Talk:San Jose, California

San Jose bigger than San Francisco?

SJ biggest city in northern California? Seems like SF is bigger than SJ. Regarding sentence within lede paragraph.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "seems like." San Jose is objectively bigger than San Francisco. Moonboy54 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

From the lede paragraph of the SJ article as of January 2 2015: San Jose is the largest city within the Bay Area and the largest city in Northern California. So San Jose beats out San Francisco because SJ has a larger land area -- but San Francisco is really the major city in northern California, in terms of its metro area, shouldn't be penalized because of narrow city boundaries. Its airport has much more traffic than San Jose's airport. If we think of metro areas, San Francisco is the dominant one in the Bay Area.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The metro area is referred to as the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area, so really San Francisco isn't necessarily dominant. Apart from that, bigger is not just in terms of size but population, which San Jose also beats San Francisco at. Apart from that, San Jose is the driving base for the majority of Silicon Valley's enterprises, thus making the city an economic hub of significance. The difference is that San Francisco is more "city-like", with a condensed, population-dense city core and obviously a longer history as a powerhouse city, a thriving financial center, and continues to be the dominant cultural center. This, however, does not diminish San Jose's objective place as the larger city, land-wise and population-wise, and as a significant regional and national economic hub. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, it just seems like SF is the "center" of the Bay Area, not SJ, regardless of where the city lines are drawn. The rest of the country probably sees SF and LA as the two primary California cities, and it may look like SJ is trying to squeak past SF here on a technicality. The SF airport is clearly a major one (with direct flights); the SJ airport (while nice and newer) has basically one runway, and flights there are of the hub-and-spoke variety.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is that there are two different definitions of "biggest" being argued here: "most important" versus "larger." The former is debatable, while the later is a fact. San Jose has both a larger landmass and a larger population than San Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldafanjtl (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

San Jose will likely see the gap growing more and more. I'd argue this is mainly due to the area difference. San Jose has an area of almost 4 times that of San Francisco. (3.766). In discussions of city size, population, and economy in the future, the defining factor would likely be what is considered in city of San Francisco and what is not. By strict city limits, San Jose beats San Francisco currently and for the foreseeable future. However on a global scale, San Jose barely registers as a separate entity. "Most important" would probably be on the cities "sphere of influence" which would be impossible to define. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbittaker (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• If anybody can find sources to back these thoughts up to add to the article: San Francisco had the advantage of being the first major city in the Bay Area, first achieving worldwide significance as the major port city during the California Gold Rush. Thus, it has been hard to change the worldwide common wisdom that SF is the "center" of the Bay Area. San Jose on the other hand had the advantage of having the ability to expand across the Santa Clara Valley to increase its area and population, while SF, as a consolidated city-county, could not expand unless the state legislature changed county borders. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• The article lists San Jose as a Global City, but the primary report that article cites that ranks cities on their importance to global affairs - The World According to GaWC 2018 - lists San Francisco as an 'Alpha -' (alpha minor) along with cities such as Montreal, Rome, and Washington D.C., while ranking San Jose as a 'Gamma' city, on par with cities like San Diego, Bilbao and Calcutta. The report's methodology uses things like impacts to global finance, tourism, commerce, cultural influence, and other factors. So, at least from that report, San Francisco is almost an order of magnitude more 'global' than San Jose as far as its influence on world affairs. Hence, while the article's statement about San Jose's size (both area and population) is inarguable, there could be room for a mention on 'importance' or 'prestige' in comparison to other cities in the Bay Area and the state. Mwehman (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a little tricky, because when "San Francisco" is mentioned in a global context, it often refers to the whole San Francisco Bay Area, which includes Oakland, San Jose, and many other smaller cities (e.g., Palo Alto, Mountain View) Ross Finlayson (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Adding some history to this long-standing topic... San Jose and San Francisco as well as some rivalry between them go back to their beginning. San Francisco was established as a Spanish military fort in 1776. San Jose was established by its city charter issued by Spain in 1777, making it the first incorporated city in California. By the time of the Gold Rush, San Francisco became influential as the primary Gold Rush seaport. As California's oldest city, San Jose was selected as the first state capital at the state constitutional convention in Monterey in 1850. Quotes from that convention are at the historical marker at Circle of Palms Plaza. The railroad that was built to connect the seaport in SF and the capital in SJ still exists today as CalTrain. Before the railroad was completed, both cities lost their original influence as the Gold Rush ended, crashing the economy of SF's seaport, and the capital was moved from SJ to a sequence other cities in a state-capital bidding war. The 1906 earthquake affected both cities, except that the water mains weren't broken in San Jose and fires were extinguished before reaching the devastating scale that occurred in SF. As California's boom-and-bust economic cycles continued into the 20th Century, both cities saw phases of economic development and increasing influence again, but with San Francisco leading that curve at a good time to gain fame. The rise of Silicon Valley fueled San Jose's economic growth but mainly visible to business (i.e. SJ contributes far more to US exports) and not nearly as much for tourism (SF also has big businesses but is known for the bridge & bay views). Even though the two cities are separated by only 30 miles, California's mountainous geography has given each a different climate - SF is open to the ocean and much cooler; SJ has a warmer and drier climate in the rain shadow of the 3000' Santa Cruz Mountains. The difference in weather (i.e. you'll be very cold if you go to SF dressed for the weather in SJ) accentuates the differences in culture between the cities. There is no clearly dominant city among the two; and along with the economic influence of Oakland's seaport, it's realistic to look at the Bay Area as having a triumvirate of dominant cities. Trying to pick just one doesn't work. It's primarily the body of water, not the city, that gets the area called the San Francisco Bay Area. Ikluft (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Number of photographs is grossly excessive

When an article begins to look like a Google Image Search page or an Instagram feed, it's a sign that certain editors haven't read the Manual of Style, aren't sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and don't have sufficient publishing experience in a professional production environment. The only commercial environments where this style is acceptable are coffee table books, tabloid magazines, and certain types of travel guidebooks (Dorling Kindersley in particular comes to mind). It is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia written for adults, though I suppose more pictures might be appropriate for the Simple English Wikipedia version of this article. At some point, someone will need to clean up this chaotic mess, but I personally don't have the time or energy right now. This is just to point out the issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that I missed the proposed move above because I was on vacation in late December. This is to reiterate my longstanding support for that move. When people around the world refer to a city called San Jose, they are usually referring to the one where Adobe software comes from. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate section needs humidity

I've seen "Average relative humidity (%)" for other cities. -- Dandv 03:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

wrong picture please correct

in visual arts it says there is a statue of Augustus at the Rosicrucian Egyptian museum which is wrong. First, I have been there myself in late 2018/early 2019 and there is no statue of him. Second its an Egyptian museum and Augustus is a roman emperor please remove this picture 2601:646:8600:C310:B5DF:FA98:EE4C:EFA4 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I'm not au fait enough with American sports, though I live in San Jose. But please - discuss your differences here, provide references, and I or another admin can unprotect the article. But this daily back-and-forth needs to be resolved - Alison ^❤ 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ima be honest i forgot talk pages were a thing lol. theres no reason why the 49ers should be listed here they dont play in the city, theres no other teams that dont play in the city that play in the metro area here, like the standford cardinal wich you didnt add wich shows you dont care you just want to be right, and if you think the list shoudnt include collge teams why are the san jose state spartans listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9750:A140:B05A:708B:BBFC:D441 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply. The basis of my argument is as follows:

• Levi Stadium in Santa Clara (home of the 49ers) is 3,000 ft from the San Jose border
• There is precedent on other major city articles for including major sports teams within their metro on their sports section. Examples include Miami (Hard Rock Stadium is home of the Dolpins but located in the city of Miami Gardens, Florida), Los Angeles (SoFi Stadium is home of the Chargers but located in Inglewood, California), New York City (Metlife Stadium is home of both the Jets and the Giants but located in New Jersey!). The list could go on far longer but I think I've made my point. They all make it clear the stadiums are in separate cities (as does the statement on the 49's make it clear they play in Santa Clara).

I hope I have made my argument well. @Alison:, I ask that you maintain the lock on the page until consensus can be established, as the IP has already undone the inclusion. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Discussion of including San Jose State is not relevant in this matter; it is a university and team located within San Jose there is no doubt its inclusion is merited.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

what? how is san jose state not relevant your excuse for not having the standford cardinal is that college teams shoudnt be there lol. also why use the Metropolitan Statistical Area and not the core statistical area when it makes more sense considering that would include the warriors, As, Giants and in real life no one things of the south by as a seperate metro are its all by area. also all the examples you made have 1 thing in common that they are all named an associated with that city of course the MIAMI dolphins are in the MIAMI artice and of course the NEW YORK jets and giants are in the NEW YORK article and of course the LOS ANGELES rams and chargers are in the LOS ANGELES article their not call the san jose 49ers are they? their logo says SF or does it say SJ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9750:A140:95E2:78F7:2450:32F5 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the source for the map of neighborhoods?

Is there a source for the map of neighborhoods? Team San Jose, a sort of downtown entertainment business association, seems to disagree with the lines drawn here.

And as far as I know the City government itself does not have any definition of neighborhoods, though there are Council Districts.

Map of San Jose's regions:

  Central San Jose

  West San Jose

  South San Jose

  East San Jose

  North San Jose

156.39.0.199 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

See User talk:Cristiano Tomás at Wikimedia Commons.

Airport parameter

@Magnolia677: I would like to dispute your revert of my changes that reinstate the airport parameter in the infobox. Having an Airport parameter in the infobox of city articles is useful, and several articles have these parameters with no complaints of clutter or anything. The Los Angeles, New York City, Calgary, and Edmonton articles just to name a few all have custom blank parameters used for Airports, transit systems, etc. I believe your reversion of my edits are unnecessary and do not contribute positively to the article. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have additionally noticed you have reverted the same additions on other articles like Chicago and I raise the same dispute. These parameters are useful to the community for quickly knowing at a glance what airport or transit system a city has. This sort of information isn't obvious to everyone. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Evelyn Marie: First, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Second, User:SounderBruce also reverted this edit. Third, an infobox should summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; the information you added back is unnecessary clutter, and information about the airport is available in the article. Finally, there is no "airport parameter" at Template:Infobox settlement; the text you added to the infobox was included in an optional "blank" parameter. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: the "unnecessary clutter" as you put it was in the article long before it was removed today, and it was present as far back as February 2022, and if necessary I can go back further. It is not "unnecesary clutter" as you put it, if it provides important information, which it does. The name of the aiport is a key fact of the city. It isn't exactly known as one of the citiies landmarks, more than likely, but a lot of people more than likely travel to San Jose. Just because the airport was present in the infobox doesn't make the infobox violate Wikipedia's travel guide guideline. It is useful information, that shouldn't be removed. Therefore, I'd argue that the removal of the parameter was unnecessary. It was there for a *long* time. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The selection criteria is seemingly arbitrary for many of these infoboxes, with some transit systems favored over others (thus not adhering to NPOV). The fact that blank parameters need to be used to display these additions is a clue that community consensus is not in favor of adding these to every last major city article, as has been done erroneously in the past. Infoboxes need to be kept shorter, especially in light of the new skin that moves the TOC out from the body and thus causes further layout compression issues. SounderBruce 22:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Cities use the Settlement infobox, which applies to not just cities but towns, hamlets, etc, so it serves as generic infobox that applies to anything thats a settlement. And I would *heavily* argue that there is no such reason nor guideline to keep infoboxes "short". They need to point out key facts, and while, yes, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE does point out that having less information is better, there is absolutely no mention of the San Jose Airport until much further down the article. Not a lot of people bother to read the entire article and just want a quick glance at a cities signature locations, features, etc, which is why having the Airport parameter there was super useful. As it stands, the removal of the parameter violates the precedent of how this city's infobox has looked in the past and present until today. Its removal should be discussed instead of its reinstatement. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE still applies. A formal RfC would be a more appropriate venue for a project-wide change, but during times I brought up the issue in years past, I've had few replies and none were in disagreement with the assertion that these extra parameters need to go. A theoretical reader that doesn't bother to read the lead (where the airport and transit systems should be mentioned) is not typical and not the one we should focus our attention on appeasing. SounderBruce 23:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Having only the airport in the infobox is not a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. That parameter has been used to list the airport in the infobox for years, because I remember clearly reading the same article years ago, and seeing the Airport parameter in the infobox. You are ignoring precedent, and that is not how things should work. A removal of something that has been in the article for years is something that should be discussed and conensus gained first, instead of just removing parameters for the sake of removing parameters. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made an inquiry at WT:MOSINFOBOX looking for feedback. I do not appreciate being pinged to the same thread in quick succession, so please mind the discussion etiquette and AGF. SounderBruce 23:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't mean to offend with the ping. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Silicon Valley

This article has suffered an overemphasis on Silicon Valley, which is of course centered around Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park and Sunnyvale. Editors here have added promotional text saying that San Jose is the center of Silicon Valley, which is flat wrong. San Jose has become important to Silicon Valley tech industry over the years, but the heart of Silicon Valley has never been San Jose. Ever. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Back in March 2017, Cristiano Tomás added the text saying San Jose "is the economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley..."[1] Of course that is incorrect on three counts. Cristiano Tomás supplied no references to support this idea. The same problem was seen in the second paragraph, with Cristiano Tomás adding, "By the 1990's, San Jose and Silicon Valley had become the global center for the high tech and internet industries." Unreferenced. Cristiano Tomás also stated that the 1926 Bank of Italy building was "a landmark of the city and Silicon Valley alike." Completely wrong, and unreferenced. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It was at this point that San Jose and Silicon Valley were conflated. Cristiano Tomás combined statistics for Silicon Valley with statistics for San Jose, to make San Jose look much more prominent. In April 2020, Johnlogic requested a citation for the assertion that San Jose was the "economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley".[2] In May 2020, EndlessCoffee54 removed the fact tag and added very poor sources including an Amtrak blog, a real estate booster website, and a misrepresentation of a webpage published by Silicon Valley Historical Society.[3] Here are the sources and what they say:

• https://www.siliconvalleyhistorical.org/where-is-silicon-valley says many things about Silicon Valley, especially that it began in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Menlo Park. Regarding Silicon Valley, it says "Fairchild Semiconductor in Mountain View as its center". It says San Francisco "is the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California." It says "San Jose is an economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley and the largest city in Northern California." The difference between the source and what Cristiano Tomás wrote is "an economic center" versus "the economic center". And obviously, if San Francisco is said to be "the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California" then San Jose cannot take those roles from this source.
• http://blog.amtrak.com/2016/01/san-jose/ This Amtrak blog has no author listed. It is a promotional webpage with the title: "San Jose: The City Center of Silicon Valley". Nothing in the webpage supports San Jose being the center of Silicon Valley.
• https://move2siliconvalley.com/about-silicon-valley/where-is-silicon-valley/ This real estate sales website exists to attract home buyers. It says "At the center of Silicon Valley is San Jose" which is wrong. The author is Mary Pope-Handy who is a real estate agent. The website is not a reliable source, and the author is not an expert on the topic.

What we need at the San Jose article is some objectivity, taking the full depth of literature into account, thereby pushing San Jose a little further down in the Silicon Valley pecking order. San Jose wasn't first, wasn't the reason for Silicon Valley success (Stanford I'm looking at you), and doesn't hold the majority of Silicon Valley businesses. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. These are not good sources, and EndlessCoffee54 should not be trying to revert removal of this content without improving it first. Wracking ^💬 03:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just added five reputable sources, if you had a problem with the ones cited before. I could find and list more if needed. And per WP:QUO, this page's status quo stays as-is until we reach a resolution here.

• Flores, William (1998). Latino Cultural Citizenship. Beacon Books. ISBN 0-8070-4635-3. "San Jose is the center of Silicon Valley and the heart of this country's move to an information society."
• Gabbe, C.J. (2019). "Local regulatory responses during a regional housing shortage: An analysis of rezonings in Silicon Valley". Land Use Policy. 80. Retrieved April 22, 2023. "[R]egulatory changes were more likely in San José, the central city, than in the neighboring smaller municipalities..." [4]
• "San Jose: The urban center of Silicon Valley". Japan Times. February 21, 2020. [5]
• Hall, Mark (May 19, 2020). "Looking Ahead: How Silicon Valley Will Be Reshaped In Wake Of The Pandemic". Forbes. "San Jose is the economic, cultural and political center of Silicon Valley." [6]
• Santa Clara County. "San Jose is the largest city in the County, with a population of nearly one million, and is the administrative site of County Government." [7]

To refute each one of the arguments above, San Jose is home to Cisco, eBay, Adobe, PayPal, Broadcom, Samsung, Acer, and Zoom. It is the only place in the Valley where large banks and consulting and financial services firms have major offices. It is the only city in the Valley with two major sports teams (the Sharks and the Earthquakes) taking the city's name. It is the only city in the Valley with a major public arena (the SAP Center). It is the only city in the Valley that has more than a dozen skyscrapers. It is the nerve center of the region's transit system (being home to 3/5 of the region's current or future BART stations, the most Caltrain stations, and the most-used train station in the Bay Area-- Diridon), the seat of the Santa Clara County government, the home to its largest public library and performing arts venue, and the largest city by population and area for not just Silicon Valley, but the Bay Area and NorCal in total. It has the region's only major airport. This list could keep going in almost every other category. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've done a cursory review of these sources, asking myself "Is this source reliable? Is this source relevant? What does this source say about San Jose being the 'cultural, economic, and political center of Silicon Valley'?"

• Latino cultural citizenship is pretty old, and therefore I would consider it irrelevant; says "San Jose has emerged as the center of Silicon Valley and the heart of the country’s rapid growth in high-technology industries." (page 63)
• "Local regulatory responses during a regional housing shortage: An analysis of rezonings in Silicon Valley" is fine; it calls Santa Clara County "the geographic heart of California’s Silicon Valley" and "the center of Silicon Valley", and San Jose the "central city".
• "San Jose: The urban center of Silicon Valley" may be considered an advertisement as seems to have some connection with the City of San Jose, possibly having been written by the City itself (see link at end of article, and similar articles in the "Global Media Post" series)
• "Looking Ahead: How Silicon Valley Will Be Reshaped In Wake Of The Pandemic" – Forbes contributors are not considered reliable sources.
• Santa Clara County – fine source, I guess, but I don't think it claims that San Jose is the cultural, economic, or political center, and there may be some synthesis by assuming that "Santa Clara County" and "Silicon Valley" are synonyms.

Wracking ^💬 03:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over these! I appreciate the comments. Agree with you on Forbes. I respectfully disagree on the Flores book, because it was there when Silicon Valley was being formed-- an integral part of the history of the region, which makes it free of any promotion or advertising since its writing predates San Jose's adopting of the nickname "Capital of Silicon Valley." If it notes SJ as being the center of the region then, imo, then that's good objective insight. It also provides crucial cultural context among diverse populations as to what the region's cultural communities view as being the center of the area. This is especially important as Asians and Latinos make up the majority of the Valley's population. And I don't think a "Global Media Post" series means that something is biased or written as promotional material. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the hard work you're putting into this, but I want to encourage you to take a step back and consider how your edits square with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To clarify, I'm not saying any of these are reliable sources for the claim (and I have read Binksternet's concerns, which I share). If a basic claim about a major American city is true, it should not be so difficult to find reliable sources to back it up (as a core statement, not a passing remark). I'm not sure those sources have been found. Wracking ^💬 04:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of these articles aren't just saying this in passing. They're taking it as a core premise and a given, as most residents of Santa Clara County already do. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

EndlessCoffee54, you are quoting WP:QUO which is an essay. I am quoting WP:ONUS which is policy. Policy trumps essay.

San Jose's wonderful characteristics are not in question. What is in question is the relation to the concept of Silicon Valley, the hotbed of technology. Sports is not part of that. Banking isn't either: Silicon Valley grew because of venture capitalists in Menlo Park and nearby. Skyscrapers don't make Silicon Valley, nor do libraries or performing arts venues. San Jose balked at joining the larger Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, so now its "nerve center" of transportation is a mish-mash.

Regarding the sources you amassed, the Mark Hall Forbes piece is not reliable per WP:FORBESCON. The Japan Times piece is a republication from Global Media Post, with no author listed.[8] Not reliable. The throwaway sentence by Gabbe does nothing for your argument. Even the William Flores book mentions Silicon Valley in passing with a throwaway sentence preceding the true content which is about Latinos in the San Jose area. Flores doesn't explore Silicon Valley at all in the text—doesn't try to figure out the different parts of Silicon Valley or its history. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are policy. That's why they're abbreviated "WP." And it is the onus of the person trying to revert precedent on an article to be the one who initiates conversation on a talk page, which I am glad you did.

It is the center of public transit in the Valley, not the Bay, which is not the topic of this discussion. Sports, libraries, and performing are an absolutely integral part of the "cultural" component of being a cultural center. No cities in the Valley have sports teams named after them. None have major performing arts arenas or indoor arenas where renowned concerts, theater shows, and dance shows occur. Only one other city has an outdoor arena, Santa Clara, and even their own officials admit they are not the primary city of the region. Banking is how people and businesses get money, so yes, I'd consider it pretty integral to being a region's financial center. They're all in San Jose, not Palo Alto or Menlo Park: Deloitte, EY, Citi, Wells Fargo. Venture capital is just a part of the equation. Silicon Valley itself is a greater region, not just a tech phenomenon. It is largely one and the same with Santa Clara Valley and County, where 90% of tech companies are headquartered. And you still haven't refuted the point about the 7 or so tech companies mentioned in this article's lede that are all HQ'ed in San Jose. So much for the argument that Silicon Valley is "of course centered around Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park and Sunnyvale."

As for sources, are you saying that just because a book focuses on Latinos it can't be noteworthy in the context of a discussion about Silicon Valley, where hundreds of thousands of Latinos work? I would not go there if I were you. No refutation of the SCC government website, which clearly states that SJ is the political capital of the region. The entire Gabbe paper, not just sentence, is about zoning in Silicon Valley. It would do you well to actually read what you disagree with. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the article for WP:QUO, Wikipedia:Reverting, it's an essay. WP stands for "Wikipedia", not "Wikipedia Policy" (see WP:ABC) Wracking ^💬 04:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are "widely accepted consensus" that Wikipedia recommends people follow when editing. You don't revert pages at will when there has been an accepted status quo for months (in this case, years). You go to the talk page to discuss these changes and tag people instead, which I'm glad is being done now. The onus is on the person reverting to act out of good faith to go to the talk page instead of hiding behind a revert to avoid having the conversation. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As Binksternet said, policy trumps essays, check out WP:POLICIES to learn more about the difference. Also, please assume good faith and don't characterize good-faith removal of poorly-cited content as "hiding". Wracking ^💬 04:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not assuming bad faith here. Binksternet used incredibly crass language in some of his edits and in his message on my talk page, where he referred to the sources as "shitty." That's unprofessional behavior that shouldn't be aired on Wikipedia and doesn't contribute to any meaningful conversation, but instead serves to bully other editors into submission. He's also insinuated on the San Jose talk page that a book on Latino history in the US couldn't possibly have value as a source on Silicon Valley, where hundreds of thousands of Latinos work. I found this comment deeply insulting and to be frank, slightly racist in its tone. This is the kind of behavior that tracks with repeated reverts instead of coming to the talk page to discuss something in good faith after several long-time editors had disagreed with the changes. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't play the race card on me. The book on Latino history is written by experts in Latino history. These Latino history experts attempted nothing in the way of examining the connection between San Jose and Silicon Valley. Instead, they focused on their expertise on Latino communities. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Expertise in Latino history is expertise in Silicon Valley, which was built with the labor of Latino engineers and migrants. The history of Silicon Valley frankly is Latino history to its core. You are out of depth here given the background gleaned from your profile, and I simply would not go further if I were you. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the Flores book? It talks about the extreme poverty of Latino workers as an unfortunate dichotomy in Santa Clara County, contrasting sharply with the extreme wealth of high-tech folks in the same area. The book talks about how downtown San Jose was a wasteland of deserted businesses in the 1960s (right when the silicon chip was rising in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, etc.) Certainly it's true that Flores writes about late-1990s success that "San Jose has emerged as the center of Silicon Valley and the heart of country's rapid growth in high-technology industries", but Flores never examines the history of Silicon Valley as rising from Fairchild Semi in Mountain View, or from Stanford's initiative to share business development in a collective fashion, directed by Stanford researcher Fred Terman.[9] Flores only looks at how Latino workers fit in to this system. The concept of Silicon Valley was set into motion by inventors, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, who hired construction workers to raise the buildings. Latinos barely register in Silicon Valley's high-tech sector history, which is what Flores is saying when he shows that San Jose falls behind in per capita income as compared to most other Silicon Valley cities. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Siicon Valley did not emerge exclusively from Fairchild or Terman. It and our entire region emerged from the heft of hundreds of tech companies that sprung up all over the Valley, with most of them being concentrated in San Jose. By your logic, New York can't be the first financial center because most of America's first banks were in Boston, where English colonists first arrived. By your logic, LA shouldn't be the entertainment epicenter of the world, because the first movies were shot in nearby Burbank.

Latino workers are an essential component of Silicon Valley. Flores's book gets at how people of color provided the labor (the services) needed to sustain the region, even if they did not reach its upper echelons until a decade after his book was written. They and Vietnamese immigrants were and are essential to the Valley and its upbringing and formation. And it so happens that they mostly live, work, and play in San Jose: its natural center, which he notes thoroughly in his piece.

Books about Silicon Valley aren't all about the tech or the founders, which is, to be honest, a very white view of the region's history. Silicon Valley is so much more than that. It is one of the Bay Area's most ethnically and culturally rich regions. I appreciate your taking the opportunity to read portions of the book, and I hope you can take away from it why Latinos, and San Jose, are central to Silicon Valley's history. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

But it is not a book about Silicon Valley. Rather, it is a book about Latino workers in five different study areas, one of which is San Jose. Workers are essential to every business everywhere, no matter what race, but workers did not create the unique interconnectedness of Silicon Valley's high-tech research world. Flores was only studying workers, so he saw San Jose's big worker population as the massive "center". If he had been studying the interrelated links of high-tech businesses in the area, the links that formed Silicon Valley as we know it, he would never have put workers at the forefront, or San Jose at the center. Basically, the Flores book is peripheral to the concept of Silicon Valley. It does not define Silicon Valley or trace its history. Any reader who looks at the greater mass of literature about Silicon Valley (this is the key point) will see that San Jose is not described as the center. You are pushing a minor outlier source as a major source. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Workers are central to the concept of Silicon Valley. Without a base of workers, nothing gets done. Nothing gets accomplished. History is not just a story of the white men who invented things any longer. It is much more-- something you would know if you kept up to date in the literature of the field instead of relying on a dated notion of what Silicon Valley is, mired in the 1960s where there was maybe 1 or 2 companies active. This isn't some garage in Los Altos. It is Ebay, PayPal, Cisco, and Samsung. And this is not "peripheral." There are five other sources I cited that say the exact same thing, along with every piece of evidence above on cultural amenities, that clearly show San Jose as being the center of SV. I can list a dozen more sources but I thought those six made the point pretty well. In the South Bay, this is accepted as a fact. There's a reason every freeway sign north and south of San Jose list it as the destination. Not Mountain View, not Sunnyvale, not Palo Alto. It's honestly ridiculous that we're even having this argument. That a city of nearly a million people (800k more than the next-largest city at minimum), the only one that has major league sports teams, the only one which has a functioning passenger airport (the second-largest in the wider Bay Area), the only city that has a major train station, the seat of the county government, and the only city that headquarters a major US newspaper, is not the political, economic, and cultural center?

You're looking for ways around every single source, and you'll keep doing so because it doesn't match your view on the matter. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Policy doesn't particularly care what is found in essays. The policy says that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The policy indicates that EndlessCoffee54 was supposed to start the talk page discussion and try to gain consensus for inclusion. Regarding the unfounded accusation of me "hiding", I was pretty verbose in my edit summaries about this stuff, including "Boosterism getting out of hand",[10] "the Silicon Valley connection is already discussed a bit further down. Removing poor quality booster blog source",[11] "too much emphasis on high-tech sector, redundant to the in-depth description in the very next paragraph",[12] and "Redundant to later mention. And those unreliable refs don't support this stuff anyway."[13] I was very clear about the removals of this disputed text. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are longstanding Wikipedia policies. And it is up to the person editing the long-term consensus, which has been present on this page in some form since 2012, to suggest changes after they have been reverted by more than one editor. When I changed SF to "a cultural, commercial, and financial center of NorCal" I did so once. I was reverted, maybe by you. Instead of disrespecting that choice, I went to the talk page and built consensus. It happened and the change became permanent as a result. You failed to do the same until it was the only option left. That is editing in bad faith. I'm glad this conversation is happening now, but I cannot reconcile how unsavory your behavior continues to be. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No, an essay is not policy. The essay you keep citing was first established by one user alone: Kotniski in June 2009.[14] The material was split from a help page (also not policy.) Unfortunately, Kotniski was working with advice that contradicted existing policy. The policy was formed around a core idea added in 2005 by SlimVirgin saying "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit."[15] When Kotniski created the essay page, the corresponding policy page said, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Which means Kotniski's advice was always against policy, from the very beginning. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This is so esoteric and beside the point. You're relying on technicalities instead of following widely accepted consensus (because, at their core, that's what WP:QUO and WP:ONUS are). You refuse to admit that you edited the article first to remove the phrase. Upon being reverted by someone else (not me) twice, you kept reverting, thinking you could outlast them without someone flagging down your behavior. When I came around, you continued it for another month until today. And then you decided you'd report me for edit warring and use unsavory language, something that you initiated by refusing to come to a talk page when asked repeatedly to do so over the course of over four weeks. Not thinking that I would actually tell the full story.

I'm not afraid to call bullying or this kind of behavior out, and I will keep doing so for as long as you persist on this point. It's unacceptable, hypocritical, and self-serving. No amount of searching through technicalities can get at the point that you did not follow Wikipedia guidelines, policies, whatever you want to call them. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You keep approaching the unreferenced Cristiano Tomás addition of March 2017 as written in stone, inviolable. His addtion is something you call "widely accepted consensus", possibly because nobody caught it until Johnlogic in 2020. I agree with Johnlogic; I see the addition as a long-term mistake that must be corrected because it is wrong. Cristiano Tomás wrote that San Jose "is the economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley", which is nonsense. The economic center of Silicon Valley is wherever the VC money is, for instance on Sandhill Road in Palo Alto or in Menlo Park. The cultural center of Silicon Valley has always been Stanford and SRI, the creative and collaborative force behind the high-tech transformation. The political center of Silicon Valley doesn't exist: observers note the heavily liberal left-wing voting record of the area, but they don't identify a political center. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the above sentiment that giving the connection to Silicon Valley as the first sentence is disproportionate, and I have re-removed that. The connection is nicely mentioned further down the lead, so doesn't need to be given as the major claim to fame of this city. EndlessCoffee54 you appear to have reverted this page four times already today, which is contrary to WP:3RR...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's make it clear that Binksternet violated 3RR, if not by the letter of the policy, in spirit. He reverted the same edit 7-8 times over the last month, over the objections of more than one editor. He was asked to come to the talk page and did not. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

==