Wikipedia

Talk:Silicon Alley/Archive 1

< Talk:Silicon Alley
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tazerdadog in topic RfC: Should this article discuss the biotech industry?
Archive 1Archive 2

Suggestions

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here are some suggestions as to how this article can grow:

  • who first coined the name, (not that it's not obvious)
  • a bit about 'the map' that used to be in the middle of silicon alley reporter
  • list of silicon alley companies (as a seperate wikipedia entry)
  • more information about publications, including alley cat news
  • the party scene

Theinfo 04:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Eras vs. Years

I don't think the distinction between Web1.0 vs. Web2.0 has been clearly delineated here. Remember, only 53,651 people care about, or even know about Web2.0. Wikipedia is designed to be for a wider audience. Let's break this down by years instead of by eras.

Thanks, Alex Haislip

Map request

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The term is kind of a metaphor--I personally don't think that a map is appropriate, except for a photo of 'the map' of Silicon Alley from Silicon Alley Reporter. Theinfo 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Biotech

Latest comment: 7 years ago61 comments3 people in discussion

content about biotech in NYC was added here. Silicon Alley is tech, like Silicon Valley is. There was nothing in the refs provided there that tied biotech to Silicon Alley; that was pure WP:SYN. Removed it, as well as mention from the lead. Silicon =/= living stuff; not biotech. there are some Health IT companies in Silicon Alley and part of the digital business scene in NYC. Health IT =/= biotech either. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User: Castncoot please provide a chunk of refs supporting your view that biotech is a meaningful part of Silicon Alley. Please note that we look at the preponderance of sources so cherry-picking will do you no good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The protocol in Wikipedia is to add a citation-needed tag, rather than deletion of large amounts of longstanding material. And of course Silicon Valley includes biotech. Castncoot (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The protocol is to remove WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are the refs in the article
  1. business insider - all tech. no biotech
  2. NY Daily News - all tech; no biotech
  3. CNN: "New York has made a lot of the digital age. The city hosts a thriving tech sector with 300,000 employees -- on par with Silicon Valley -- and city government is praised for its use of analytics in evaluating all manner of programs." all tech. no biotech
  4. "Venture Investment - Regional Aggregate Data - probably includes some biotech. source is not about Silicon Alley so that is fine
  5. NYT about ted cruz - this is ref and the content about it is bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
  6. AP piece on environment - bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
  7. NYT on climate change protests on environment - bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
  8. NYC EDC plan for telecom - all about tech; nothing about biotech
  9. wi-fi expansion in harlem - tech; not biotech
  10. office space coworking - a tech thing. all tech, no mention of biotech (which need wetlabs, not desks for coworking). And on those go.


The content added about biotech says nothing about silicon alley. Refs for that
  1. well, nothing for the first sentence. Unsourced.
  2. Next two are about Cornell tech campus, which is engineering. Not biotech, no wetlabs. When I edited to remove biotech, i left this in, per this dif, as it has nothing to do with biotech and should not be in this paragraph
    NYT ref no mention of biotech. all about tech
    cornell chronicle - all about tech; no biotech
  3. WSJ article on Alexandria Center. Nothing to do with tech or Silicon Alley. Funded by life science (not tech) VC; about the biotech (not tech) activities there. So there is only one ref that ~could~ support inclusion, and it doesn't.
This biotech stuff is 100% WP:OR as it stands; there are no refs in the article supporting the inclusion of biotech in the article now, and you have brought none. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Silicon Alley, like Silicon Valley, no longer applies to a small area with hard and fast boundaries, as also alluded to by an editor in the previous section on this talk page. It certainly applies to all of Manhattan (which includes Roosevelt Island)[1] and some parts of Brooklyn, at the very least. Castncoot (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
More significantly, can I seriously ask you the following question and request you to answer it, which you have evaded thus far: what perplexes me more than anything else about this issue on this and other pages that we have incurred over the past 18 (give or take) hours or so, is - why are you grinding this axe here, rather than addressing the source which ultimately supports my argument - namely, the first line of the biotechnology article? Shouldn't you be waging your battle there? I'm simply editing according to the premise that that longstanding defining statement of that article has achieved consensus for. As long as that definition sticks, I don't understand your case. Biotechnology (biological technology) is and has always been merely one among other forms of technology. Castncoot (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I have already explained why biotech =/= tech to you several times. The word "technology" being included in "biotechnology" means nothing. The fact that biotechnology is applied biology means nothing. The industries are completely different, as I have said many times. "tech industry" means IT/digital etc. It doesn't mean biotech. Silicon Valley is tech industry. So is Silicon Alley. "Silicon" signifies computer chips. Tech.
To the point. You don't have a single ref that connects biotech to Silicon Alley. The Biotech Now blurb is one thing; we don't know what Nathan actually said there as the podcast is gone, but you can bet it was along these lines. Please bring several refs, because the vast majority of the refs discussing Silicon Alley discuss tech, and say nothing about biotech. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that biotech belongs here. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
More refs: NYC Tech Economy based on this report - digital
slate on the NYC tech boom - digitial, which is focused on the NYC Tech Meetup, which I have been to, and which is all about digital
Xconomy article on the NYC tech scene - all digital.
service provider for Silicon Alley - tech and digital
NYT article on death of Silicon Alley Magazine, which was "known for its unabashed boosterism of New York's new media entrepreneurs" ("new media" = "digital" ie tech)
NYC EDC report on the tech sector. Contrast with this, the life sciences sector report, which is completely different. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
These references don't alter the fundamental definition of biotechnology. And please don't make up your own rules about refs as you go along. Statements on Wikipedia can be justified in two ways: WP:RS (which there in fact is), or WP:wikilinks to an established page whose statement(s) then support the point, in this case, the biotechnology page. So it is now your WP:BURDEN to disprove or disenfranchise that longstanding consensused statement on the biotechnology page, an issue which you have relentlessly evaded (despite my repeated referencing) over the 24 hours or so ago since our interaction began regarding this issue, which in no uncertain terms, in the title sentence, defines biotechnology as, '"any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)'. Once you are able to convince the numerous editors of that sentinel page of your unique interpretation of the term biotechnology, then please return to argue the fundamentally changed definition here. Castncoot (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What you are refusing to hear is that the tech industry does not include biotech; you keep relying on this dictionary thing which has nothing to do with RW business as reflected in the many RS I have brought. You have brought none. The inclusion of biotech in this article is still OR. Only ~45 people have this article on their watchlist which is not much; if other folks don't weigh in a few days I will start to escalate the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Castncoot I have let this sit awhile. Apparently nobody watching this other than you and I care about this. I am going to open a thread on this at ORN, but before I do I wanted to see if you still object to removing the biotech stuff from this article. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

By your own words and logic, wouldn't you actually be supporting my point? After all, I'm not relying on "this dictionary thing which has nothing to do with RW business "; I'm actually relying on the base biotechnology article on Wikipedia. I guess we're still awaiting neutral party Ɱ's analysis of this matter. Let's wait for that analysis first. Look, let's work together and let's not be adversarial here. Let's both take a deep breath, take a step back, and look at the forest through the trees. I actually have to (sincerely) thank you for prompting me to start a separate "Biotech companies in New York" (Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area) article. It really opened my eyes in creating this because I had no idea that there were indeed so many! And there are still many more to add! What I really I don't understand is, and I wish you'd loosen up a little on your ideology about this, why would you revert a see also addition of this biotech article on the Silicon Alley page here? "See also" sections are intended to relate to articles that may be at the very least tangential but yet related. The "Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area" meets that criteria well more than that very minimum. I really believe that you're taking an extreme viewpoint here rather than being reasonably accommodating. I've already started an entirely new "Biotech companies in New York" article (not an insignificant undertaking) at your suggestion, but you won't even compromise or acquiesce to a much less onerous "see also" request, of all things. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
No, that just shows that the person commenting didn't take that much time and had no backgroudn understanding. I am getting tired of random feedback, which is why I asked about doing a deliberate DR like the mediation board or third party. So which would you like to do? Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As you know, the discussion has now begun at Talk:Biotechnology#Comparison of terminology: "Biotechnology" vs "Technology". Castncoot (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No, what happened is that you unilaterally opened a thread that incorrectly described the dispute and my position, and I told you that. There is no discussion there yet. It is unlikely anything will come of that, but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Which I have every right to do (open a thread on a Talk page). And I described your position spot on accurately, demonstrating diffs. I don't need your "permission" for that. Finally, there's obviously a discussion there if you, I, and another editor have already made comments. Castncoot (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you completely free to exacerbate the dispute instead of working together to solve it. Do you notice that i gave you advance notice before filing at ORN, and above tried to discuss next steps? You do not understand how this place works. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Castncoot the discussion at the biotech article has now gone a week with no further comment. We need to engage in a more formal DR process. I offered two options above -- you and I could go to WP:MEDIATION and work with one of the people there to try to come to agreement. Alternatively, I would propose a variation of WP:THIRD, in which each of us would pick one person to weigh in (who we think would be knowledgeable and fair), and those two would pick a third together, and the three of them will decide if the content stays or goes. Would you please let me know how you would like to proceed? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at the Talk:Biotechnology article. We can't be jumping back and forth. The fact that people haven't commented further so far indicates that there is no consensus (or even appetite) to change the longstanding status quo of the disputed content in either article. You're trying to force your viewpoint, one which nobody else seems to want. We should stop right here for now. Castncoot (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion is not proceeding at the biotechnology article; the one person who did weigh in there agreed with me more than you, but we are unlikely to get more active participation there to resolve our dispute. Please hear me - WP:DR is a behavioral policy. You cannot refuse to pursue DR and remain an editor in good standing. Please let me know what DR process you will agree to follow. If you don't reply I will initiate an effort at mediation. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
If you look up WP:DR, it's actually a process, not a specifically determined pathway; utilizing the normal talk channels is the healthiest and most optimal form of the DR process; this discussion squarely belongs to continue at the Talk:Biotechnology#Comparison of terminology: "Biotechnology" vs "Technology" page, because the first line of that article page (Biotechnology) contains the fundamental premise upon which you base your argument. Also, as you said on the Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area page: "Castncoot, you framed this like it is dire. Others will weigh in with time. There are no deadlines here." [2] It looks now like you are the one making the situation seem dire, when the reality is that nobody wants to change the fundamental longstanding status quo interpretation and acknowledgement of the term biotechnology, other than you. (By the way, I disagree that the one person agreed more with you than with me; I believe that the other person was more aligned with my viewpoint stressing reasonableness than with your interpretation stressing a draconian narrowness.) Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This has been going on since Nov 1; we have tried ORN and the talk page of another article as well as this article and have gotten minimal input which is not surprising, based on the nature of this issue. It is time to engage a more formal process. I will initiate a mediation over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Mmmm, check your timeline. I only introduced the discussion at Talk:Biotechnology#Comparison of terminology: "Biotechnology" vs "Technology" on December 5th, not even two weeks ago. The fundamental problem here is that you don't understand (or simply refuse to acknowledge) that you must build a WP:CONSENSUS for your desired WP:BOLD changes. You haven't been able to do that, as nobody is willing to step that far out on a limb as to support your extreme viewpoint. I cannot help it if you just don't like that. Castncoot (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Look up the page. I opened this section on Nov 1 after i removed the content about biotech and you restored it. As I said, if you don't choose the "third party" option I will open a mediation over the weekend. Jytdog (talk)
[3]. The introduction of the primary discussion on the sentinel page regarding your argument for redefinition of the longstanding status quo. Castncoot (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
'This content dispute - on whether to include discussion of biotech in this article - started on November 1 when I made this change to this article and you reverted it and we had this discussion on this page, which I opened. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you fail to acknowledge all of the details, yet again. The fundamental content dispute actually started before that on November 1, with this edit [4] which you made on the Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area page, which fundamentally laid the premise for all of your subsequent actions and discussions on five different article and/or talk pages, which ultimately prompted me to bring and unify the discussion onto the specifically definitive and appropriate Talk:Biotechnology#Comparison of terminology: "Biotechnology" vs "Technology" page to address your fundamental premise, on December 5, with this edit: [5]. I will repeat what I just said above, that the fundamental problem here is that you don't understand (or simply refuse to acknowledge) that you must build a WP:CONSENSUS for your desired WP:BOLD changes to the longstanding status quo. You haven't been able to do that, as nobody is willing to step that far out on a limb as to support your extreme viewpoint. I cannot help it if you just don't like that. I'm also tired of arguing in circles on this particular page, something you seem to be pursuing rather than trying to build your needed consensus. Castncoot (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I have not proposed any changes to the Biotechnology article; it is fine. We have no content dispute on that article. As I said I will initiate a mediation over our content dispute on this page -- the only active one we have as far as I know -- on Sunday. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't continue to misrepresent the situation. We have a content dispute on three pages: Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, Biotechnology, given that that particular page would have to be changed in order for you to execute your proposed changes on Silicon Alley and for you to continue to prevent refs from being placed on Silicon Alley and content on Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area; as well as Silicon Alley. What happens on the base Talk:Biotechnology#Comparison of terminology: "Biotechnology" vs "Technology" page will determine everything else. However, because I believe that the policy of WP:CONSENSUS needs to be respected, I would tolerate the status quo if no consensus for change is reached, and so far, nobody is interested in changing anything. Castncoot (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I do hear what you are saying (that this is a dispute about fundamental definition that has wide effects throughout WP and on the Biotechnology article specifically). I'll make a note of this when I file the request for mediation, and the mediators will help work this out. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that you finally "hear me" that "this is a dispute about fundamental definition that has wide effects throughout WP and on the Biotechnology article specifically", I hope you'll realize that you're doing things in reverse order. What you should be doing is developing consensus on the Talk:Biotechnology page; but so far, you've shown little real effort along that front. That's the normal procedure which occurs day in and day out, but for some reason, you're effectively circumventing that to seek formal mediation. I'm sorry, but although I believe that formal mediation can be a very effective tool that has its appropriate indications, I also believe that pursuing it so prematurely steers well astray of standard WP:DR norms. Castncoot (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I have heard you the whole time. We don't agree on anything. As I have said it is you, and you alone, who thinks the Biotechnology article would have to change if this article changes. You and I have no dispute at that article. Will open the mediation tomorrow about the dispute we actually have and will note your concerns about its broader implications. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

IMHO, the only way to resolve this disagreement is with reliable sources, not with definitions used in other Wikipedia articles. It seems to me, the critical question is the geographical extent of Silicon Alley. According to these sources:

  • Gallagher F (4 November 2015). "The mysterious origins of the term Silicon Alley revealed". BuiltInNYC.
  • Huber, Josh (20 December 2012). "Silicon Alley NYC: The New Tech Capital of the US?". New York International. Different areas of New York City in Brooklyn and Manhattan have been referred to as Silicon Alley, and it has now spread to be more of a concept than a specific location. It refers now to the parts of NYC which are becoming communities of tech-based companies, professionals, and engineers. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

There are a variety of opinions that include (1) it is an obsolete term that only applies to the initial pre dot com boom restricted to the Flatiron District and (2) the revived tech startup scene in New York stretches to the four corners of all five boroughs, into New Jersey. Hence it is debatable if Silicon Alley still even exists and if it does, what is its current geographical extent. The following source states there are a few, recently established biotechs in Manhattan, but does not specifically refer to these as part of Silicon Alley:

Including "Celmatix"., that does do wet laboratory work, but in Brooklyn, not Manhattan. So it is a stretch to maintain this company does biotech work inside of Silicon Alley. In addition, a biotech incubatorjust opened in Harlem (Upper Manhattan):

with wet lab space and tenants:

So biotech companies do in fact exist in Manhattan, but these have been founded only very recently, are tiny, and are outside of the Flatiron District. It is pretty clear that no biotech companies existed in the pre dot com Silicon Alley. Given biotechs are a recent and still relatively minor addition to NYC tech, per WP:UNDUE, I think it would be misleading to mention biotech in the lead. IMHO, biotechs could be mentioned later in the article if the above caveats are also mentioned. Boghog (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you've entered the discussion here. I think the fact that this article has for years survived acknowledging that the original compact boundaries of Silicon Alley are obsolete and that the term really applies to the a significant portion of the NYC metro area (including Northern and Central New Jersey) says a lot. In fact, as far back as 2007, this editor has alluded to this phenomenon: [6]. So given the premise that geographically speaking at least, Silicon Alley applies to a large area of the New York City metro area, (just like Silicon Valley applies to an area comprising much of the San Francisco Bay Area) and no longer is parochially limited to a few streets in the Flatiron district, the question then progresses to how much biotech exists in said area. Well, just like you, I had, until just last month, been under the impression that there was very little. But then, once User:Jytdog would not allow me to place biotech companies in the Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area article ([7]), I was forced last month to create a Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area article, which I'm actually very happy that I did, because it opened my eyes to just how many biotech companies have emerged in the core NYC metro area in recent years. If you look at this ref [8], you'll see that there are now a TON of biotech companies in Manhattan (and a few in Brooklyn). Incidentally, New Jersey has a ton as well now,[9] and many of them within a 25-mile radius of Manhattan. As you have cited reliable sources above indicating that Silicon Alley has indeed stretched far beyond its initial Flatiron District boundaries, then I believe you are obligated to give the broadest license within legitimacy and the benefit of the doubt to the view that Silicon Alley can legitimately refer to the tech sphere throughout a reasonable distance from Manhattan. This indicates that, if one is among the significant group of people who believe that the geography of Silicon Alley has expanded over the years, then no matter how one parses the equation, there are now many, many biotech companies in "Silicon Alley" (perhaps more than NON-bio techs!). The only question therefore remaining (IMHO) is User:Jytdog's contention that "biotech is not tech". Also, Jytdog has not allowed me to insert the following ref in this article [10] or allowed me to include Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area as a mere "see also" entry, FYI. Castncoot (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, with all due respect, we also do need to honor the P/G of WP:WikiVoice. So if the base biotechnology article (by consensus, and citing in the first line the United Nations, of all organizations) defines it as being a form of tech, that can't simply be ignored. That is a highly seminal point. Castncoot (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I also have reliable sources that state that Silicon Alley died with the dot com bust and no longer exists. In addition, your list of New York biotech companies is highly misleading. Many have their corporate headquarters located within Manhattan, but research laboratories and production facilities outside NYC. This is in stark contrast to the Silicon Alley IT companies whose entire operation was located within NYC. To this day, Biotech R&D within NYC remains tiny. Boghog (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Boghog, Manhattan is extremely expensive for lab space; that's why many of these companies lease lab space in Central New Jersey, but high-level decisions are often made in Manhattan. Furthermore, the National Venture Capital Association considers the New York metropolitan area (which includes Central Jersey) to be a single geographic entity for venture capital funding ([11]). Castncoot (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, because lab space is so expensive in Manhattan, it is never likely to be home to a significant amount of biotech R&D. Furthermore, it is really a stretch to claim that central New Jersey is part of Silicon Alley. Boghog (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Why do you say that? San Francisco is often lumped in with Silicon Valley, where San Jose is actually 45 miles away, farther than Middlesex County, New Jersey is to Manhattan (20 miles). Castncoot (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging Boghog. I don't know that "Silicon Alley" is dead and that is outside of this dispute. How big the biotech industry is in NYC is also outside the dispute (it is indeed very small compared to SF/Boston/San Diego)
The dispute is whether "Silicon Alley" includes biotech. As you can see, in Castncoot's way of working in WP, the concept of biotech is included in the concept of "tech" which is what "Silicon Alley" is about, so based on this definitional chain biotech companies are included in the concept of Silicon Alley. I've tried to explain to Castncoot that their "conception" that "tech" includes "biotech" is incorrect, and more importantly that refs do not describe Silicon Alley as included biotech. The latter is all that really matters in WP. A pile of refs are below; there are plenty more. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Your refs below, Jytdog, don't redefine biotech as not being tech. Boghog himself says above, "Given biotechs are a recent and still relatively minor addition to NYC tech", suggesting that he also ultimately considers biotech to fundamentally be a form of tech. Also, I think it's frankly frivolous that you're making unsourced and irrelevant comparisons above to "SF/Boston/San Diego". This isn't a comparison match with other cities or their own biotech spheres, although frankly as well, with the recent growth in NYC area's biotech sphere, it's probably well in the top three or four, and if anything, my references ([12], [13], and [14]) support the now-large number of biotechs that have indeed sprouted in Silicon Alley. And Jytdog, now that someone else is actively observing this conversation, you finally won't be able to avoid answering my nth iteration of the same question: how do you reconcile your contention that biotech is decidedly not tech with the editorially consensused definition in the first line of the biotechnology article indicating in WP:WikiVoice that biotech is indeed tech, and citing the United Nations' definition as such? Castncoot (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Castncoot, will you at least agree to my previous assertions that (1) no biotech companies were part of the original (pre dot com bust) Silicon Alley and (2) Biotech R&D within NYC remains tiny? Also to state the obvious, the "silicon" in "Silicon (V)alley" is usually associated with IT, not biotech. Boghog (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
1) Yes. 2) Not really. Some R&D decision-making is separated from physical lab space R&D, and you really have to give my ref the benefit of the doubt; for you to assume that these companies are only headquartered in Manhattan is absolutely OR. 3) Google "Silicon Valley biotech". The difference between "usually" and "the whole" is often not insignificant. One has to realize that we are no longer stuck in 1999. Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that they have significant lab space in Manhattan is also OR. Life is based on carbon, not silicon. That was true in 1999 and is still true today. The number of biotech companies that exist within the geographical boundaries of Silicon Valley far exceeds those of Silicon Alley. Because of the insignificant number of biotech companies in Silicon Alley, it would be undue to mention this in the lead. Boghog (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess that regarding your vantage point it comes back to the same point as I stated above - why are you considering Silicon Alley to represent only Manhattan? Because if you consider the metro area as a whole (and by the way, I forgot to mention the large number of companies in Westchester and Long Island per the ref [15]), there are a lot of biotech companies closely encircling Manhattan. Boghog, I request you to kindly look at and compare Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area and Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area and tell me if you still think that the biotech component of tech in the metro area is insignificant. (By the way, I said R&D decision-making, which is likely to occur at a headquarters operation; not lab space R&D. Otherwise, why even bother having an HQ in Manhattan? For the reputation that Manhattan apparently carries in biotech (to play devil's advocate)? One might as well place the HQ in suburbia then, if nothing happens in Manhattan, to play devil's advocate again. The additional point is that if the HQ is in Manhattan, the lab space is going to be (at farthest) in its own suburbs, not in Boston or San Francisco.) Castncoot (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Boghog and Jytdog, an interesting event has occurred right under all of our noses – did you both see the entry that went in under the radar in the "see also" section of this article: [16]? Now please look at Silicon Hills --> right in the first paragraph it includes Biotechnology as an integral part and parcel of its tech sphere! If that is a legitimate addition (which it is indeed), then so is adding Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area to the see also section and adding the Columbia University ref ([17]) to the lede. Castncoot (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

about Silicon Hills see WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS. will look at that later. about this article my view is that your stance is entirely WP:OR. The sources almost unanimously discuss Silicon Alley as a cluster of IT/digital companies,and sources that discuss the biotech industry in NYC do not discuss Silicon Alley in any other way but a) in comparison (as something different) or b) as another example of science driven industry (the umbrella term that you have been reaching for this whole time is High tech, btw) The "tech industry" is digital/IT per all the sources. But in any case, you keep trying to pull the discussion back into these handwavy definitional discussions or into parallels you are drawing with Silicon Valley. None of those arguments are relevant in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to fall for your bait, I've already repeated that this is not a comparison with Silicon Valley. By the way, two can play that game: people don't separately call it "Carbon Valley" when referring to its biotech presence, do they? Also, WP:OSE provides that analogous comparisons can be either valid or invalid – and I believe that the Silicon Hills comparison is absolutely valid, especially when it has entered this Silicon Alley article as a legitimate "see also" entry. And Jytdog, now that someone else is actively observing this conversation, you finally won't be able to avoid answering my n+1th iteration of the same question: how do you reconcile your contention that biotech is decidedly not tech with the editorially consensused definition in the first line of the biotechnology article indicating in WP:WikiVoice that biotech is indeed tech, and citing the United Nations' definition as such? Castncoot (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who mentioned Silicon Hills. I have addressed your definitional concern several times; you are not listening. I will do it again. There is no doubt anywhere in the known universe, that biotech is applied science --a form of "technology". That is a different set of issues from what the "tech industry" is. The "tech industry" is digital/IT stuff; it does not include biotechnology. I will not answer that again. Silicon Alley is a cluster of companies in the tech industry. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No, this is to my belief (pardon me if I'm mistaken) the first time you're acknowledging biotech to be a form of "technology" - after saying this, this, and this. We're finally making a bit of progress here. OK, now that you admit that "biotech" is a form of "tech", then "biotech companies" must be a form of "tech companies", correct? I mean, this is just common sense English language. Let's take one step at a time, please, and not try to overthink it. Just keep it simple. I mean, I could come up with similar nuances about the game design industry being very different from the software industry being very different from the digital media industry being very different from the biotech industry being very different from the computer hardware industry, and so on and so on and so on.... but they all ultimately encompass tech companies. You're also beginning to confuse Silicon Hills and Silicon Valley, by the way; and from a purely Wikipedia policy standpoint, the policy of WP:WikiVoice stands tall, and is apparent both in the editorially highly consensused Biotechnology article and also I see now in the Silicon Hills article, which has now entered the Silicon Alley article as a legitimate "see also" entry. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The other thing you're doing which I strongly object to is blocking my placement into the Silicon Alley article this excellent ref from Columbia University: [18]. This ref 1) is a WP:RS, 2) demonstrates that Columbia University's Technology Ventures is supporting the biotechnology ecosystem in New York City, indicating significant commonality and inclusion of biotech funding and companies into the sphere of tech funding and companies, 3) states that this ecosystem is growing, and 4) also notes Peter Thiel, the world-renowned tech investor, as a supporter of the enterprise, which also reinforces 2). If I can't even place the reference in the spot where it would further bolster my statement, I believe it cannot be fairly adjudicated by the Wikipedia community in the first place to see how it fits live in context. This is incorrect. Castncoot (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have said it several times. here on November 1 The fact that biotechnology is applied biology means nothing. Any applied science is a form of technology. This is not controversial and has nothing to do with this conversation. The TECH INDUSTRY is IT/digital. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No you haven't, you said just the opposite - please look at the diff you just provided. So I am indeed correct after all then that today (December 19, UTC) is indeed the first time you're acknowledging outright that biotechnology is "a form of technology" [19]. Since that November 1 diff, I have indeed come up with three supportive refs, but you are not allowing even presentation of the evidence. Your blog-style refs on the other hand don't (and cannot) redefine biotech or refute that biotech is a form of tech, but now you're insisting that biotech is somehow a form both of tech and of the high tech industry but that biotech companies are not tech companies (???); when in fact, the lines are becoming increasingly blurred, as the evidentiary [20] clearly shows but which you are working decidedly to suppress. Two other refs clearly ([21] and [22]) attest to the vast number of biotech companies which have indeed sprung up in the NYC metro area in just the past few years, faster than people's awareness has had time to catch up to. Now we have the power of WP:WikiVoice indicating that biotech is definitely tech per the Biotechnology article's first sentence, and this assertion being backed by citation of the United Nations of all organizations, and finally the Silicon Hills page, whose opening lede paragraph defines it as a "technology hub" pertaining to which "The high tech industries in the area include Enterprise software, Biotechnology, Gaming industry, Co(r)porate R&D, Semiconductors, Computers, and a variety of startups companies" and which has legitimately been allowed into this Silicon Alley article as a "see also" entry. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what you're even trying to point out now, and I'm sure I wouldn't be in the only one in that situation. The viewpoint I'm putting forth embodies reasonableness. It doesn't come out of left field. Yours, on the other hand, is extreme and takes a higher threshold to defend, particularly when you are trying to suppress the evidence supporting my reasonable viewpoint. And ultimately, this whole exercise comprises a debate of viewpoints. Castncoot (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You've not been reading what I have written. Your argument is WP:OR based on your strangely abstract definitions; you are not dealing with the industries that exploit these technologies. It is not "extreme" to say that green is not purple; it isn't, and the tech industry and the biotech industry are very different animals. Most importantly, what you are arguing for in this article is that is not supported by the vast bulk of sources (see below).
Let's do mediation already, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be the one trying to argue that green is purple here. We also now have another editor expressing his own third-party viewpoint here, and that's a healthy thing to have as well. It takes a strong WP:CONSENSUS to remove longstanding blocks of material that have existed for years. Other editors have been perfectly fine with the material as written over the years. The WP:BURDEN is therefore yours at this point to build that consensus for such a WP:BOLD removal of content. I would actually like to add refs to reinforce my point, and you won't allow it; and I increasingly believe that this constitutes suppression of evidence - evidence that is simply intended to further support a statement that has already been there for years. I would also like to add Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area in the Silicon Alley see also section, which I cannot see presenting any reasonable objection now that Silicon Hills (and by extension, its first paragraph content) has been legitimately allowed into that same section of this Silicon Alley article now - you're working to block that as well, which is downright unreasonable. But I'll tolerate the status quo as a compromise. Castncoot (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The status quo is not OK. We are clearly at an impasse and we need to use DR. Please respond at the mediation request. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you have rejected mediation, and the request for mediation has therefore been denied, I have opened an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Refs galore that tech and biotech industries are distinct in general and wrt Silicon Alley

Am carting things around like a turtle. Here are all the refs I have brought to this discussion, in various places, now consolidated.

general
  • A Tale of Two Startup Worlds: Biotech And Tech VC Ecosystems
  • Why Biotech Startups are Not the Same as Tech Startups
  • Peter Thiel on what it is like for a tech investor to move into the biotech space
  • a video! for those who don't like to read, on the difference between tech and biotech called (ahem) "Where to Invest? Tech vs. Biotech Startups with Rowan Chapman (Mohr Davidow Ventures)"
  • Wasserman, Noam (2012). The Founder's Dilemmas Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400841936. by Noam T. Wasserman pp 30-31 says:"The dataset and case studies both focus on the two most central industries for high-potential startups, technology and life sciences. Together, these industries dominate every measure of young startup employment and funding. Of the initial public offerings (IPOs) during the decade (2000–2009), 48% came from those two industries, and no other industry accounted for more than 12%. Furthermore, of the angel capital invested during the decade, 74% went to those two industries, as did 71% of venture capital." (emphasis added). This is footnoted to three footnotes. One says "According to Thomson’s Venture Expert Database, accessed September 16, 2010, technology investments (including Internet, computer software and services, communications and media, semiconductors and other electronics, and computer hardware) accounted for 56% of VC investments from 2000 to 2009 and life sciences investments (medical/health and biotechnology) accounted for 15%." Another says: "According to my analyses of annual reports from the Center for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire, which compiles perhaps the most reliable data on angel investments, technology investments (including software, hardware, telecommunications, and IT services) accounted for 45% of angel investment across the decade and life sciences investments (biotechnology, life sciences, and health) accounted for an additional 29% (Sohl, 2001–2009)." The third says "According to Thomson’s Venture Expert Database, accessed September 16, 2010, technology investments (including Internet, computer software and services, communications and media, semiconductors and other electronics, and computer hardware) accounted for 56% of VC investments from 2000 to 2009 and life sciences investments (medical/health and biotechnology) accounted for 15%." (NB: the breakdown here is common as dirt - the tech industry is distinct from the biotech industry)
descriptions of Silicon Alley that discuss its nature as focused on tech (digital, computing, IT, etc), or discussions pf
discussions of biotech in NYC that don't discuss Silicon Alley at all, or discuss it in contrast (new)

(found by simply searching "NYC biotech" on google, not selective in any way, and taking high quality independent results

  • contrast this article about NYC biotech scene in Fast Company with the article directly below it about Silicon Alley and tech industry here) that you find if you keep scrolling down. Both written by the same person. The lack of mention of "Silicon Alley" in the biotech article and the close connection between SIlicon Alley and the tech industry could not be more stark. And very representative of the other refs. new
  • WSJ "wanted, biotech startups for NYC". no discussion of Silicon Alley. new
  • Xconomy article on new biotech fund here - no mention of Silicon Alley new
  • Xconomy article on biotech scence from Feb 2016 (major discussion) here no mention of Silicon Alley new
  • Nature article on NYC biotech scene from 2010 here - no mention of Silicon Alley at all. new
  • Nature: SciBx article on NYC biotech scene from 2014 here - no mention of Silicon Alley new
NYC government approach to the two sectors
some very specific differences between the two worlds

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (redacted, Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)) (added some, marked "new" Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

RfC: Should this article discuss the biotech industry?

Latest comment: 7 years ago163 comments14 people in discussion
There is consensus that biotechnology should be excised completely from the article. By a straight vote count, 11 editors said that the article should not include discussion of the biotech industry, while 3 said it should in some form. Of course, this is a discussion and not a vote. The policy-based arguments for both sides were also considered. Overall, the arguments to exclude biotech from the article were significantly stronger. In particular, the arguments about sourcing were persuasive. Very few sources were found that specifically correlated silicon alley with biotechnology, and the sources that did were generally found to be weak. A compromise proposal was created below that would have drastically scaled down the weight given to biotechnology in the article. This proposal gained some support, but ultimately remained a solidly minority view. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article currently contains discussion of the biotech industry. That content was added in this diff by User:Castncoot.

I attempted to remove that in this diffl on Nov 1; this was reverted by Castncoot here.

This article has few watchers, so it has mostly been Castncoot and I bumping heads. After several failed efforts to get community input to resolve this dispute (above; ORN; at Talk:Biotechnology here, and an attempt at formal mediation here, the only way I can see to resolve this is an RfC.

The crux of the dispute as I understand it is:

  • Castncoot understands that because biotechnology is a form of technology, any discussion of "technology" anywhere in Wikipedia also should include "biotechnology", and likewise any discussion of the "tech industry" by default should include the "biotech industry". That includes this article. For Castncoot this is a "blue sky" obvious thing.
  • In my understanding, the reliable sources about Silicon Alley discuss it as a cluster of companies in the "tech industry" and use that term to refer to "companies that work in the IT/digital/software space"; the refs about Silicon Alley don't discuss biotech companies, and refs about the biotech industry in NYC don't associate it with Silicon Alley. (For refs, see the section above, here, which are not cited in the article now.)

The question: Should this article include discussion of the biotech industry? Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

!votes

Please see this sentinel diff of the aforementioned copy-pasted material: [23]. Castncoot (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, at least not in the lead. If it is mentioned at all, it must be made clear that biotech in NYC is tiny and not usually associated with Silicon Alley. Boghog (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No because wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its content and the content that has been added doesn't provide sufficient reliable sources in the context of Biotech in silicon alley to justify its inclusion.Polyamorph (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes.My opinion: Silicon Alley is a general term, covering the general geographic metropolitan area of NYC, covering the general subject of high tech, which does include biotechnology. The sources I read justify including biotech in this article. I listed sources in the Discussion section describing there is biotech in Silicon Alley. Example: http://techsponyc.com/silicon-alley/ CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok to include short paragraph in article, but probably not in lead section. Summoned by bot. I work in Silicon Valley, in software for biotech and life sciences companies. But I’m not a reliable source. I’ve now read the last two dozen or so individual event reliable sources containing the metonym on Google News. This included Business Insider’s Silicon Alley 100[24], so I looked at all of those companies, including all of the companies in the portfolios of the VCs listed. No biotech in any of these. The weight of these and the sources in discussion seem clear: 1) there is plenty of biotechnology, both startups and otherwise, in NYC; 2) when the term “Silicon Alley” is used, it is rarely used to include biotechnology; 3) there are a few sources that include biotechnology as part of “Silicon Alley,” but it is a minority and not the common vernacular. I think the article should say just that: while there is much biotechnology research in NYC, and some sources lump that into Silicon Alley, the most common usage of this informal term refers to software and internet businesses. Chris vLS (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No The sources do not seem to mention a biotech industry in Silicon Alley. In fact the references used in the lead biotech-now.org and builtinnyc.com do not mention anything about Silicon Alley. It would be WP:OR to conclude this from the sources. Most other sources seems to describe Silicon Alley in the context of "Tech" - which as far as I know is not the same as "Biotech". This shouldn't stay in the lead or in the article - unless someone can find better sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No. The name "Silicon Alley" refers expicitly to the electronics industry. Sure, there are biotech businesses in the area – there are also bakeries, and no-one is proposing mentioning them in the article. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong no -- Silicon alley solely refers to the electronics/IT industry in the area. There may be biotech industries but as Maproom has pointed out, only presence in the area is not a necessary condition for it's inclusion in the article.Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No - (invited by a bot). Avoid original research. Depend on reliable sources. I don't see RS support for including biotech here. Jojalozzo (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Biotech is certainly tech, and there are certainly biotech companies in the region, however I could not find adequate sourcing that "Silicon Alley" is used in that manner. The word "Silicon" in the phrase is derived from silicon computer chips, referring to computer/digital/internet related technologies. My own internet search indicates that major sources appear to still apply that association. I reviewed the sources offered here and in the discussion section. The sources offered to support a "yes" vote all seem to fall short. Some of the offered sources appear to merely be lists of biotech companies, with absolutely no mention of Silicon Alley. Some sources do discuss both, but there always felt like a potential shift in topic or other awkwardness in the connection. There was however one class of sources that did clearly connect bio companies with their usage of "Silicon Alley". That class was expo/convention organizers. I do not consider them to be a reliable source for our purposes. Those companies have a direct financial incentive to collect fees from as many attending companies as possible. They have a direct incentive to invite and welcome any and all companies that would be interested in a general technology convention. So what we have is that convention organizers within this region obviously welcome biotech companies, and they sometimes use the catchy term "Silicon Alley" in their advertisements aimed at general-high-tech companies. This does not support the idea that the general public, or Reliable Sources, think biotech when they speak of Silicon Alley. The term is still strongly affiliated with digital/computer tech. Alsee (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, nonono...no. At least not in the lead and not as a category, at most seems an incidental side remark in the body about the area also has -- and dubious even that much as I'm thinking that it also has major airports that feature higher in relevance to the WP:TOPIC. It's a lot of things against it here. The WP:DEFINING nature of the term or historical development puts it in another category, and the preponderance of the source intentions and keeping WP:INTEGRITY to sources should just follow the cites, plus the reality simply seems that actual businesses in place are basically web tech and web services. The flagging it at the level of lead is also inappropriate WP:WEIGHT for WP:LEAD as that's not a significant article bit (I don't think there IS significant amount that could be said) and it also only has two cites which simply do not support the line: The Top 50 startup article seems nothing but webtechs, not 'biotech'. And 2011 Cornell U plans which seems only partly biotech and was speculation of 2011 - there should be an actual result by now if it was notable. The article mention in See Also of Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area also seems a bit off -- [[Pharmaceutical drug|pharamaceutical] or diagnostic gear is usually not really [[Biotechnology|biotech], and things in the metro area go outside the Silicon Alley and over to New Jersey or Connecticut. If there is some biotech firm within the area I suppose might be allowable in due weight of relevance and prominenc, but I suspect that there just is not enough for it to deserve any space here. 06:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Markbassett (talk)
  • No - While there is some small measure of overlap, the tech and biotech spheres are overwhelmingly separate, both in the real world and as described in reliable and verifiable sources. "Silicon Alley" is probably a poor title to start with, but it has turned into a WP:COATRACK for anything and everything with even a whiff of being related to technology. Among the solutions is keeping tech and biotech in the New York Metro area in their own articles. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Summoned by bot. I contacted a friend who works for a top tech VC firm in NY City, and he's not aware of any significant biotech presence in the city. This article from Fast Company concurs that the industry isn't getting traction in the metropolitan area, in part due to high lab costs. https://www.fastcompany.com/3034774/new-york-biotech-startup-dreams. Timtempleton (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • In addition to what the refs say, even definitionally, the tech industry is very distinct from the biotech industry in almost every way: role of regulation (biotech industry very regulated, IT/digital industry not), who pays for products (insurance companies for biotech industry, consumers or advertisers for IT/digital industry); the role of IP (important in the biotech industry, a hindrance in the digital/IT industry); and all those things have a big effect on the time and money it takes to get to market which is very different between the two industries, and on the kind of investors who get involved. The skill sets of the people involved are also different). Further, Castncoot is conflating "technology" (applied science) with "tech industry" which is a specific industry - companies that are in the IT/digital/software space, and Castncoot cannot see that. The umbrella term is High tech, not "tech industry." But the refs are what really matter here, and they are definitive. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The industries are totally different, yet "Silicon Valley" is often used to encompass both and there are many large VCs that invest in both, usually with distinct investor teams. But I don't see that same usage with Silicon Alley. Chris vLS (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
yep. silicon valley has a growing biotech industry .... but at its core it is IT going back to IBM etc and this is what the public thinks of and what refs discuss. But yes by now there is enough authentic biotech activity in silicon valley that an article on silicon valley should include a small section on biotech there. Yes the old, major VC on Sand Hill Road often invest in both sectors and usually have distinct biotech and tech teams. It is worth noting that many of refs about Theranos discuss the disasters that can arise when people in the tech industry try to cross over into biotech without respecting the vast differences in the industries; refs about 23andMe discuss this too - both are held up as examples of the lack of overlap between the industries. But yes programmers like you can play in both industries; IT has applications in biotech of course. As you note the biotech industry is not relevant to Silicon Alley; it is not the same as Silicon Valley that way. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
There is that same dynamic at work in Silicon Alley as well, simply on a smaller scale, as [25] demonstrates. By the way, this is not a discussion about either the ethics or the practicality or success of tech ventures funding biotech - those issues are irrelevant. So what this whole discussion comes down to really is the geographical identity of Silicon Alley. As multiple sources quoted on this page have indicated, and as even User:Boghog has acknowledged, and as User:CuriousMind01 has concurred, a significant number of people consider the geographical outline of Silicon Alley to constitute the New York City metropolitan area, rather than being forcibly confined to three streets in Lower Manhattan. Castncoot (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope per the many refs I and others have presented. No. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, supposedly rational minds seem to have a disagreement in interpretation then. Who's to say who's correct? Just because you say "nope" certainly doesn't make it factually so and in fact suggests you are not even open to considering the opposite when some editors and sources believe just the opposite as you. Castncoot (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
moved comment below made above, in response to Boghog's !vote, from !votes section here to Discussion. That is what this section is for. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Corporate headquarters don't count. Compared to IT, biotech R&D in NYC is tiny. Boghog (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
All nonsense, OR, and entirely your WP:BURDEN to prove. Now that I was pushed to create a standalone Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area article, unintendedly, NYC's biotech industry has been from a WP:POLICY standpoint elevated to WP:NOTABILITY, and therefore, I've met my burden. Castncoot (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Please reread WP:BURDEN, and in particular the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material. Reliable sources are needed that demonstrate significant biotech R&D within the boundaries of NYC, and so far, none have been provided. Quite to the contrary, you have provide a compelling reason why significant biotech R&D is not likely to develop within Manhattan, namely the prohibitive cost of lab space. You are stretching the geographical and topical boundaries of Silicon Alley way beyond the original definitions without adequate sources to support that expansion. Boghog (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
All I did was remove a huge slew of the discussion in the section above the RfC, that you copied into the !votes section of the RfC in this dif. Don't do that - it clutters the !votes making it very difficult for a closer to close, and the content is already above, for anybody to read. You also moved things I said (and that you said) out of their context of the discussion above, which is something you should never do. I restored everything but that copy/paste dump. As I noted on your talk page, you should probably fix your !vote to not refer to the copy/paste dump, since it is not here. Instead, you could simply refer to the relevant diff series, which is this. That contains the misrepresentation that I have not acknowledged that biotechnology is a form of technology, which i have never disputed and is indeed obvious and true, and also irrelevant to the discussion of the tech industry vs the biotech industry. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

When I get time and a chance in the next few days, I'm going to need to restore thousands of bytes of my comment entirely deleted without even relocation by Jytdog. Please don't ever do that again. I will remove this note once these bytes are restored. Castncoot (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing someone else's comments (let alone thousands of bytes) without relocation is inappropriate beyond inappropriate to say the least, and without too much exaggeration, shocking. It alters the immediate record materially, as opposed to copy-pasting and acknowledging the copy-pasting transparently, clutter notwithstanding. Please don't ever do this again. I do agree with you about the clutter issue and will replace it with a diff. Castncoot (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
yes you created an awkward situation when you violated the TPG and disrupted the RFC that way, which is why I have urged you twice now to fix your !vote. See above - you can just replace the reference to "copied below" with this diff. Which you did. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
At least as of this writing, there appears to be no consensus to change longstanding material. Castncoot (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Here are 4:
http://www.wiss.com/article/welcome-to-silicon-alley
http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2015/11/06/sector-spotlight-how-biotech-in-n-y-c-holds-up.html
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20050629005139/en/Biotechnology-Conference-Announced-Silicon-Alley-Entrepreneurs-Club
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/21/technology/innovationnation/harlem-economy-tech/CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:CuriousMind01~
The vast bulk of refs do not define "Silicon Alley" in terms of "high tech" but rather just "tech".
Wiss ref supports what you say, somewhat. It discusses things in light of "high tech" and the word "biotechnology" appears in it. However, the emphasis is on "tech" (e.g. the list of named companies are all tech: "Kickstarter, Spotify, Vimeo, Tumblr and Etsy" The discussion of Silicon Alley with reference to "high tech" is not common.
The bizjournals does the opposite - concentrating on biotech and giving passing mention to Silicon Alley. (title only). Does not talk about "high tech"
the only tie SAEC press release has to Silicon Alley is the name of the organizers: The Silicon Alley Entrepreneurs Club which has been and is overwhelmingly focused on IT/digital if you check out the rest of their site and their history.
on the CNN article, it does give mention to Harlem Biospace there... again, a passing mention in the context of the emphasis on software/IT. It also not about Silicon Alley, but wondering if Silicon Alley now extends to Harlem. Does not mention "high tech".
Please consider these in light of the refs I gathered above, which discuss the tech and biotech sectors separately and identify Silicon Alley with tech. We give WEIGHT based on what the relevant refs say, not just some of them. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog I do not think your refs negate biotech being part of "Silicon Alley". I think the 4 sources I provided are adequate to substantiate biotech being included in this article "Silicon Alley and support Yes to "Should this article include discussion of the biotech industry?"
Here are more sources: if you google you will get more sources
I think you may be artificially separating general terms like high tech, tech, biotech and Silicon Alley. If sources discuss biotech being planned and/or existing in Silicon Alley, then the biotech subject is justified and belongs in this Silicon Alley article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
First let me say thanks for spending time on this. This is a complex RfC because to respond well, you have to read a lot. That is the only way, as it is easy to cherry pick a few that say what you want. Was trying to avoid this but this is what it came down to when Castncoot wouldn't do Mediation. I do appreciate your time.
Three of the sources you have brought (and I cannot figure out why) are advertisements for conferences. Conference marketers are notorious for casting as wide of a net as they can to try to suck in as many people as they can, so they are talking about things in weird ways to do that. When Bloomberg announced the Alexandria Center, not a word about Silicon Alley. (announcement here). Please don't confuse marketers trying to hype conferences with descriptions of reality. The book source is about plans people were spinning after 9/11 about what to do with that site. It never happened. Real economic development needs to be focused. Under Bloomberg's administration the EDC had separate desks and separate budgets for developing the tech sector and for developing the biotech center; they did that because the needs of the sectors are very different.
So if you read a bunch of sources that are addressing what is actually happening (again, i ask you to slog through the ref pile above), you will see that most of the refs that discuss Silicon Alley focus on digital/software (what everybody calls "tech"), and don't discuss biotech or mention it only in passing, and most of the refs about biotech in NYC don't mention Silicon Alley (it is even more pronounced on this side). That is because the tech and biotech sectors are really different worlds (if you know NYC, the Upper West Side and Staten Island are different universes -- likewise the biotech and tech sectors hardly ever cross, and for good reason.)
if you don't trust my sources and want to do your own, please search "Silicon Alley" and read what you find, and search "Biotech NYC" and read what you find. You will see what I mean. Of course if you search "Biotech silicon alley" you will find some refs that discuss both. So far the ones you have found are pretty bad..... and they don't reflect what most say. Again, sorry to be pushy but you seem to really want to give a good faith answer. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog I disagree, we have different opinions. I think your sources are Ok but don't disprove or negate there is biotech in Silicon Alley. I think the sources I gave are valid and justify there is biotech in Silicon Alley.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This is incredibly frustrating. I live and work in NYC and my work takes me into the the tech sector and the biotech sector. (am one of the handful people who do that) In the real world, the sectors are distinct, the two groups don't mix, nobody thinks "biotech" when they hear Silicon Alley and nobody thinks "Silicon Alley" when they hear "NYC biotech". I have actually gone around asking colleagues to make sure I am not out to lunch. And this is reflected in the vast plurality of sources. I cannot make people read nor does my statement of what I live everyday mean a darn thing in WP. But it is frustrating. If WP ends up saying something stupid, that is the community's fault, not mine for trying to make it correct. Anyway, thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This is what I've been saying all along, which meets the standard of reasonable inclusion. The first three refs are applicable here. Good job, User:CuriousMind01!!! Where have you been all my ... last few weeks? Castncoot (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Now add in my three refs [26], [27], and [28], and we've got a citation party going on. Castncoot (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The Columbia tech transfer ref doesn't discuss Silicon Alley, as we already discussed above, and yes all the technology transfer offices in NYC cover both tech and biotech, among other things. We also discusssed the Biopharm guy reference; we don't know what Tinker said about how the biotech sector viewed the Cornell Tech campus coming to NYC. The Cornell Tech Campus has nothing to do with biotech. Note this description of it from Cornell (all digital, no biotech), and note this search for "biotechnology" of the Cornell Tech campus' website: "YOUR SEARCH FOR “BIOTECHNOLOGY” RETURNED 0 RESULTS." as opposed to the many search results for "tech". You will find no reliable source that says the the Cornell tech campus has anything to do with biotechnology. It does do "digital health" (software that analyzes/manipulates etc data related to health) but this is not "biotech". Companies coming out of Cornell Tech Campus will be relevant to Silicon Alley. Not disputed at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding User:CuriousMind01's comment to Jytdog, "I think you may be artificially separating general terms like high tech, tech, biotech and Silicon Alley. If sources discuss biotech being planned and/or existing in Silicon Alley, then the biotech subject is justified and belongs in this Silicon Alley article." --> This comment is spot on, except that the "may be" should be changed to "are". Castncoot (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding User:CuriousMind01's comment "Jytdog I disagree, we have different opinions. I think your sources are Ok but don't disprove or negate there is biotech in Silicon Alley. I think the sources I gave are valid and justify there is biotech in Silicon Alley. --> I believe this comment is spot on as well. Remember that the title of this article is simply Silicon Alley. I believe that Jytdog needs to recognize that his own argument has no reasonable underlying basis, and by obstructing recognition of the fact that Silicon Alley in 2016 is indeed ripe with biotech (and with regards to Wikipedia as a whole, that biotech is tech – even while he acknowledges that biotech is "high"-tech!), his interference is engendering some degree of damage to Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I based my vote on the fact that the vast majority of sources don't include biotech in the "Alley" moniker. Also, I should add some of the links offered above are not terribly convincing that the metonym "Silicon Alley' is used to refer to the biotech community in the NYC area. (I don't dispute that there's a ton of biotech in the NYC area, just looking for whether the term 'Silicon Alley' is used to refer to that community.)

Thanks for all the effort and care for the encyclopedia... Especially for Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area, there should be an article for this is there is one for Ohio bioscience sector, for pete's sake! Chris vLS (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I can meet you halfway along with your !vote suggestion, User:Chrisvls, and it sounds very thoughtfully written, thanks; but I do believe that this sentence should be mentioned in the tail end of the lead section, to give perspective right off the bat. And then a single paragraph toward the end of the page, as there is now. So the change would incorporate taking mention of biotech out of the first sentence where it currently rests in the same breath as IT ventures, and puts it as a secondary but significant-other mention at the tail end of the lede paragraph. Also, the appropriate refs introduced by User:CuriousMind01 should be introduced. Finally, the "see also" section needs to include Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area. Taking biotech entirely out of the lede I feel would be far too drastic and WP:UNDUE in the other direction, however. Castncoot (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)https://books.google.com/books?id=k96SAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=silicon+Alley+biotech&source=bl&ots=tSuT5ALruR&sig=oI5n89M653yMDvQrOdQjbAOwAa0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZsJzt64fRAhUF4yYKHdg0C3E4ChDoAQguMAM#v=onepage&q=silicon%20Alley%20biotech&f=falsehttps://www.meetup.com/ny-
https://www.meetup.com/ny-tech/messages/78261837/ This Week In Silicon Alley Health & BioTech Summit
http://techsponyc.com/silicon-alley/ "Silicon Alley....has evolved into ...high tech industries including...biotechnology" "The biotechnology sector is also growing in Silicon Alley..By mid-2014..a biotech investment firm, had raised more than US$30 million from investors..to create biotechnology startups at the Alexandria Center for Life Science..committed a minimum of US$100 million to help launch 15 to 20 ventures in life sciences and biotechnology. In December 2014, the state of New York announced a US$50 million venture-capital fund to encourage enterprises working in biotechnology ..."
There are very few reliable sources that directly link Silicon Alley with biotech, and the ones that do only mention biotech in brief passing. Hence it would be WP:UNDUE to mention biotech in the lead. To imply biotech is routinely linked to tech is WP:FRINGE bordering on WP:SYNTHESIS. Boghog (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Not if the sentence is stated carefully as the last sentence in the lead section, guided by Chrisvls' wording (slightly modified): "while there is also a growing biotechnology sector in the New York metropolitan area [29] [30] [31] [32], and several sources lump this sector into Silicon Alley,[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] the most common usage of this informal term refers to software and internet businesses." I think this wording and placement incorporates the overall group of commenters' input and concerns here quite well and does so accurately. Castncoot (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've also included Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area as a mention in the "see also" section of the article; the standard for "see also" is at least tangential, which the group here (overall) doesn't appear to disagree with. Castncoot (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Maproom and others !voting no have the WP:BURDEN to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the term Silicon Alley in fact comprises only electronic industries and not the biotechnology industry or even other online services. Castncoot (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Really? Then, by the same logic, you have the WP:BURDEN to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that it does not also include bakeries. Maproom (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Castncoot: repeating what I have written above, please reread WP:BURDEN, and in particular the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material. Boghog (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Boghog, sorry, but no material is being added. You're trying to subtract years-old material! Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Maproom, love your humor! Of course there are bakeries there! No dispute from me about that! Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
On the serious side, enough of a reasonable connection has been demonstrated supporting the concept of biotech as tech simply by the fact that there is in fact this protracted discussion here, with people staking out strong viewpoints supporting this connection (and those against). Therefore, those who would try to refute this extremely reasonable connection (especially trying to redefine years-old material in this, and by extension, highly likely, other articles, such as Biotechnology) have an extraordinarily high bar to hurdle over. On the other hand, has anybody seriously contemplated arguing that the concept of Silicon Alley includes bakeries? (Or against such a connection?) Of course not. Castncoot (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Material was added that is not adequately supported by reliable sources and when it was added is completely irrelevant. WP:V is not subject to the statute of limitations. Boghog (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
We already have reliable sources supporting biotech being a part and parcel of Silicon Alley. That much has been verified by multiple editors, the only disagreement is the strength and number of them. It's also WP:UNDUE to lump all types of "inorganic" tech into the same boat, as they have great differences between each other and must be considered individually themselves, and not as one homogeneous group versus biotech. WP doesn't have a statute of limitations any more than it has a deadline for the editing of content. But over the years, the status quo, albeit a concept in essay, has held great sway with a great many editors, and deleting material that has been there for a long time through the editing of multiple editors takes a herculean consensus, which simply doesn't exist anywhere even remotely here. Castncoot (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Said another way, we need a strong consensus to make a WP:BOLD change at this point, and I would certainly support arriving at a reasonable one. Castncoot (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I just realized, User:LightSaber, that biotechnology does incorporate IT. Thank you for your admission. Bioinformatics (a.k.a. healthcare IT) is a branch of biotechnology, according to the latter article, and the information technology article clearly indicates at the time of this writing that IT includes healthcare IT. Castncoot (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Only a few reliable sources directly link Silicon Alley with biotech and the ones that do only mention biotech in passing. WP:V is policy, WP:DEADLINE is an essay. If something is not adequately supported by reliable sources, it doesn't matter how long it has been in article, it is removed per WP:V. Bioinformatatics ≠ health care. Health care is one of several applications of bioinformatics. I have removed mention of health care from information technology because the source supplied in that article did not mention health care. Boghog (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
most importantly, any kind of technology is applied science. Biotechnology is applied biology. (medicine is too, in a different way). Bioinformatics is a tool to try to make sense out of the reams of data we can get out of biology experiments today (thanks to biotechnology); Health IT is taking data generated through the practice of medicine, and trying to use it to do medicine better. Bioinformatics is not Health IT, and neither bioinformatics nor Health IT = Biotech per se. You can do a startup on either out of your garage; you don't need to actually muck around with biology... you just need the data to crunch. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Boghog, I have reverted your edit on the information technology page and restored healthcare IT onto that page. First of all, you took that longstanding entry out without consensus, in a WP:BOLD way without consensus, perhaps because you noticed that it was a (one of many) significant obstacle to your attempt to downgrade or remove biotech from this (Silicon Alley) article. On top of that, your deletion was based on an inaccurate premise! I restored your cited quote there, however, as it is salient, and it happens also to support my point that bioinformatics is in fact absolutely a (large) subset of healthcare IT. Telemedicine (a growing field) and computerized biostatistics applications fit into this category like a glove. Castncoot (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Boghog's attempt to alter the information technology page demonstrates in dramatic fashion my point all along that pulling biotech out of this Silicon Alley article would be the WP equivalent of a 7.0-magnitude earthquake or a house of cards. Jytdog, look at the biotechnology article yourself, where it clearly lists bioinformatics as a branch of biotechnology.Trying to extract biotech out of this Silicon Alley article will inevitably shake the foundations of other articles in WP, not just this one. Is it really that important for you to alter this relatively small article? Or are you trying to make this a steppingstone toward attempting to redefine biotech through Wikipedia? Castncoot (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, telemedicine, the delivery of healthcare using information technology, is simply one form of e-commerce. Making an artificial distinction is apocryphal. And Boghog, you are now admitting yourself that there are reliable sources for connecting biotech to Silicon Alley.[39] So then to deny giving biotech its appropriate weight in the Silicon Alley article would be disingenuous on your part. I think I've already proposed a palatable and legitimate compromise above, namely to move it down to the last sentence of the lede, and to express specific qualifiers clearly stating that it's a minority opinion. Why would you possibly have a problem with that? Castncoot (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

@Castncoot: This is very simple. The supplied source in information technology does not support that health care is an integral part of it. Mentioning heath care in that article is off topic and a distraction. There is no consensus that unsupported statements remain in Wikipedia articles. In short, if you want to make that statement, you must supply a source that backs up that contention. Boghog (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be very clear, the supplied source states:[1] Where in this source is biotechhealthcare mentioned?

References

  1. ^ Chandler D, Munday R, "Information technology", A Dictionary of Media and Communication (first ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 1 August 2012, Commonly a synonym for computers and computer networks but more broadly designating any technology that is used to generate, store, process, and/or distribute information electronically, including television and telephone.

Also the following edit summary it includes telemedicine, which is absolutely healthcare IT makes no sense. Telemedicine is only one of many applications of telephones and healthcare IT is only one of many application of IT. If we include healthcare IT as part of the definition of IT, then we would have to add an endless list of other applications. Boghog (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself over and over again. You just called it "healthcare IT"! Look up telemedicine. And absolutely, healthcare IT is one form of the countless (and growing number) of types of IT. Are you stuck in a time warp in 1999, by any chance? Please get WP:CONSENSUS for any contested WP:BOLD changes on Wikipedia. You're trying to delete longstanding material on multiple pages now, and these actions need to be scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb, if not an electron microscope. Castncoot (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, where in this source is biotechhealthcare mentioned? Please answer the question. Boghog (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We're talking about the information technology and telemedicine articles now. "Telemedicine is the use of telecommunication and information technology to provide clinical health care from a distance", according to the telemedicine article. You tried to alter the information technology article to remove "healthcare" IT, not "biotech", in order to remove an obstacle to editing this Silicon Alley article with your desired change. In any case, the point is moot now as I have firmed up that information technology article further replacing the word "healthcare" with the more specific term health information technology. You're fighting a steep uphill battle here, it would be smarter for you to seek a reasonable compromise with me in this smaller scope yet apparently sentinel Silicon Alley article. Castncoot (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:V is Wikipedia policy and hence I am on rock solid ground insisting on a source that directly backs up the statement. Nowhere in the supplied source in Information technology does it mention healthcare. You are not winning any converts. Boghog (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I work at the interface of both fields. In real life, I use computers to design drugs. I rely heavily on IT to get my biotech work done. But I have never confused biotech with IT. They are quite separate fields. Boghog (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Castncoot: I repeat, where in this source is biotechhealthcare mentioned? Please answer the question. Boghog (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: And I repeat, are you denying that health information technology is information technology? Did you not see my iron fortress edit on the information technology article? And why did you (perhaps sheepishly) mention your edit there on this talk page anyway?! I am surprised that you as a biotech drug designer don't know as well as anyone else that biotech has many growing tentacles, including bioinformatics , which is part of health information technology ("Medical informatics, nursing informatics, public health informatics, pharmacy informatics, and translational bioinformatics are subdisciplines that inform health informatics from different disciplinary perspectives.[1]" according to the health information technology#Concepts and definitions article.). Castncoot (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: Please note that bioinformatics is a direct branch of biotechnology in the latter article. Castncoot (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Castncoot: I have added a {{Failed verification}} after health information technology to the article to denote that this statement is not supported by the supplied source. Per WP:V, mention of health information technology will be removed from the article unless a reliable source is supplied that supports that statement. Also you have replaced healthcare with health information technology also without consensus ;-) Boghog (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: I took out your bad-faith cn-needed tag because it's as obvious as the sky is blue and a wikilink obviates need for additional verification. And I'm further concerned that your disruptive behavior here is going to get both of us blocked. For that reason and that reason ONLY, I'm going to take a break. Castncoot (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Castncoot:: No, the failed verification tag is there for a reason. I repeat, where in this source is biotechhealthcare mentioned? You have still not answered the question. Boghog (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:citation needed, Boghog. You're clearly using frivolous hit-and-run tagging and not using it responsibly or in good faith. And your question about the ref specifically mentioning biotech is a non-sequitur. Why do you keep asking me that question, I am puzzled. I also have real life to attend to now. Castncoot (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:V Castncoot. I have used the failed verification tag responsibly because the supplied source does not support the statement. I keep asking the question because it is a reasonable question that should be answered. The only thing that is puzzling it that you are puzzled. Boghog (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me try this one more time. In Information technology, healthcare was listed as an associated industry. The supplied source states Commonly a synonym for computers and computer networks but more broadly designating any technology that is used to generate, store, process, and/or distribute information electronically, including television and telephone.[2] The other industries that were listed alongside healthcare were computer hardware, software, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, engineering, e-commerce, and computer services. All of these with the possible exception of the last three items clearly are supported by the source. Healthcare sticks out as a sore thumb since health is not mentioned anywhere in the source. You then changed healthcare to health information technology. This at least is more directly related to the subject, but still is not supported by the source that was provided. I added the {{failed verification}} tag to denote that fact. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, hence a wikilink does not obviate the need for additional verification. Asking for a source to support that statement is a reasonable request and was made in good faith. Health information technology is applied IT, not IT itself. If we add health IT to the list of associated industries, then we logically should add a very long list of other applied industries. Better to keep the list focused and include only industries that are directly supported by the supplied source. Boghog (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "When Healthcare and Computer Science Collide". University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
  2. ^ Chandler D, Munday R, "Information technology", A Dictionary of Media and Communication (first ed.), Oxford University Press

It is important not to confuse definitions with applications and science (basic knowledge) with technology (the application of that knowledge). It was written above that biotech has many growing tentacles, including bioinformatics , which is part of health information technology. Bioinformatics is not part of nor is defined by health information technology. Bioinformatics is a scientific discipline. Bioinformatic methods have been applied to many technologies including but not limited to health information technology. Boghog (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Castncoot: In Information technology, "engineering" and "healthcare" were added to the list of associated industries in this edit in August of 2015 well after the source was added. This edit was made without consensus by Luxpapa, a banned sockpuppet. Even sockpuppets can have a good day, but this was not one of them. This is a glaring example of why Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source and why arguments based on the contents of other Wikipedia articles carry no weight. Cut out the middle man and go directly to the source. In this case, the source simply does not support the addition of engineering and healthcare to the list of associated industries. Hence both should be removed. Just to be clear, your change of healthcare to health information technology, while an improvement, was also made without consensus. Boghog (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Back in commission. You would maintain very little credibility to take the standpoint that health information technology is not a form of information technology. Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source citation for other articles, but custom and practice dictate that various related Wikipedia articles speak with one voice: in this case, biotechnology (which includes bioinformatics as a branch), information technology, health information technology (joined at the hip with bioinformatics, per the health information technology article), and Silicon Alley. And now that you acknowledge that engineering, e-commerce, and computer services are not covered by the source, why did you specifically target health information technology for your citation-needed tag? In fact, even software, electronics, semiconductors, and internet are not mentioned by the source. Yet you selectively targeted healthcare information technology. I believe IMHO that this is irresponsible and constitutes hit-and-run tagging. This has left you needing to try to explain yourself in a long-winded way to circumvent your inability to prove your point convincingly. Castncoot (talk)
Custom and practice dictate that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. Period. It is irresponsible to defend unsupported material. Boghog (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You are still confusing defintions with applications. Health information technology is but one of a large number of applications of information technology. It does not define it. It is WP:UNDUE to include that one technology while excluding a very long list of other applications of IT. Boghog (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Au contraire – the application is healthcare. The technology is health information technology. Castncoot (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It is still WP:UNDUE. I repeat, where in the supplied source is healthcare mentioned? Please answer the question. It is not a non-sequitur. It is a reasonable, straight forward question. Boghog (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I have made a formal proposal to remove heathcare from the lead of Information technology . Your comments are welcome. Boghog (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you not read this? It's clear that I'm saying that most of them, including healthcare information technology, were not mentioned in the source; but you had at that time selectively targeted only healthcare information technology for tagging, despite your claiming this. You might want to study Wikipedia a little bit more. Health information technology has WP:NOTABILITY, along with several other forms of information technology. The long list of other types of IT which you have alluded to above haven't attained that WP:NOTABILITY. Castncoot (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did read this and responded with this because I don't think you understand the concept of WP:V. Health care does not belong the parent IT article because it is not central to IT, it is one of many applications of IT, and we already have a stand alone article on health information technology. Boghog (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you may need to do a little more reading on Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is a prerequisite for having a standalone article in the first place. And you continue to be terribly confused ([40]) between healthcare and healthcare information technology ([41]). I'm not sure how many times I should repeat this. Castncoot (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point. The issue is relevance, not notability. No one, myself included, has claimed that health information technology is not notable. It clearly is. The issue is whether it is relevant (i.e., within scope) of the main IT article. It is just one of many examples of an application of IT. Hence it would be appropriate to include a link to health information technology in the see also section, but not in the lead of the article. Also it should be clear from the context, when I talk about healthcare, I am referring to health information technology. In this context, I will continue to use healthcare as a shorthand for health information technology. Get use to it. Boghog (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Jojalozzo: We have reliable sources ([42] [43] [44] [45][46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]). We are not being allowed to put them up in the first place. Castncoot (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The first source you list (a short piece in a trade journal) mentions Silicon Alley. The next two do not. I stopped there. How many of the others are RELIABLE and explicitly include biotech in Silicon Alley? Jojalozzo (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Several. And I am disappointed that you would execute a premature !vote after admittedly not even evaluating all of the sources given. Castncoot (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Shotgun approaches don't work. It is disrespectful to provide a long list of weak sources and expect others to filter this list for you. Attacking other editors that you are trying to persuade is not an effective strategy either. I have looked the other sources that you have supplied, and here is my take:
Analysis of sources
In the above list, there is not a single high quality source that directly states that biotech is an integral/significant part of Silicon Alley. Boghog (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Not needed, and your analysis appears unobjective (by the way, did you analyze the Columbia University ref?). Almost no single source of inorganic tech claims such an integral proportion on its own. And why does NYC have to be in the very top two cities in biotech to warrant mention - that's downright ridiculous - are you really saying that a current "second-tier" status somehow invalidates its legitimacy with regards to inclusion? Furthermore, there is enough evidence in the sources to raise (more than) a reasonable suspicion of a connection, such that the benefit of the doubt must be afforded to including a reasonable stance toward disussion of the connection of biotech and Silicon Valley. Therefore, the concept of commensurate weight comes into play. Biotech needs to be given its commensurate weight on the page, with accurately weighted characterization and careful wording. Anything less would be disingenuous. Castncoot (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Very much needed. For example, the Columbia University ref doesn't even mention Silicon Alley. You need to be more selective with your sources. Chris vLS also did an analysis of the same links and came to roughly the same conclusion (there is biotech in NYC, but it usually is not directly linked to Silicon Alley, hence biotech should be mentioned in the article but probably not in the lead). Boghog (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
So assuming you agree with User:Chrisvls, how would you word this in the article? Make a concrete proposal then, like I have as I did here. Castncoot (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Triming the sources to relevant, high quality ones and adding an additional source to support the last statement, your suggested passage would read:

  • While there is also a growing biotechnology sector in the New York metropolitan area,[1][2] and several sources lump this sector into Silicon Alley,[1][3][4] the most common usage of this informal term refers to software and internet businesses.[5]

References

  1. ^ a b Noto A (6 November 2015). "Sector spotlight: How biotech in N.Y.C. holds up compared to other cities". New York Business Journal. However, [NYC biotech is] considered second tier when held up against other cities.
  2. ^ Herskowitz O (8 January 2016). "NYC's Biotech Startup Ecosystem". Columbia University.
  3. ^ Silva RS (17 March 2015). "Welcome to Silicon Alley: Tech start-ups meet funding in the Big Apple". Wiss & Company.
  4. ^ Indergaard M (2004). Silicon Alley: The Rise and Fall of a New Media District. New York: Routledge. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-415-93571-5. The real opportunity is to make a technology center that is broadly focused—biotech to software to new media.
  5. ^ Bram J, Ploenzke M (6 July 2015). "Will Silicon Alley Be the Next Silicon Valley?". The Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Liberty Street Economics. How We Define the Tech Sector: Computer Manufacturing, Electronic Shopping, Software Publishing, Data Processing, Hosting & Related Services, Internet Publishing & Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, Computer Systems Design & Related, and the NAICS Code 541712, for "Physical; Engineering; and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)," is exactly the kind of tech industry we were looking to include.

I could live with this. Boghog (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to reluctantly admit that I like it myself. I hope the others can compromise and settle on this as well. This discussion has been dragging on far too long and has become tiresomely repetitive. Castncoot (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot if you will agree to leave it at that, and only in the body not in the lead, I will withdraw the RfC. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
As long as we also keep the "see also" entry for Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area in addition to the above entry in the body of the article, I'm OK with removing it from the lede. Castncoot (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In light of the changes made by Castncoot here, their refusal to recognize that silicon alley has really nothing to do with biotech is not going away and neither is their continued conflation of tech and biotech, so I am not withdrawing the RfC. it is looking like the consensus will be to remove all mention of biotech from this article but we will see how that plays out Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
What? You just closed the RfC and then reopened it? That's ridiculous. Now you're playing games. I already acknowledged your changes on the other article [52] and begrudgingly let it go, as much as I disagree with your edit on that page. Castncoot (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I call foul, big time. You had buyer's remorse here, so you used my brief edit on another article as a scapegoat here, even though you've already reverted the portion about Silicon Alley on the Biotech companies in New York article. Castncoot (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not playing games. This RfC arose because of your insistence that the biotech industry and the tech industry are somehow the same and that "Silicon Alley" refers to biotech in any meaningful way. I thought you kind of "got it" through the RfC and discussion thus far but based on the diff at the List of biotech companies, you haven't, and this problem is just going to keep arising, and I am not going to keep playing whack-a-mole with you. I guess we need this RfC to be finished and closed for you to understand that refs do not support your conflations. I and others will be able to cite the close to you at other articles in WP.
I will withdraw the RfC if you will agree to stop conflating the tech and biotech industries and stop trying to insist that "Silicon Alley" includes the biotech industry. Everywhere in WP. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As I just said, I've already begrudgingly let that go on the other article. This RfC needs to be re-closed immediately with the changes as I had made. Castncoot (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I did notice that you let my removal of that stuff stand and I appreciate that. Is this issue going to arise at other articles, or are we really done with it? Like I said, let me know. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
An apology is in order from you first, don't you think? Castncoot (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not a game of extortion. You closed the RfC and then re-opened it out of a visual oversight on your part. That was your fault. I already let your edit on the other article stand, that speaks for itself. I don't need an apology from you. However, this RfC needs to be closed with the changes as I had made, and including the intervening edit of CuriousMind01 – and immediately so. Castncoot (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Castncoot: The RfC is not over. What you have inserted is taken out of context, is contrary to the developing context consensus of this RfC, and is not what we discussed above. Stop trying to edit war your preferred version into this article. Boghog (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Boghog, that's not how it is at all. I thought we came up with a compromise. Jytdog went along with it, closed the Rfc, and then in bad faith re-opened it for a nonsensensical reason stemming from his buyer's remorse and using this as a stealth maneuver to try to remove biotech from Silicon Alley forever. Is he really that foolish to try that? I gave him a chance to restore things back to the way you and I had agreed upon, and he declined. Then it struck me a short time ago, that the ref I added to the front is fantastic, and you seemed to agree that it was a high-quality ref that supported the fact at least some people in the tech media sphere considered Silicon Alley to be connected to biotech. And you know what else was apparent to me? It ensures that biotech will remain in Silicon Alley for the foreseeable eternity. I'm willing to return to what we compromised on. It's Jytdog, not I, who's fighting a ridiculous battle to block evidence – I hope you won't participate in the same. Castncoot (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, where did you get the idea that pertinent edits cannot be made intra-RfC? That's simply not true. Adding a ref gives the community a chance to adjudicate the statement's validity, and transparency is critical here. Otherwise, the field becomes rigged, and that is really bad faith to disallow the community from even noticing the ref as placed in an appropriate (and obvious) position. Castncoot (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This version is acceptable to me, but this is not my decision to make. Ideally this RfC should be closed by a neutral third party. Hence I think we should wait a few days to allow for a proper close. Boghog (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Edits are certainly allowed during an RfC, but not to controversial content that is the subject the RfC and especially when those edits contradict the developing consensus. Boghog (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said before, this version you agree with is a version that I put into place, so I certainly agree with it as well. The only thing I noticed just now is that on the second iteration of that ref, the quote in the citation needs to be changed to, "The biotech and pharmaceutical industry continues to attract entrepreneurs and talent, especially in Silicon Alley where venture capital investments are at an all time high." (The reason is that we are saying that some sources lump biotech into the term Silicon Alley at the point in the text.) Castncoot (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Alansohn, for better or for worse, this article Silicon Alley exists. So unless it's moved to a different title, don't you think that biotech deserves at least a nominal mention in the article, with caveats carefully worded as in this version, which at least a couple of us find palatable? In fact, the precise reason that this article might be considered as having become a WP:COATRACK is that the real-life usage of the term Silicon Alley has also evolved that way, and that very reality needs to be reflected and properly sourced in this article, which is in fact entitled, "Silicon Alley". Castncoot (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Status update 1

For those just entering the discussion or returning to it after some days, where we're at seems to be NO CONSENSUS for any specific type of change. Some of us want biotechnology further reinforced as a part and parcel of Silicon Alley, some of us believe that biotechnology should remain in the article although not in the lead, and there are some who believe biotechnology should not be in this article. So we have a situation with opinions all over the map. The closest we've gotten to a consensus thus far is this this proposed version which moves biotech from the lede down to the body. Some comments on this proposed version would be welcome. I'm optimistic that we'll arrive at a consensus here. Castncoot (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing biotechnology from the article entirely would be more in keeping with the majority of the comments that have arisen from the RfC. To me the general consensus is that Silicon Alley is a term used for the silicon based micro-electronics industry and not biotechnology. Polyamorph (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, it's a pretty close call between those accepting biotech in the article versus those not accepting it in the article, so I think that would hardly qualify as a general consensus by any means. Also, keep in mind the many online service industries (of diverse types) which dwarf the hardware-based "silicon" in Silicon Alley, which contains (far) more biotechnology than micro-electronics and hardware. By your logic, those diverse online service industries would also not be included. Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the RfC comments it is pretty clear that consensus is leaning towards "No". All online and IT services are fundamentally reliant on silicon based microelectronics. So there is no flaw in my logic. Polyamorph (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is typical of Castncoot and why this RfC exists at all; they see what they want to see. The consensus is clearly strongly tending "remove", per the bulk of reliable sources (there are a few stray ones that mention biotech in the context of Sliicon Alley, mostly in promotional contexts like advertising conferences or services where they want to sweep as much as possible in) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, may I remind you that it was actually User:Boghog who proposed this, and that you initially agreed with it and closed the RfC based on this agreement??!! My, your hypocrisy in this matter is astounding! And Polyamorph, please look not only at the initial !votes but also the ensuing caveats within those !votes and then the evolving discussion thereafter, which alters the complexion of the discussion fundamentally. Castncoot (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to remind me. I already responded above and the ball is in your court to let me know if you will stop making the conflations that have driven this dispute and others. based on this remark from you that does not appear to be the case, so i reckon we are going to have to let this RfC run its course. but let me know. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you picked the correct diff? This was following your little stunt. You've been making oversight errors, so I wasn't sure if this was yet another. Your point is...? Castncoot (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct dif. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Still confused, one of us at least. This diff occurred after, rather than before, you re-opened the RfC after closing it with our agreed changes. On an entirely separate note, why would you object transferring to another article the exact same content that you had just approved for this article? That makes zero sense. Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
see the diff I already provided and the prior one. I know things don't make sense to you; there is nothing I can do about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, indulge me if you wouldn't mind - please point out the actual live diff which occurred before you re-opened the RfC which supposedly then prompted you to re-open the RfC. Transparency and clarity are the only means for us to wade through this little mess. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, see the two diffs I just provided, one of which includes a diff of the edit that you made on a different article that demonstrated that we actually did not have a meeting of the minds on this subject matter - we had no authentic agreement about the topic. I have asked you three times to let me know that you "get it", that "Silicon Alley" does not include biotech in any meaningful sense, and that biotech industry and the tech industry are very different. I am not going to keep playing whack-a-mole on these issues. If you don't agree/"get it", then we have no agreement. Which is fine, that is what RfCs are for - we'll just let it run. Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't want to cooperate with my request? Fine, then I'll demonstrate it myself. This (reversion) is actually the diff on List of biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area which prompted you to retract your agreement and reopen this RfC on this page. If you trace the edits chronologically, that is irrefutable. What you don't realize is that I put that content up there because I thought I had your implicit approval after your approval of that exact same content on this article. Who would have thought otherwise? You then reverted it on the other page, which I thought was inappropriate but begrudgingly let it go, but I was absolutely flabbergasted that you then reverted your RfC closure on this article page, using that edit on the other page (which you reverted and I let it go, anway) as an excuse to do so here. After such actions, how can you be trusted to uphold your word? Castncoot (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Calm down. Let the RfC run its course and let a neutral editor close it. Jytdog was correct to revert his premature closure of the discussion. Please discuss content not other editors actions. Polyamorph (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Polyamorph, 1) Can you kindly explain the rationale behind your sweeping statement? To clarify, I disagree that Jytdog was correct to re-open the RfC, specifically secondary to his red-herring rationale. The significantly more important point here is that Jytdog did believe for at least a moment that it was entirely reasonable to include biotech in this Silicon Alley article. After all, Jytdog consciously closed the RfC at this point. 2) Furthermore, Polyamorph, can you kindly specifically comment on Jytdog's statement near the bottom of (the contemporaneous RfC), as I quote Jytdog, "::Castncoot if you will agree to leave it at that, and only in the body not in the lead, I will withdraw the RfC. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)". 3) Polyamorph, it was actually User:Boghog who proposed this. Do you disagree with Boghog's proposal? Can you please analyze the references which Boghog used to justify inclusion of biotech in the article, namely [53], [54], [55], as well as quote="The real opportunity is to make a technology center that is broadly focused—biotech to software to new media.? Are these these illegitimate references which would somehow not allow a carefully characterized inclusion of biotech in the body of the article? I look forward to your responses. Castncoot (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You've admitted at the start of the section that you don't see a consensus forming. I disagree and feel the consensus is for no. But in any case in such situations it is the role of an uninvolved editor to close such discussions. Jytdog clearly changed their mind, their entitled to do so. I don't feel the references provided give sufficient justification for inclusion of any more than a passing reference for biotech in this article. In my opinion it would be better not to include it. Polyamorph (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Now we're making some headway here. You're now the fourth (!) editor that I've been able to convince for at least a moment (User:Chrisvls, Boghog, and Jytdog being the other three) that it is entirely reasonable to include at least a nominal reference ("passing reference", per your wordage) to biotech in the Silicon Alley article. User:MarkBassett also !voted, "at least not in the lead". User:CuriousMind01 and I have believed strongly all along that biotech is leadworthy. By the way, Jytdog changed his mind about closing the RfC (using invalid reasoning, I believe), but he didn't change his mind about his agreement with the actual reasonableness of using biotech in the article body, provided he gets something in return (some vagaries he gave about "conflating" and "whack-a-mole" ("guac-a-mole"?), but nothing concretely comprehensible). So the reality is that if anything, the median consensus is developing toward including a nominal or passing reference in the body, sourcing it well, and noting that it is an alternative viewpoint. And what is not to like about that? Properly phrased, it's constructive, educational, and reliably sourced, and it embraces the spirit of Wikipedia. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting me. You also have misrepresented Boghog, Chrisvls, and Polyamorph. Agreeing to the compromise because I thought we had an actual meeting of the minds, does not mean that I agreed with " the actual reasonableness of using biotech in the article body". The actual language agreed to made it clear that biotech is not usually considered part of Silicon Alley, and we did not have an actual meeting of the minds, as you showed in your subsequent edits where you continued conflating the tech and biotech industries. Per WP:SHUN I will respond here only to correct further misrepresentations by you. I reckon others will do the same. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. Are you trying to sell to anybody that you'd go as far as to close out an RfC on the basis of a compromise having been reached if you hadn't thought that the content you were agreeing to was at least reasonable, if not your preference? If you are now saying this, then you're seriously (further) undermining your own credibility. Castncoot (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That is not what I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure is what you're saying. Jytdog, spell out exactly what you want in return for agreeing to the material you agreed to when you closed out the RfC. I have to take a break now, but I will return to see what you want, hopefully stated in unmistakably concrete terms. Castncoot (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being mis-represented. I do not believe there is any justification for the inclusion of biotech in this article at all. You asked me to look at your references and i did and commented that they don't justify inclusion of biotech except for perhaps a passing reference. But that in my opinion the references are of insufficient quality to justify inclusion of biotech. I feel that this discussion is becoming rather disruptive. My advice: Wait for a neutral editor to close the RfC. Polyamorph (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No misrepresentation intended, Polyamorph. We're both approaching the same solution from opposite sides. Where we both agree is that a passing reference to biotech is acceptable, even if it is neither of our preference. Remember that I want it to stay in the lede as it has since 2014. I am still awaiting Jytdog's response as to what he wants in return for re-closing the RfC in the same state as he, the presenter of this RfC, had closed it the first time. Castncoot (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

OK, we can either close the RFC ourselves by compromising, OR... we can recruit three neutral editors, including at least two administrators, to adjudicate this RfC. Obviously we can't just choose one editor, as this would present a crapshoot, flip-a-coin situation, which would obviously be unacceptable. I know a neutral editor, User:BD2412, who I wonder if they might be interested in moderating the discussion and in turn recruiting three neutral editors for this task. Castncoot (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I offered you options of "third party" or mediation on Dec 5 (diff and diff), and again on Dec 15 (diff and diff) which you did not accept. We are now in an RfC and it will run its course and be closed, apparently. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
And Boghog was our third party, if you remember. You weren't satisfied with the outcome of his comments and you therefore sent this discussion for mediation, which was then rejected but not pursued again by you after he and others had joined the discussion. The RfC will be re-closed at the appropriate time, I agree. We just need to choose the three neutral editors to do so. In the meantime, WP:AGF and WP:CON require you to try to pursue consensus. I continue to pursue consensus by asking what you want in return for re-closing the RfC in hope of an agreement. Castncoot (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Not accurate. Every sentence is incorrect. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Humorous. Disputing a diff with an edit summary confirming precisely the same. Castncoot (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:RFCEND, an RfC can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. I am involved, hence I cannot close it. Mediation was rejected because you refused to take part in it. Neither WP:AGF nor WP:CON require endless discussions. An RfC is not a negotiation. It is a means of arriving at consensus consistent with Wikipedia policies. Your misrepresentations are becoming quite disruptive. Boghog (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I realize you back a different viewpoint, but you can't make either sweeping statements or accusations without justifying them. Both WP:AGF and WP:CON obligate editors to pursue consensus. Right now, the discussion is highly polarized with a median consensus but no general consensus. Finally, there is no misrepresentation when it was you yourself who proposed this version. Own your action. Castncoot (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
My statements are based on Wikipedia policy. No further justification is needed. Furthermore the above consensus is very clear that biotech is not generally considered part of Silicon Alley. Boghog (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
...And your perceived interpretation is presumably why you worded your own statement as such: [56]. I can live with your proposed statement as such. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Castncoot (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to repeat yourself. You've made yourself heard loud and clear. It's long past time to stop repeating yourself.Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I stand by my previous statements, but they are only a small part of the developing consensus. By definition, consensus is more than one person's opinion. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A reasonable statement which I agee with, Boghog! ☺️ My whole platform (tries to) center around reasonableness. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I've made a request for formal closure of the RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. Polyamorph (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Formally the RfC has 7 days to go, but that list is way backed up so no harm listing it now. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Reasons not to remove longstanding biotech from the article

NO CONSENSUS to remove biotech from the article

There is no general consensus to remove all longstanding biotech content from the Silicon Alley article. Material that has been present for years (in this case since 2014) requires a STRONG consensus to remove it. That type of consensus just isn't there. Boghog has proposed this, and Jytdog initially closed the RfC including Boghog's proposed wording, noting a compromise. Other editors have expressed the acceptability of keeping the article in the body outside the lede, including Polyamorph, if not enthusiastically [57]. If anything, as of this writing, the "median" consensus supports including a nominal, well-sourced mention of biotech in the body of the article. Castncoot (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources clearly support at minimum some retention of biotech, and at maximum, retention in the lede

There are more than enough reliable sources here to justify at least inclusion of biotech in this Silicon Alley article. [58], [59], [60], as well as quote="The real opportunity is to make a technology center that is broadly focused—biotech to software to new media. were proposed by Boghog himself. In addition, there are refs like [61], [62], and [63]. In sum, simply pretending that Biotech does not exist in Silicon Alley and that it is not due '"any" existential credit would be downright nonsensical. Castncoot (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing all biotech from the article would contradict Wikipedia policy

Removing any and all mention of biotech from this article (which has existed since 2014) would be a violation of both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV policies. It would be WP:UNDUE because Wikipedia needes to represent a commensurate proportion of discussion of a legitimate viewpoint if there are reliable sources to support it. Zero is not a commensurate proportion and would only serve to promote the WP:POV of those editors who would like in ideological theory to see tech and biotech separated forever and thereby march toward an ideological 'genocide' in Wikipedia, if you will, that separates tech from biotech in all articles. Wikipedia is not here to promote ideology and/or propaganda. Period. Castncoot (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing all mention of biotech would diminish the credibility of Wikipedia

Removing all mention of biotech from this article and then using this article as a stepping stone to remove biotech from all other tech-related articles would diminish Wikipedia's credibility. There are clearly enough higher quality sources to warrant biotech's retention in this article to at least some extent. To pretend that there are none, when editors, even those whose preference would be against inclusion have acknowledged, including [64], have themselves acknowledged exist, would be disingenuous, would promote a regressive agenda, and would prompt many observing this process to be disappointed in Wikipedia's machinations and lose faith in the encyclopedia itself. Castncoot (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing all mention of biotech would go against the spirit and mission of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is here to educate constructively. That includes presenting legitimate alternative viewpoints in a responsible way. No rational editor would want to promote the alternative viewpoint held by an extreme few that the earth is flat, and this RfC discussion is diametrically opposite to that frivolous scenario. After all, the biotechnology article itself fundamentally defines biotech as a form of technology in its first line, even citing the United Nations. A significant number of rational editors believe that biotech should be included in the article, and some believe that it should be retained in the lede, as it has since 2014. There is an even greater subset of editors who believe it would be at least acceptable or reasonable to include biotech in the article, including the body outside of the lede. Therefore, responsible characterization of the acknowledgement that some sources consider biotech to be a part and parcel of Silicon Alley (as proposed by Boghog himself, perhaps reluctantly: [65]) is not only the responsible thing to do, it is the right thing to do, in general but also in consistency with the spirit and mission of Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing all biotech material would violate WP:AGF

When material has been at least passively sanctioned over the years (in this case since 2014) by multiple editors who have perused this relatively short article, one must assume a certain amount of good faith among those editors. To assume that these editors would keep biotech in the article for some irrational reason violates WP:AGF. Castncoot (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources were suppressed by certain editors from being added prior to !voting, diminishing transparency

Legitimate sources supporting the retention of biotech in the article were not allowed to even be posted before !voting and since then, despite multiple requests to post them simply to let the reader adjudicate properly and fairly. This entire discussion has been large and likely would have presented a challenge for at least some readers to wade through and would likely have dissuaded at least some readers from entering the process and then !voting in a way that would favor biotech in the article. If the legitimate refs had been postable from the beginning of the dispute, that would have highly likely reinforced the legitimacy of retaining biotech not only in the article, but in fact in the lede itself. These actions by certain editors essentially led to a biased component of !voter suppression, given that the threshold here is merely retention of longstanding material since 2014. Castncoot (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area renders WP:NOTABILITY

The argument that NYC must be in the absolute top-tier of biotech is invalid. Whether Silicon Alley has reached the highest echelon of cities hosting biotech is irrelevant to the article. A number of editors here have compared NYC to Boston and San Francisco as biotech cities and claimed that biotech is not a significant component of tech in NYC simply because it is not one of the top two cities. In reality, NYC is within the top 5, but again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area article lends WP:NOTABILITY to the inclusion of biotech in this Silicon Alley article, and frankly, it would be highly odd and remiss not to include at least some mention of biotech in this Silicon Alley article. Castncoot (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silicon_Alley/Archive_1&oldid=984470036"