This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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)

I proprose removing the link:

• A Review of the Bay Area Shia Centers

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)

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. 207.154.79.131 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 69.236.164.173 ( 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Silicon Valley is the setting for Totally Spies! episode 10: Silicon Valley Girls
• Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition, and Still Can't Get a Date (1992: ISBN  0887308554; 1996: ISBN  0-14-025826-4, with new material) a book written by Robert X. Cringely

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)

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. Signature ^brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

-- 71.222.203.7 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)

Do not rv: I am 100110100 70.74.35.252 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. 24.7.91.244 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. 24.7.91.244 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. 24.7.91.244 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..... 24.7.91.244 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. 24.7.91.244 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:

• Related to a real estate development company, Pardee Homes that once had an office and project in, you guessed it... Livermore.
• Added Pardee Homes wiki link to Real-estate developer‎ (→Notable developers)
• One unrelated article (Urban sprawl‎)
• Asked for page protection when real neutral editors worked in Pardee Homes. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=86103538 )

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. 24.7.91.244 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Go figure... 24.7.91.244 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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

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 ( talk • contribs) 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)

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 76.117.123.222 ( 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)

Why doesn't this page mention Microsoft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.53.160 ( 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)

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

dyl

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. 24.22.115.31 ( 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

---

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: http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/California/Metropolitan_Areas/San_Francisco_Bay_Area/Counties_and_Regions/Silicon_Valley/Cities/

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)

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. 99.48.49.151 ( 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)

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)

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 (Ask.com and maybe Pac-West Telecomm, maybe also GT Nexus). 76.254.35.143 ( 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)

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." 66.59.249.107 ( 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. 66.59.249.107 ( 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 171.70.225.165 ( talk) 22:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. 08OceanBeach^S.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)

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)