whole article is geographically challenged..... 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the claim that Silicon valley extends to Redwood "City" and that part of San Mateo county is highly questionable - Oracle's place is an outpost up there, the area is primarily beaten up auto repair shops on El Camino. 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I agree with your dia-mono-logue about Livermore, the Redwood City area is not "primarily beaten up auto repair shops on El Camino." In fact, it would be more accurate (or rather less inaccurate) to say that tech centers Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are "primarily auto sellers on Steven's Creek Blvd." A city is more than its main drag. The 101 corridor is full of technology companies that far north and even further north, companies that would not be there if not for Silicon Valley. The billboards in Redwood City advertise not movies or consumer products, but tech companies. True, the Peninsula is not technically "Silicon Valley," but, like the venture capitalists along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, they're an effect of it and can thus pretty much be considered "Silicon Valley" in the same geographically inaccurate way that Burbank can be considered "Hollywood." Livermore, though, that's another kettle of fish altogether.... Calbaer 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. Well all becomes clear as to my suspicions above. Livermore was teleported to Silcon Valley by an editor whose only other edits were:

So I guess Livermore and Pleasanton can rest safely in the knowledge that they have not been unilaterally moved by either property developers or realtors... I won't say that I am surprised, there are certain professions that are notorious for playing fast and loose with geography. 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Go figure... 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whither This List of Universities?[edit]

"Geographically, the following universities are not located in Silicon Valley, but have been important sources of research and new graduates...."

Why are we building this non-SV list at all? The "important sources" criteria would include MIT, UIUC, CalTech, and many other research institutions around the world. At the very least, if we include CSUEB, then shouldn't we also include DeVry, USF, UCSF, SFSU, Chico State, and various other northern Calif institutions. I recommend that we drop this open-ended list altogether. JXM 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is unrelated to the topic of the article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur. This article is too long as is. --Coolcaesar 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I removed it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Generations of technological innovations in Silicon Valley[edit]

Radio, vacuum tubes, transistors and chips.--Mac 11:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

local shout-outs in intro[edit]

I'm not confortable with all the local shout-outs in the introduction. The "Geographically speaking" paragraph should be trimmed to just general regional references (the first sentence only is prolly best). I did add a citation need note for the time being. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talkcontribs) 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The statement about Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz being part of Silicon Valley is preposterous. It may have been more true in the 1980s and early 1990s when Borland was actually a force to be reckoned with, but today Borland is a shadow of its former self. The only major tech company in Santa Cruz, Plantronics, has hit hard times because its biggest market, telemarketers, has been hit hard by the introduction of the national Do Not Call Registry. Even Tarentella, the remnant of the old Santa Cruz Operation, moved out of Santa Cruz in 2006. --Coolcaesar 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I reconcur. The new sited source is suspect and has no authority by which a standard can be established. Just look at the history page to find a simple list of randomly selected moments mingled in with supposed milestones of Silicon Valley history. It goes a long way to show the site as hopeful thinking, rather than a reliable source. I contend the source is not valid to use in this case. Without objection, I will remove most of the geographic shoutouts paragraph. Fcsuper (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Valley[edit]

Is Green Valley included in Silicon Valley ?. --Mac (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Green Valley, California. Since it is located north of the San Francisco Bay, I'd say no. In general, most of the areas located in Silicon Valley are south of the Bay. Plus, I've never heard of it associated with Silicon Valley before. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Geocities most popular section was SiliconValley [citation needed]. Should that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not unless it is (a) significant somehow and (b) ref'ed. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilroy in Silicon Valley?[edit]

I see that an editor added Gilroy to the list of cities in Silicon Valley and another one reverted the edit. I think there is no question that any definition of Silicon Valley which extends up the peninsula past the San Mateo County line, should also include Gilroy. There is nearly contiguous metropolitan area until Gilroy. Transportation infrastructure (US 101 as a freeway, and Caltrain) both go to Gilroy. There are tech companies and workers there. And the agricultural influence in Gilroy has faded with the growth of the city, like everywhere else in the area. I think Gilroy has to be included in Silicon Valley. I'm surprised that anyone thought the first edit needed to be reverted. Though I'm not the one who originally added it, I'll sort of add it back except under the existing heading of "Cities sometimes associated with the region", where it should not be controversial. Ikluft (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People adding to the list should provide verifiable citations, of course. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Gilroy is The Garlic Capital of the World. It can not be assotiated with Silicon Valley. The contiguous metropolitan area until Gilroy you metioned looks more like a rural area. I think it is save to remove it from the list. (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Listing Gilroy as part of Silicon Valley is ridiculous. At most, it's a long-distance commuter suburb for Silicon Valley workers---like Santa Cruz, Pleasanton, Hayward, Tracy, Hillsborough, etc., which are clearly not part of Silicon Valley. Also, the San Jose metro area will never be contiguous with Gilroy thanks to the NIMBY preservationist extremists who have pressured the city of San Jose to restrict development along Coyote Creek south of Almaden, despite the Valley's obvious need for more housing (which is why so many people commute insane distances from Tracy, Livermore, and Pleasanton to San Jose). --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As a nearly lifelong resident of Santa Clara County, I strongly concur. Gilroy is NOT part of the Silicon Valley. Its absurd to suggest that is. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Why doesn't this page mention Microsoft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most people associate Microsoft Corporation with Redmond, Washington which is far from Silicon Valley. Stepheng3 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Menlo Park[edit]

As someone who's been living in Silicon Valley (narrowly defined) almost without interruption since 1972, Menlo Park is the only community outside of Santa Clara County that I believe should be included as a definite part of Silicon Valley (presently there are none, which frankly came as a pleasant surprise, although like I said, I do think Menlo Park should be included). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries of sub-regions are difficult to document for Wikipedia's purposes. There are usually some "I've never/always heard...", "Nobody/everyone says...", etc statements which are in complete conflict with each other. There are constantly questions popping up over definitions of Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, Upstate California, Central California and Northern California - if something isn't bound to a county line which is set in state law, people have different perceptions across this vast and highly-populated state. Often Wikipedia can't find comfortable/stable documentation so the solution is to list alternatives as neutrally and inclusively as possible. Menlo Park is outside Santa Clara County. But since Atherton makes a green-line type divider in the peninsula, Menlo Park associates more closely with Silicon Valley than up the peninsula. Also, the Venture Capitalist and financial specialization along Sand Hill Road firmly plants Menlo Park within the economic cycle of Silicon Valley. Yet another perception takes the fringe of Silicon Valley up to Oracle's HQ in Redwood Shores. It's a valid option to list all of these - it is not Wikipedia's job to pick one and discard others. Ikluft (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It is Wikipedia's job to draw some lines with respect to the definition of the term "Silicon Valley," however, or else the article would serve no purpose (suffice it to to say that Crescent City, California, or, say, Council Bluffs, Iowa, or Moscow, for that matter, are indisputably not part of Silicon Valley, just as it is indisputably clear that Mountain View is a part of Silicon Valley). My suggestion that Menlo Park is more firmly part of Silicon Valley than, say, Santa Cruz and Morgan Hill, is simply a part of that ongoing process. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
How can I convince you that the article should be more flexible than any one person's perception of it? There are a lot of perceptions of the boundaries of Silicon Valley (or any region that doesn't have a border defined as clearly as lines on a map). It isn't as simple as saying it's Santa Clara County. Documentation fails to provide clean references for a border - but we certainly can't just give up and delete the article either! For example with Morgan Hill, there are people who would include it because of the proximity to San Jose and because there are tech businesses there, indicating it is a participant in the Silicon Valley economy. And it's in the county. In a situation like this where we know there are differing perceptions, the best that's likely to be possible for consensus is to be flexible and accept a discussion of the observed definitions which we can live with. Perfection is far too much to expect. I strongly suggest being tolerant of outlying cities being listed in the article as sometimes being associated with Silicon Valley. It's the only way there was/is to get consensus on this. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please look at Wikipedia core policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, it's not a soapbox, and it's not a collection of random information. Wikipedia is supposed to be conservative and trail trends rather than set them (that's what blogs are for). Is this frustrating? Yes. Is it negotiable? No. The point that KevinOKeeffe and I are trying to get across is that only the incorporated cities in northern Santa Clara Valley are universally accepted as part of Silicon Valley, while Menlo Park is debatable due to its proximity to Stanford and the presence of SRI International (where Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse and hypertext). Many other surrounding cities (Fremont, Redwood City, Newark, Pleasanton, Santa Cruz, etc.) have historically demonstrated a lot of peripheral interaction with the Silicon Valley community (along with Berkeley and San Francisco) but are not in Silicon Valley and are not universally accepted as part of it. It's like how Vallejo is right next to Napa County but is not accepted as part of the Napa Valley region, or how Santa Rosa is next to Sonoma (and is actually the county seat of Sonoma County) but is not part of Sonoma Valley. Think about how astounding it would be if Williams-Sonoma ever renamed themselves Williams-Santa Rosa. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you guys want to play lawyer and cite policies, find some citations for an authoritative definition of Silicon Valley. Have fun with that. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT can be tossed right back to you... See, that's the whole problem. I personally agree with that definition of Silicon Valley as a long time resident. But by NPOV, I don't count my views or yours as citable sources. This is a tough one to define. It's a waste of time to argue a strict definition when there is no authority in the real world to make one - it's WP:OR to try to force one. The argument has proven to be neverending. Neutrality dictates documenting that there is some variability in the definitions that are in use. Ikluft (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to have been "cardinal washed" to make it seem like Stanford University was more influential in the development of the Valley than it was. SJSU also seems to be involved in a pissing contest with Stanford, what with the introduction of the SJSU section (which is hardly appropriate in the article).

This article should be revised to reflect the importance of higher education in general in the development of the valley--with Stanford, UC Berkeley, and SJSU leading the way--but not forgetting that many of the Valley's founders were actually transplants from major East Coast engineering universities looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? San Bruno but not San Mateo? (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

HEADQUARTERS Asus is headquartered in Taiwan and Logitech in Switzerland.-- (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Can Oakland really be part of Silicon Valley? I have previously lived in the bay area and I know there is at least two notable companies of being part of the Silicon Valley ( and maybe Pac-West Telecomm, maybe also GT Nexus). (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Oakland is part of Silicon Valley but would bow to a Reliable Source. --Stepheng3 (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove SJSU section[edit]

There are not separate sections for Stanford and Berkeley discussing how they contribute to SV today (though there is obviously the important section on how Stanford helped to establish SV), and the result downplays their contributions today and over-emphasizes SJSU's. For example, "Although Berkeley and Stanford provided the historical basis for high-technology growth in the South Bay and remain at the center of high-technology academic research in Silicon Valley, San Jose State University has emerged as the largest supplier of working engineers to high-technology companies in the region" -- not only does that fail to recognize the contributions that Stanford and Berkeley CONTINUE to make (it suggests that they only have historical contributions--but consider, for example, that Stanford currently has ties to over 3,000 companies in SV, all that it founded, and its people have founded nearly 5,000 companies [2]), but it also fails to mention that SJSU has more representation in SV than Stanford because it has twice the number of students, and more than Berkeley likely because, unlike the other two, Berkeley is not even in Silicon Valley (upper East Bay). Thus, this seems like a case of excessive boosterism.

Two choices: delete the section or expand the section to recognize the continued contributions of not just Stanford and Berkeley, but every other college that contributes significantly to SV (possibly Cal Poly SLO, University of the Pacific, CSU Hayward, etc. I haven't done the research on it though, so those are only suggestions to explore). Since that seems a bit much, I move that we delete the section on San Jose State University. Even if we kept the section, it would have to be rewritten to be less biased and not so "boosterism-sounding." (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I read this section, the more annoying it sounds. Like "graduates often are viewed as the workhorses that power Silicon Valley" (such weaselly words), which the citation does NOT support. Or "... founded or co-founded a number of important high-technology firms, many of which were integral to the commercial growth and development of the region" -- the citation for that only indicates companies, but says nothing about "integral to the commercial growth" and whatnot (more weasel words). And it even says "Additionally, Ray Dolby and Charles Ginsburg are two Silicon Valley luminaries with close ties to San Jose State" -- doesn't even mention that Ray Dolby transferred out of SJSU to attend Stanford (after a military stint) and does not back the assertion that he has "close ties" to SJSU. Unless someone objects, I'm deleting this section just on the basis of the boosterism in the language--clearly there isn't even an attempt to be even-handed and it'd make more sense to delete this section, unless someone wants to write a full, non-biased section discussing all the universities which continue to have significant contributions today. (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
You have my support to delete. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Cisco is a notable company in the Silicon Valley employing more than 73,000 people. Shouldn't Cisco be included in the list ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Santa Clara Valley article and South Bay article into Silicon Valley[edit]

I am suggesting a merger of Santa Clara Valley article and South Bay article into the Silicon Valley article, or all three into a new, combined article. This is because I feel that all the articles essentially summarize facts about the entire area, and that we do not need three separate articles on each. This especially applies to the Santa Clara Valley and South Bay articles, which describe very similar info. In my opinion, we should have one single page (it doesn't have to be called "Silicon Valley"), with separate sections for technology, ecology of the area, population, etc. I think that one detailed article is better than 3 split ones. What do you guys think? Gamer9832 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. South Bay and Santa Clara Valley have different connotations. South Bay normally does not include South Valley areas like Morgan Hill and Gilroy (because they're too far south from the Bay) while Silicon Valley is often now extended (in my opinion, overextended) to cover areas not traditionally part of Santa Clara Valley like Menlo Park and Fremont. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
True, but couldn't there be some overlap on the definition of "South Bay" as a whole? The article doesn't have to be geographically defined. We could have one unified article named "South Bay" or "Silicon Valley". I consider those areas around the edges of the South Bay to the north to be part of "Silicon Valley", or the south bay, just as people sometimes consider Mtn View and Palo Alto as part of the SF Peninsula. Gilroy/Morgan Hill are also considered to be suburbs of San Jose (I know a lot of people who commute from that area to work or go to school in the valley). There's already a separate article on Santa Clara County itself, which could be left separate. But I think we shouldn't have three articles essentially covering the same material. Gamer9832 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel that Silicon Valley is more of a term than a place. You don't see "Silicon Valley" on maps, at least I haven't. You most likely see "Santa Clara Valley." The Silicon designation would seem to be in reference to economics and business. Thus the article should focus on such. While the Santa Clara Valley article should focus on geography. The only thing I would see fit is if they were both merged under South Bay. It seems to be the all encompassing region. But the valley forks do not seem unnecessary. 08OceanBeachS.D. 02:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good reason to keep Silicon Valley separate. So should both South Bay and Santa Clara Valley be merged? I've checked both articles, they cover roughly the same material.Gamer9832 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Partially Oppose. I do believe that most people agree I do agree with Coolcaesar's for the most part (apart from mentioning the below cities). In addition, the below cities that was mentioned in one or two articles either does not include, or does not mention the following cities in part (all three articles):
  • Hollister, California - This was only mentioned in the Santa Clara Valley and South Bay articles.
  • Gilroy, California - Gilroy was mentioned when in the Santa Clara Valley article, it mentioned "as far south as Hollister", but was not mentioned as part of Silicon Valley (Morgan Hill, however, is listed as part of Silicon Valley). (Note that television stations KSBW (including Central Coast ABC) and KION/KCBA often mentions that Gilroy is part of the Central Coast (due to transmitter location), but is technically part of the SF Bay Area DMA due to location within the county, so there is a bit of confusion over such.)
Furthermore, you should consider other cities as not being part of either Silicon Valley or the South Bay. Therefore, I do not think that the articles should be merged for now. CHAK 001 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I see, but we could include these cities in one unified Santa Clara Valley/ South Bay article. The article could be titled South Bay, with one section for Santa Clara Valley, and one for South Valley (Morgan Hill, Gilroy). We could even go further in depth with more sub-sections for Almaden Valley, Santa Teresa area valley, etc. I think it would be better to have one unified article than 2 separate ones. The info on both is about 90% similar. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Silicon Valley, as a cultural and/or historical phenomena, requires its own page - regardless of whether it coincides geographically with another page. It may not be beneficial to include all summary material in both articles, however; perhaps Silicon Valley could be made more concise by removing redundant information (e.g. geographical detail, long lists in the conclusion) that's covered elsewhere.
After reading South Bay and Santa Clara Valley, I agree that they should be merged - ideally in a way that gets that terrible photo of San Jose out of the lead! The South Bay is often taken to include all areas mentioned in Santa Clara Valley, and the degree of overlap limits either article from achieving reasonable length & depth while the other exists.
I'm open to doing a decent share of the legwork if folks are down. Abidagus (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
'Oppose, but' if anything, the Silicon Valley should be merged into the South Bay, and not the other way around. >>Atsuke (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Some not mentioned...[edit]

Some articles in Wikipedia, including ARM Holdings (based in the U.K.), does have a presence in San Jose, as their North American office is based out of there. So far, nowhere in the article Silicon Valley has mentioned that. CHAK 001 (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Linkspam on Wikipedia by someone affiliated with the NetValley site[edit]

I've noticed that someone has inserted quotes in several Wikipedia articles (including this one) which are cited to the NetValley site self-published by Gregory Gromov. That site is clearly not a reliable source because (1) it is poorly written by an amateur with no training in basic historiography and (2) it is self-published. About half of the incoherent garbage on there is (barely) sourced but half of the more speculative and wild ramblings are not. It's clear that someone affiliated with that site (perhaps Gromov or someone else) is inserting citations to it to boost its visibility and probably its prominence on Google's PageRank algorithm as well. I'm going to start purging those quotations soon. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, some condos also tried to do that to the San Jose article a few years back. I have no objection to removing the content. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, no objections, I am purging that garbage from this article now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Coolcaesar pretends that he is talking in behalf of the community of IT history experts, but is not true. He wrote at his Wikipedia user page: "I am a young lawyer... My interests include transportation, healthcare, law, and various cities in California. In other words he has zero clue as to what he is talking about here.

So, his above opinion is not relevant and does not change the facts that US leading historians and academics from the editorial boards of the encyclopedias, scholars and America's most respected publishing houses consider NetValley as reputable source of information about Internet History and in other fields of study in IT trends & history:

See also:

Now let us talk about some of the Internet most prominent organizations that are referring to NetValley :

- The Internet Society (ISOC) is a nonprofit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet related standards, education and policy. The ISOC is referring to NetValley from their List of reputable sources of the Histories of the Internet

- The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community … Led by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. W3C provides the following List of the 4 reputable sources at their A Little History of the World Wide Web that was created circa 1995 by Robert Cailliau:

- Encyclopedia Britannica - online edition: Internet History is referring to "Roads and Crossroads of the Internet History".

Coolcaesar disagrees with all of them, because as a Young Lawyer he knows everything about anything. So, he removed the second paragraph from the following section of Silicon Valley - Silicon transistor and birth of the Silicon Valley:

In 1953, William Shockley left Bell Labs in a disagreement over the handling of the invention of the transistor. After returning to California Institute of Technology for a short while, Shockley moved to Mountain View, California in 1956, and founded Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Unlike many other researchers who used germanium as the semiconductor material, Shockley believed that silicon was the better material for making transistors. Shockley intended to replace the current transistor with a new three-element design (today known as the Shockley diode), but the design was considerably more difficult to build than the "simple" transistor. In 1957, Shockley decided to end research on the silicon transistor. As a result, eight engineers left the company to form Fairchild Semiconductor. Two of the original employees of Fairchild Semiconductor, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, would go on to found Intel.[1] - -

"Thus, over the course of just 20 years, a mere eight of Shockley’s former employees gave forth 65 new enterprises, which then went on to do the same... Conflicts between creative teams and their veteran leadership were of course common in all American industrial parks, both before and after the aforementioned disagreement at Shockley. However, the crux of the matter is that, with the exception of California, all across America there are many different agreements signed between business owners and their employees that restrict the employee’s right to quit and join competing firms or, even worse, go on to create his or her own company in direct competition with their former employer. These non-compete agreements, which new recruits are required to sign ... play the role of graphite rods in a nuclear reactor, slowing the chain reaction of creation of new start-ups all over America"[2]

I intend to restore the above content that was vandalized by Young Lawyer.
--PrqStar (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, you must either be Gromov or someone very close to him. No one else would have the time or motivation to spend so much time on Google Books collecting sources for a Wikipedia talk page as opposed to supporting a Wikipedia article's content. Ever heard the phrase, get a life?
Anyway, I grew up in the West Valley area (where my commute to school involved segments of De Anza Boulevard), majored in history at the most prestigious public university in the United States (guess), specialized in the history of science and technology, and wrote my senior thesis about a major topic in the history of the Internet. I've twice visited Stanford Special Collections at Green Library to paw through Doug Engelbart's personal papers, and I've visited academic and public libraries the length and breadth of the state (including both NRLF and SRLF) to find and photocopy sources. For example, I know that the library at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has a terrific collection of materials on publishing, including markup languages, and I know my way around ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Gale Infotrac, LexisNexis and dozens of other databases. So I know a thing or two about the history of Silicon Valley and the history of technology.
Getting back to the point, you're confusing quantity with quality. Gromov's site is full of sensationalist, unsupported speculation which is methodologically unsound. Any professional historian can see that, which is why none of the items you just cited was written by a professional historian. For example, the books The Internet: A Historical Encyclopedia and the Gale Encyclopedia of Science are clearly intended for the reference section of public libraries, for the use of K-12 students trying to churn out essays. (If you're unaware that there are publishers that specialize in producing hack works for public library reference sections for that particular purpose, that's just sad.) I don't see professionals of the caliber of Janet Abbate or William Aspray citing Gromov's site, because they can see at a glance how terrible it is.
Furthermore, the particular article at issue, "A Legal Bridge Spanning 100 Years: From the Gold Mines of El Dorado to the 'Golden' Startups of Silicon Valley," is absolutely atrocious from my perspective as a lawyer. The sole source cited is California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, which Gromov couldn't even cite properly. From that single section, he extrapolates several thousand words of speculative garbage, none of which is supported by a citation to any source, such as a court case or a law review article. (I guess he was too lazy to visit the local county law library.) While Gromov's style of wild speculation may be appropriate for a close reading exercise in an English course, it is totally inappropriate for a site that purports to provide the history of Silicon Valley. That is why the article cited is not a reliable source, and therefore I deleted the quote from this article and will do it again. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Young Lawyer : Ever heard the phrase, copy paste? Do you know the tools you can use to adjust HTML page to Wiki-markup? It took me a half minute to copy paste here the Citation index of NetValley. In other words: you constantly show your incompetence in every post you make...

You can call me Confucius, or you can call me Pope, you can call me Ray, or you can call me J,..., and every time you break the rules: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. Do not ask for another's personal details. Do not impersonate other editors.

You continue to break the wikipedia rules because you don't have any other choice. You don't know anything about IT industry. Everyone can get it from your past posts in the archives:

- 25 September 2006 Coolcaesar wrote: "Terman did not participate in the early development of the industrial park and only grasped its importance to the university when it was already filling up with tenants"
- 25 October 2006 Coolcaesar wrote: "The only other major research center in the world that even comes close to Silicon Valley in terms of innovation is Redmond, Washington, but that's only because Microsoft is headquartered there, and Microsoft is still doing a decent job at innovating to keep up with the competition."

There are lots of them. The sad side of the story is that you dominates in the discussion about ... Silicon Valley.

Back to the topic. Let me bring to your attention that you didn't write a word about the quote that you removed. I suggest you don't have any clue whatsoever what this qoute is about. This is a reason why you prefer to talk about NetValley, about article, about yourself, about myself, ..., about all kinds of things...

You are bragging: "I know a thing or two about the history of Silicon Valley." Yes, I'm sure, you do know. That was a reason why I've quoted above these "two things" because I wanted to emphasize what exactly you do know "about the history of Silicon Valley."

What you don't know is how the scholars and publishing houses in US and Britain keep their standards of quality high.

According to your understanding, the above listed University Press of America, Association of College and Research Libraries (American Library Association), Judge Institute of Management (University of Cambridge), Routledge (British publishing House), ..., Encyclopædia Britannica can publish a book that "is full of sensationalist, unsupported speculation which is methodologically unsound".

Go out of your way to learn about topics that you don't know anything about. Then please come back and we will have an opportunity to continue this conversation.

It seems you seriously think that as a Young Lawyer you can better evaluate the quality of publications about IT history than leading experts of Internet Society (ISOC), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and all other above listed scholars and publishing houses including editorial board of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Let me admit that I really admire your self-confidence, you are a true inspiration. As it was told by Mark Twain, All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure. --PrqStar (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the first statement of mine about Terman was and is still correct. Rebecca S. Lowen, in her book Creating the Cold War university: the transformation of Stanford, specifically states at page 131 that "Terman was not involved in the initial planning stages of Stanford's land development program or what became the industrial park." On page 136 she describes Terman as "opportunistic." You can easily locate Bowen's book on Google Books. I happen to know it quite well because it was assigned reading in a course I took in college on the history of American science in the post-WWII era. So that shows how much you know about Silicon Valley.
The second statement was true at the time it was made, although after Bill Gates retired in 2008, Microsoft began floundering and continues to flounder to the present, when it failed to put out decent operating systems for mobile phones and tablets (Windows Mobile and Windows XP for tablets were both atrocious), and Apple then conquered those segments by releasing the iPhone and iPad.
Anyway, to be more specific about what's wrong with quoting from NetValley, please see the Wikipedia policy on quoting self-published and questionable sources. Specifically, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Under this policy, NetValley is not a reliable source. It is a site with no editorial oversight (e.g., it is simply Gromov's personal views, with no additional layer(s) of editorial filters), is promotional in nature (in the sense that it attempts to promote itself), and relies heavily upon personal opinion. It is essentially a very large blog.
I also note that all of your arguments in response are tangents and non sequiturs, which in and of itself highlights the weakness of your position. You do not even attempt to defend the indefensible---that is, Gromov's failure to cite to any sources other than the statute itself. Indeed, Gromov apparently did not even attempt to make any inquiry into the history of Business and Professions Section 16600 (former Civil Code Section 1673), or he would have realized that it was not an invention original to California. In less than five minutes of searching through Google Books, I was able to figure out that it was actually based on Section 833 of the proposed New York Civil Code, which was never enacted in that state but did inspire the drafters of the California Civil Code in many respects.
Also, your position that the number of sources that cite a source are indicia in themselves that the source is reliable is incredibly immature and simply wrong. For example, a lot of people initially believed the Bush administration's representations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq---those nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. The reliability of a source is determined not by who cites it, but whom it cites.
Turning to the quote itself, no one disputes that Shockley alienated his co-workers, and in turn, Fairchild Semiconductor spawned a huge number of companies both directly and indirectly. The problem is that (1) the rest of the quote consists of bizarre speculation that the use of noncompete agreements in other states poisons the growth of their economies (which is only partly true as to some, not all states); and (2) the NetValley article cited consists of Gromov's wild (and most likely incorrect) attempt to link the world of Gold Rush California to present-day Silicon Valley through a single statute. Gromov cites no source for that flimsy connection. A professional historian trying to make such a difficult connection would cite to and analyze actual primary sources to show the express intent of the statutory drafters, or in the absence of such sources, specifically identify the drafters by name and analyze each of their personal backgrounds. Gromov does none of these things.
The article consists of the kind of pie-in-the-sky speculation which may be appropriate for a creative writing class, but not for history writing which is supposed to be based on drawing connections between actual facts. That is, the article looks like the kind of thing one would write for a creative writing exercise in a community college English course where the text of Business and Professions Code Section 16600 was given as the essay topic. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Coolcaesar, it’s amazing. You’ve read an above list of the editorial boards of world’s leading publishing houses and top level universities that constantly cite the publications NetValley as one of the most reputable sources and call it “a site with no editorial oversight” . So, let us conclude here:

1.Your initial statement was that NetValley “is clearly not a reliable source” and someone who provides link to it is “affiliated with that site … to boost its visibility and probably its prominence on Google's PageRank algorithm as well”.
2. Your previous eye opening statement was that Fred Terman actually was not a Farther of Silicon Valley. And you even brought to our attention a book you were looking for to prove this your point.
3.Then you went even further with the nonsense and have shown that you don't have any knowledge about US high-tech areas at all. You stated that patent-wise Microsoft can be comparable to the Silicon Valley companies all together .

Have I got a little bit more news for you?

1) IT industry top level organizations like World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Internet Society (ISOC) as well as editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica and lots of other reputable sources have cited to NetValley before the “Google's PageRank algorithm” was invented and Google was even founded.
The citation index is a well known objective criteria for evaluation of reputable sources . What you are talking about is your opinion and nothing more than that.
2) There were tons of most reputable sources that were referring to FRED TERMAN, THE FATHER OF SILICON VALLEY a long time before you begin to learn how to read.
3) Your statement: "The only other major research center in the world that even comes close to Silicon Valley in terms of innovation is Redmond, Washington, but that's only because Microsoft is headquartered there,” - was not true “at the time it was made” , because … it was always wrong and you know that you can't prove your point.
Your suggestion that the situation with patents among US high-tech areas was significantly changed “after Bill Gates retired in 2008”, because “Microsoft began floundering and continues to flounder to the present, when it failed to put out decent operating systems for mobile phones and tablets (Windows Mobile and Windows XP for tablets were both atrocious), and Apple then conquered those segments by releasing the iPhone and iPad” just additionally demonstrates that you are absolutely out of touch with reality. After all, did you hear how long does it take to register a patent?

Let me be clear about this. I don't care what you know and what you don’t. This is your personal problem. The topic I am discussing here is a Wikipedia’s loophole that provides some of the ignorant people with an opportunity to determined the content of important articles like for instance the Silicon Valley.

Look, what’s going on. The Silicon Valley is a worldwide capital of IT industry. For many years you (!) have been a judge over the content of the article about the Silicon Valley.

What you are doing here is one of the best illustrations to the well-known motto: "the highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." You have demonstrated again and again that you can’t understand even a word of the quotation:

Thus, over the course of just 20 years, a mere eight of Shockley’s former employees gave forth 65 new enterprises, which then went on to do the same... Conflicts between creative teams and their veteran leadership were of course common in all American industrial parks, both before and after the aforementioned disagreement at Shockley. However, the crux of the matter is that, with the exception of California, all across America there are many different agreements signed between business owners and their employees that restrict the employee’s right to quit and join competing firms or, even worse, go on to create his or her own company in direct competition with their former employer. These non-compete agreements, which new recruits are required to sign ... play the role of graphite rods in a nuclear reactor, slowing the chain reaction of creation of new start-ups all over America

As long as you don't understand it, you prefer to talk instead about Bush, … WMD, … WW2 … and lots of different versions of Business Code that you were so happy to find out. I still don't think that this discussion is a good place to talk about politics , but … I have more news for you. Whatever version of the California Business Code you prefer to quote it does not change anything in the meaning of article in hand. Needless to say about WMD, WW2, Bush and list of your college courses …

Again, it is not about you as a young lawyer who decided that he can edit an article about Silicon Valley. Worries me that anyone with no knowledge at all can highjack the Wikipedia’s most important articles. As it was quoted above: “all you need … is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure

PS. One of my colleagues was very excited by this discussion and he is not alone in his desire. Many other researchers are looking for more effective solution of handling the forums and conferences, because the problem is real, it's pervasive, and it's growing.
--PrqStar (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you just rambled around and around in circles without responding to the core issues I already raised. Namely, you refuse to confront the issue that regardless of how many sources cite NetValley, that doesn't change the fact that it is not a reliable source within the definition of a reliable source in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. What matters is whether a source fits the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source (i.e., it has editorial filters and cites to reliable primary sources), not how many people cite to it.
I note that you simply dismiss and ignore that point because you have no response to it (probably because you know you lose on that point). That blind spot on your part indicates that you probably have not taken any courses in philosophy of knowledge.
Going back to the "crux of the matter": Does NetValley have a professional editorial staff? No. You have cited nothing to that effect, because it doesn't. Does NetValley cite reliable primary sources in support of the bizarre inferences it draws? No. Does NetValley cite a single source in support of its bizarre assertion that there is a connection between the world of Gold Rush California and modern Silicon Valley? No. Does NetValley cite a single source in support of its bizarre assertion that other states have less startups than California because they enforce noncompete agreements? No. (In fact, considering the economic situation in Texas and Virginia nowadays, NetValley's assertion is simply wrong as a matter of fact.) And under core policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, NetValley cannot be cited here on Wikipedia, Q.E.D. Simple as that.
Also, I note for the record that you have not denied any personal connection to the NetValley site, or for that matter, Gromov. Indeed, your taking offense at my pointing out that possibility is telling in and of itself. If you are Gromov (or a close relative), the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest clearly disqualifies you from adding citations to NetValley to Wikipedia (specifically the portions against self-promotion and self-citation).
Besides, I fail to see how Gromov would have any particular insight into the history of Silicon Valley. Public sources show him to be a 70-year-old retiree stuck in Folsom, of all places. (It's the 7th or 8th hit that comes up on Google.) Folsom's main contribution to California history is Folsom Prison Blues.--Coolcaesar (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Coolcaesar,

1. As you've shown above I was perfectly right when I refuse to answer your question about myself. Now everybody can see what you are doing with this kind of information, when you can get it.
2. Perhaps sometimes in future somebody will help you to understand that Wikipedia founders wonted to be sure that the level of quality of it’s content will be as close as possible to reputable encyclopedias. Then you probably understand that your above opinion that Wikipedia definition of the reputable sources can contradict requirements of Encyclopædia Britannica (as well as other reputable encyclopedias listed above that cited to NetValley as a reliable source of information about IT history & trends) was completely wrong.
3. You wrote: "Does NetValley cite a single source in support of ... ?" No, it does not. You are right. Absolutely. Perhaps there will come a time when you will begin to understand gradually, little by little, the IT industry trends. Then you will try to read the article again and think about what you have just written. You will probably understand that there are some articles than does not need any links, and this is one of them. You can't get it now, because the topic itself is a Terra incognita for you.
4. The current level of your understanding of the IT industry trends & history should not be allowed to hinder the quality of content of one of the most important articles of Wikipedia.
5. Who knows when it will happen, but I still hope that you will enjoy this discussion. The more you read the more you will begin to understand the topic and also yourself.

--PrqStar (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You made a fatal admission with the sentence: "You will probably understand that there are some articles than does not need any links, and this is one of them." Wrong. That amounts to an admission that the citation/quotation to NetValley violates Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:No original research. So if I see any edits putting the disputed text back in the article, I will countermand them immediately.
This is not an article on something as frivolous as a Justin Bieber song. An article on a topic as important as Silicon Valley needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources published through reputable academic and commercial publishing houses, in conformance with the aforementioned core policies of Wikipedia---as distinguished from citations to wild uninformed speculation on the personal Web site of a retiree stuck in a prison town three hours away from Silicon Valley. (To be fair, Folsom's largest employer is the Intel campus, but Folsom is not home to a huge number of startups like Silicon Valley cities.) Anyway, unless you have any additional substantive points to make, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote (see above PrqStar20:46, 18 September 2011), "the current level of your understanding of the IT industry trends & history should not be allowed to hinder the quality of content of one of the most important articles of Wikipedia". You disagree. I understand it. We did not have any chances to understand each other, but hopefully the above text itself will clarify a lot to the next generations of the Wikipedia developers. --PrqStar (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS notice: OTRS has received notice that the discussion on this page is showing signs of incivility. Please refrain from personal attacks or the use of alleged personal information. The editors are also asked to assume good faith and recognize the rights of others to make relevant edits and voice their opinions on the discussion page. In particular, editors are requested to abstain from any possessive attitudes towards the article subject. Thank you. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)



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)

edit the article![edit]

It says it's in Pakistan ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

sillicon valley all question's here[edit]

why is it called sillicon valley

use of article before silicon valley[edit]

I've never contributed to a wikipedia talk page before, but I felt the need to chime in here (sorry if I do something wrong).

As a life-long san francisco resident, I've never heard anyone from the bay area call it "The Silicon Valley", with an article in front of the name. "Silicon Valley" or "the valley" are both common, but I'd venture a guess that "The Silicon Valley" is either archaic or not indigenous. It's not the most common form in the article, but there are half a dozen uses, including one in a subheading, and it stuck out to me like a sore thumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, such uses are relatively rare (but there are a few, like here). But I only saw one place in the article to fix, so I did. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


I've restored the hatnote because Silicone Valley does now redirect to this article per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25#Silicone Valley that it was most likely a misspelling of "silicon" but that some people would be looking for the San Fernando Valley. It's not about notability at all, but allowing readers to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not need a hat note every time there is a redirect. I think the redirect itself is fine but I see no need to mention the porn industry at the very beginning of this important article. I think that the chances for confusion between the two valleys 350 miles apart and the two unrelated industries are so small that the note adds no value to readers and is instead a "headshaker". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The consensus at the RfD was that most people searching for "Silicone Valley" were misspelling "Silicon" and so wanted content about the technology industry, hence the title now redirects here. However the consensus also was that there were some people who were not misspelling it and are looking for the Adult Entertainment industry so we need a hatnote so they can find the content they are looking for. It is nothing to do with the "importance" of either article, and nothing do with people calling one by the other name, it is all about people misspelling "Silicon" and enabling readers to find the content they are looking for. It may be possible to change the wording of the hatnote to make that clearer, but in all cases like this it is very important that there is a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As the hatnote has again been removed without discussion, I have invited every participant in the RfD discussion and users watching the SF Bay Area and California WikiProject talk pages to offer their opinions here about the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Thryduulf. At RfD I recommended that Silicone Valley be made into a disambiguation page. It's very common as a misspelling, but I've provided several citations (indeed, a cite-bomb) which show the intentional spelling is also notable. One commenter at the RfD performed a "cursory Google search"; Google excludes pornography-related results by default, so that the reference to the San Fernando Valley may appear less common than it really is. I do have the impression that the misspelling predominates; Thryduulf's action implies that he has assessed it as the primary topic; while I'm not certain it is, I concede that it may be. The hat note causes a slight bit of clutter for everyone who reads this article, whereas a disambiguation page would only cause inconvenience for visitors who enter the site via the ambiguous term. However, such pages are normally not made if there are exactly two uses of a term, and one is the primary topic. It could only be made if someone can show that the Santa Clara Valley is not the primary topic for the term "Silicone Valley."
Just deleting the hat note is not proper, because reliable sources attest to the San Fernando Valley being a meaning of "Silicone Valley". Another way out for those who prefer not to see pornography mentioned at the top of this article would be to create an article about the Silicone Valley brassière [3]. Then WP:TWODABS would no longer apply, so the hat note could discreetly say Silicone Valley redirects here. For other uses, see Silicone Valley (disambiguation). All the nastiness about porn and bras could be hidden away on the dab page. —rybec 00:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree a disambiguation page would be better than a hatnote on this article. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm okay with a hatnote. --Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not OK with the hatnote and here's why. I don't dispute that San Fernando Valley has been referred to over the years as "SiliconE Valley" by the locals (I used to be one), the porn industry, and the porn industry press, BUT I've yet to see anyone make a case that anyone confuses Silicon Valley with the porn capital of the world. There's barely a mention of the nickname (one of several I might add) in the San Fernando Valley, but somehow there is enough confusion that this particular one must be emblazoned at the top of the article for the area where the term originated. I call BS on the part of anyone trying to confuse the two subjects. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I saw this on ANI. I think the hatnote is very WP:UNDUE. Basically an advert for a damn obscure thing plastered on a much more prominent article. The "silicone" business/nick is not even mentioned in the lead of its own article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – In spite of the discussion that led to redirecting the redirect, I support making Silicone Valley a disambig page instead as rybec and John Vandenburg suggest above, so that readers of this article won't always see that distracting minor usage "emblazoned" at the top of article, as Scalhotrod says. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that turning Silicone Valley into a dab would be a more sane solution than the current setup. Despite the (low turnout) vote in the RfD, nobody produced sources that "silicone" valley might refer to silicon valley, so WP:TWODABS is being ridiculously misapplied here, besides the fact that it's just a guideline and NPOV/UNDUE is policy. (Thryduulf, who closed the RfD, appears to have simply done a head count rather than evaluate the arguments based on policy; even then, there were 3 votes for this present retargeting, one for deletion, one for keeping as it was (to the Fernando valley) and one for dab. At best that's a 3 vs 3 vote so a no-consensus situation. Also two of the three "retarget" votes said that "'Silicone Valley' is not mentioned at the target" and "There is no content at the redirected site which refers to 'Silicone Valley'", i.e. at Fernando valley, which now does happen to mention "silicone", rendering those votes' rationale moot.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec) In the RfD, multiple people said explicitly that "Silicone Valley" is common as a misspelling, and no one disputed that it is. One person stated that it is very much more common as a misspelling, and no one attempted to refute that claim. When one use is much more common than all others combined, it is the primary topic and readers are normally directed to the article about that meaning; a hat-note is normally supplied to let them navigate away. Wikipedia:REDIRECT and Wikipedia:Disambiguation are the guidelines which explain this. Although I don't especially like Thryduulf's assessment, it is a correct one. What's needed for Silicone Valley to be a disambiguation page is some evidence that the misspelling is not far more common than the San Fernando meaning. Demanding sources for the misspelling, when it's been mentioned that they can be found with a "cursory Google search", is not constructive. —rybec 23:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm glad that reasoned and cooler heads could prevail on this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

Scalhotrod posted while I was composing my comment (time-stamp 23:02). —rybec 23:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: do you intend that this should be closed now, and the hat-note removed from this article? —rybec 23:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod has already removed the hatnote from the article. Personally I don't see that this discussion has reached a consensus for or against the hatnote, so removing it is premature at best (even ignoring the attempted forum shopping to ANI). The talk page notifications were listed less than 24 hours ago!
It wasn't me, someone else removed it and created the Disam page. Check the History --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my arguments that as long as Silicone Valley redirects to this article there needs to be a hatnote pointing to the other uses of the term. Whether that is a disambiguation page (which wasn't suggested at the RfD) or the San Fernando Valley article doesn't matter, but readers arriving here who haven't misspelled "Silicone" are being disadvantaged for no reason. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
At the RfD, John Vandenberg had written "Maybe a dab page could be justified?" I see that I didn't specifically recommend a disambiguation page, but that was a possibility I had in mind when I wrote "disambiguate". For your assessment to be properly overturned, there should be a consensus (preferably one supported by evidence) that the misspelling is not the primary topic. If the correct spelling is "damn obscure", then a disambiguation page is not justified. —rybec 01:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Silicone Valley doesn't redirect here anymore. It redirects to Silicone Valley (disambiguation). Arguably that page could be moved over Silicone Valley itself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the change in the redirect, as this is not the proper venue to resolve an RfD issue, and a "Foo" title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title. The RfD resolution stands until another discussion in an appropriate venue yields a change. Please note that any proposal to move Silicone Valley (disambiguation) to Silicone Valley must be done through Wikipedia:Requested moves, as it is already clear that such a move would be controversial if done without discussion. Such a move request is now underway at Talk:Silicone Valley (disambiguation)#Requested move. bd2412 T 19:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That move is in progress. See Talk:Silicone Valley (disambiguation). I see no good reason to preserve an incorrect redirect in the mean time, which was created largely under the mistaken assumption that there are no other valid targets, and which really lacked actual consensus even under that assumption. I see no reason to send that RfD to DRV, but I will do so if the redirect to here is restored again. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


The article says that Silicon Valley is a pseudonym. This word means fake name, not generally assumed name. What is the right word? Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It said "nickname" until a recent change by Scalhotrod [4]. I would call it a nickname. —rybec 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Knock yourself out coming up with something else, I'm not married to the use of "Pseudonym". But nick name isn't appropriate since Silicon Valley does not have a formal name that its goes by. A nick name is used in lieu of a formal name. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
How about "name" or "term"? —rybec 06:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Or "moniker", as here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Take a look at this paragraph from the Demographics section:

As of 2014, many Silicon Valley companies consist primarily of men, and Non-Hispanic Whites. Higher education, particularly from many top American universities, is a common factor among Silicon Valley employees. In 2014, Facebook found that 77% of its senior level employees were men and 74% were White. Overall, 41% of its employees were Asian, whilst 2% of employees were Black. Similarly, at Google, 17% of employees are women, and 72% of leadership positions are held by Whites (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic). These findings brought criticism by some for their low employment of female and Black employees, and the overrepresentation of Asian employees when compared to national demographics, where Asians make up only 5% of the national population.

Notice anything odd? All races are capitalized. I don't regularly edit articles about race or race issues here on the 'pedia, but is this common and supported by some standard? I can see capping "Asian" (since Asia is a proper noun), but why "White", "Black" and "Non-Hispanic White"? If someone can please justify this to me, I'd be obliged. Otherwise, I'll consider changing them all to lowercase (except for Asian). Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the first sentence as its unsourced. The rest is sourced and could likely be presented in a more encyclopedia manner. Statistics seem to be abused fairly often IMO. Currently the paragraphs reads like some sort of "accusation" versus just a plain, balanced reporting of facts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this section is that it's supposed to be on the demographic makeup of the entire valley, but is focused on the workforce of two companies, who between them employ only a small percentage of area residents. (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)