Talk:Stanford University

Inclusion criteria for "Student groups" section
Hi there, I'm curious if any editors here have experience or insight into what the inclusion criteria should be for the student groups section. I'm most worried about the part that says, "other groups include..." which I understand to be a magnet for trivia. Obviously blue links are probably too high a standard. Is mention in newspapers sufficient?

Best, Liam M (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove sourced information
An unregistered editor has begun an edit war to remove a section labeled "Jon Lonsdale" from the "Safety" subsection of the "Student Life" section. The removed material:


 * In February 2015, Elise Clougherty filed a sexual assault and harassment lawsuit against venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale. Lonsdale and Clougherty entered into a relationship in the spring of 2012 when she was a junior and he was her mentor in a Stanford entrepreneurship course. By the spring of 2013 Clougherty had broken off the relationship and filed charges at Stanford that Lonsdale had broken the Stanford policy against consensual relationships between students and faculty and that he had sexually assaulted and harassed her, which resulted in Lonsdale being banned from Stanford for 10 years. Lonsdale challenged Stanford's finding that he had had sexually assaulted and harassed her and Stanford rescinded that finding and the campus ban in the fall of 2015. Clougherty withdrew her suit that fall as well.

The editor who removed this material - twice - used the edit summary "removing section of individual only remotely affiliated with Stanford." That doesn't seem accurate to me given what the cited sources say and how prominently the reliable sources link this to the university.

Unless there is further discussion or a more legitimate reason is given for removing this information, I plan to restore it as the provided rationale doesn't hold water. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the editor's stated reason was not valid as the activity described is quite clearly Stanford related. A more valid argument might be it is too minor (WP:PROPORTION).  It might be better framed as an example within a description of Stanford's policies and their enforcement.  This would probably fall under Administration and Organization in a new subsection on policies (Founding Grant, Fundamental Standard, Honor Code, Administrative Guide 1.7.2 Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships In the Workplace and Educational Setting, Policy on Campus Disruptions (and the firing of H._Bruce_Franklin though a fuller description of that might be in the History of Stanford University article)).  --Erp (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternative target for AfD merge
There's an AfD with an outcome to merge Stanford University School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences to here, given that that now-closed department formed part of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, might that not be a better target (given that it is more specific)? Any objections? Klbrain (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that Sustainability would be a better target for a redirect than the main article. On the other hand, nothing has been done to create the redirect that was called for in the AfD; the School of Earth etc. is still a full article of its own. What should probably be done is to move all the information from the "Earth" school article over to the "Sustainability" article, with a redirect. That will be a lot of work and I will consider it later. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The School of Engineering material in this article
For some reason, one Stanford school - the School of Engineering - redirects to this main article rather than having its own article. Here, it has a huge section in the Administration and Organization section, unlike the other schools which have their own articles. As a result, this main Stanford article article is clogged with masses of information about the School of Engineering, its history, every dean it’s ever had, right down to the names of faculty and awards they got. No way does this belong in the main article; it should be an article of its own like all the other departments. There is more than enough material for an article. I intend to split it out into Stanford School of Engineering. By my count, that would remove 16,000 bytes from this 213,000 byte article. I will wait a few days in case someone here objects.

There is also a much shorter section here, also in the Administration and Organization section, about the Graduate School of Education. IMO it doesn't belong here. I need opinions about whether to try to split that off into an article and expand it. All the other schools have their own, well developed articles, but the section here would need a lot of expansion to become an article. MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see why this is here: it's because of a Merge result at an AfD last August: Articles for deletion/Stanford University School of Engineering. Someone did go ahead and merge the entire School of Engineering article into the main Stanford article. It turns out there were several other "school of" Stanford articles that were AfD'ed at the same time, also with the result "merge to Stanford", except that nobody carried out those merges and they are still freestanding articles. Before I put this together I noticed that the other articles had a tag at the top saying they were supposed to be merged, and I took the bold step of removing the tag. You don’t see this kind of bloat at the articles of comparable universities such as Harvard (ten academic faculties, each with its own article) or Yale (fourteen constituent schools, each with its own article). I don’t know what people were thinking at that AfD, but I am going to overrule it and return the School of Engineering to its own page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back to its own article. Turned out it amounted to 31,000 bytes! Big improvement to this article. I still need to figure out how to handle the School of Education. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the School of Education from this article, setting it up as a freestanding article and expanding it. Now the clutter is gone and each of the schools has their own article - as is the case with comparable universities like UC Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, etc. MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The map of Stanford CDP and Stanford University
(Discussion continued from User talk:WhisperToMe

My edit did say "The central academic campus is mostly in the Stanford census-designated place, with portions in Palo Alto." so I could revise that to make it clear I'm referring to the sum of the Stanford holdings in the Palo Alto area, although it is clear the Palo Alto city limits do extend to some properties by the hospital.

I took a look at the map, and it does overlay "Stanford Univ" territory with the city boundaries, doing so in a single document. The document iself has a key to the right that shows "College or University" as being shaded a particular way. There's only one college or university on this map, "Stanford Univ" (the label is by "Laqunita Lk"). That's why I stated that the campus partially extended to Palo Alto.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I found a Palo Alto zoning map which indeed defines all of the "Academic Campus" as being outside the city limits, with areas in the limits being called "Research/Office Park" and "Major Institution/Special Facility" and "Multi-Family Res" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that is a good source for the Academic Campus or University proper being outside the city since it is explicit and reliable. Stanford is a large landholder and some of the land not marked as Stanford on the map is also Stanford land (e.g., long term leases to the school district, to the company that manages the Stanford Shopping Center, to the city itself for a park or the Stanford Research Park).   Having non-academic Stanford owned land within the city boundaries does not make the university within the city. Erp (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok! I went ahead and added that clarification, that the main academic campus is entirely outside of Palo Alto (citing that city map), while adding that the shopping center and two of the hospital buildings/facilities are in Palo Alto. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Stanford West Apartments are identified as being in Palo Alto in:
 * Stanford University Medical Center:
 * - The map shows "Stanford Shopping Center" and "Stanford University Medical" as being in the city limits
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Cantonese programs at Stanford
The article says that programs were abolished in 2020 there, yet I still see Cantonese classes offered on the course catalog https://language.stanford.edu/programs-languages/chinese/cantonese and press coverage about how Cantonese classes are offered and fulfilling the language requirement https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/12/cantonese-course-now-fulfills-undergraduate-language-requirement/. Could someone look into this? 2600:1700:368C:110:F92C:B630:24A7:ECC5 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Stanford got some push back and had enough interested students to justify offering Cantonese. I've removed the item though I do think the section on teaching and learning may need to be expanded. Erp (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stanford Internet Observatory
I recently created a draft for the Stanford Internet Observatory. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of relative prestige in lede
Can you please say more about why you removed this sentence from the lede of this article?
 * Its influence, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

Your edit summary was "remember that anything in the lede needs to have its proper WP:DUE body weight, which this doesn't. Stanford is prestigious, but the article must still conform to policy" but in addition to the sources cited for this sentence the body of the article has a "Reputation and rankings" section that also includes relevant information with many citations. You know the current consensus about this kind of material in the lede of articles as well as anyone so I don't understand your objection. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The sentence suffer(ed) from two key issues. The first was that it wasn't supported by the sources given (and the statement still isn't fully supported by the current source given), and the second is that it lacks the WP:DUE body weight and WP:SYNTHs its conclusion. To support Its "influence, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities...", the Reputation and rankings section mentioned should:
 * 1. Have material explicitly supporting influence making Stanford one of the most prestigious universities.
 * 2. Have material explicitly supporting wealth making Stanford one of the most prestigious universities.
 * 3. Have material explicitly supporting rankings making Stanford one of the most prestigious universities.
 * 4. (Something easily missed) Have disproportional content material to support such a prominent placement in the lede.
 * We get monikers and comparisons of Stanford, but nothing about the university's influence; at the very least, nothing about the influence having an impact on its prestige. We don't get anything at all about the university's endowment or funding or the effect it has on its prestige, so an easy fail for 2 — nothing about prestige in the endowment section either. We get rankings in the section, but nothing proving that those rankings make Stanford a prestigious university. Lastly, the section is the second smallest of the six subsections — it's even smaller than the dorm housing section. Even if we were to include it in the lede, it surely would not be in the most prominent lede sentence based off its body weight. In retrospect, the reputation and rankings section doesn't even mention prestige at all.
 * The section should be expanded to incorporate these aspects, and to actually expound on Stanford's prestige explicitly. GuardianH (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editchecker123 Here's the discussion I was referencing. GuardianH (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @GuardianH for looping me in. It seems that the issue here is that the associated note doesn’t include sources to support the 4 points above. Given it is Stanford, I’m sure substantial sources exist to back each of the 4 points you mention . I think there shouldn’t be an issue including the phrase back in the article with additional reliably-sourced citations? Editchecker123 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @GuardianH: here are a few references we could add which address this (it did not take much more than a Google Search to pull these 9 reliable sources...I'm sure many more could be found). Do you have any objections to adding back the sentence with these 9 sources quoted in the footnote?
 * 1. Wealth:
 * NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/business/stanford-endowment-gain.html
 * WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/big-university-endowments-hampered-by-startup-write-downs-77021825
 * WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-record-year-university-endowment-returns-drop-into-negative-territory-11667188753
 * 2. Rankings:
 * THE: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2024/world-ranking (Stanford is a top 2 university in the world, ahead of Harvard which includes the same sentence in question)
 * USN: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities (Stanford tied with Harvard again, which includes the same sentence in question)
 * WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/rankings/college-rankings/best-colleges-2024 (Stanford at #4, Harvard at #6, which includes the same sentence in question)
 * 3. Influence: 
 * NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/education/americas-it-school-look-west-harvard.html ("Stanford University has become America’s “it” school, by measures that Harvard once dominated. Stanford has had the nation’s lowest undergraduate acceptance rate")
 * NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/education/stanfords-online-high-school-raises-the-bar.html ("One of our country’s most prestigious universities feels comfortable putting its considerable prestige and brand behind it")
 * NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/business/a-clash-of-ideals-and-investments-at-swarthmore.html ("Stanford’s prestige and the size of its endowment...")
 * Editchecker123 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. However, to support a claim about ranking highly, we need much more than just a handful of rankings from a single year (unless you're claiming that the university ranked highly in just that year and I don't think that you're making that claim). The assertion would also be greatly strengthened if you were to reference peer-reviewed, scholarly literature, especially literature that demonstrates that this opinion is widely shared (e.g., by many scholars, across several decades). ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @ElKevbo, that's correct (not trying to claim Stanford is only ranked highly this year, plenty of sources to show this goes back in history across the decades). Thinking the following sources would address the points covering multi-decade, widely shared, many scholars, etc...?
 * NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/10/archives/harvard-of-the-west-climbing-in-ratings.html (46 years ago in a reliable source – showing Stanford was a direct 1:1 comp to Harvard, which shares the same line as we are debating here)
 * JSTOR peer reviewed article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40164963 (23 years ago, demonstrates how other universities want to be like "Harvard or Berkeley or Stanford" in their rankings)
 * NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/08/us/how-stanford-wealthy-and-wise-is-cutting-costs-to-stay-that-way.html (33 years ago, entire article is about Stanford's prestige and endowment, how it is the first university to manage its finances the way it does)
 * WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113798458553353327 (17 years ago, showing the 3rd largest college endowment: #1 = Harvard, #2 = Yale, #3 = Stanford)
 * JSTOR peer reviewed article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40197378 (19 years ago, addresses the entire prestige / ranking point)
 * JSTOR peer reviewed article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43773471 (9 years ago, addresses the entire prestige / ranking point)
 * Editchecker123 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the sources provided could definitely be used to expand the existing reputation section in the body. Though more sources — especially academic ones, like ElKevbo pointed out — should be found demonstrating that these factors make Stanford's reputation. GuardianH (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like the sentence has been moved under the reputations and rankings section of Harvard, and on that article it is cited as "examples include" so I think we could do the same thing here: move the sentence to the top of the ranking and reputations section with "examples include" and then citing all of the links above which should be more than sufficient (Harvard only lists 8 sources, some academic, some press). I don't see a problem with that, do you? Editchecker123 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All this material could — should — be placed in the section, surely. From just a cursory look, it could greatly expand the section by a few lines. After that, we should work from there and if I'm around I wouldn't mind giving the section/sources a review afterwards. GuardianH (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring with multiple editors to remove this well-sourced, pertinent information? In one of your edits, your edit summary was "Needs more sourcing." The material you removed had plenty of sources:


 * Examples include:
 * 1)  "Since World War II, Stanford has enjoyed remarkable success in transforming itself from a good regional institution into one of the country's great private universities."
 * 2)  "…the Ivy League, along with Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and a few elite public universities such as the University of Michigan, UC-Berkeley, and UNC-Chapel Hill are the pride of the American higher-education system around the world."
 * 1)  "Since World War II, Stanford has enjoyed remarkable success in transforming itself from a good regional institution into one of the country's great private universities."
 * 2)  "…the Ivy League, along with Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and a few elite public universities such as the University of Michigan, UC-Berkeley, and UNC-Chapel Hill are the pride of the American higher-education system around the world."
 * 1)  "…the Ivy League, along with Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and a few elite public universities such as the University of Michigan, UC-Berkeley, and UNC-Chapel Hill are the pride of the American higher-education system around the world."
 * 1)  "…the Ivy League, along with Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and a few elite public universities such as the University of Michigan, UC-Berkeley, and UNC-Chapel Hill are the pride of the American higher-education system around the world."

Why are you insisting that even more sources be added? ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Great sources, which makes the fact that tapering them onto the lede without first expanding the appropriate Reputation and Rankings section all the more inappropriate without having first giving them coverage in the body and giving their WP:DUE weight. Also, the addition of these rankings is, again, all WP:SYNTH to the statement, and continuing to inject them just adds to the WP:OVERCITE. GuardianH (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. I’ll volunteer to work on deepening / expanding the Reputation and Rankings section such that it gives sources (such as the above and others I will research) due weight, then we can write a more fitting lede based on the sources in the body that doesn’t have sources tacked on it. Thanks for asking the question @ElKevbo and providing the clarity @GuardianH. Editchecker123 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)