Talk:Stanford University/Archive 2

Stanford student housing section
I've suggested moving much of the student housing info in this article to the List of Stanford University residence halls and expanding and renaming that article to be more inclusive over at the Talk:List of Stanford University residence halls page. Comments should probably go there. --Erp (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Tuition and financial aid
This information is currently in the lead section. I suspect there is some better location in the article for it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move it to "21st century", in the same paragraph as the admission statistics. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think both the tuition and financial aid info. should be moved to the "Academics" section, which is mainly about admissions and academic environment of an institution, as suggested by the guidelines. Yes, there're many possible ways of organization but this style will be less controversial. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 07:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I see there is some information in that section already; I'll merge the newer information into it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I agree with the proposal that the article Stanford University Department of Psychology should be merged/redirected into Stanford University. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge. No-brainer.  Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge. Go4it! jxm (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The merger should be with Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences not the main article. --Erp (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind, I support Erp's suggestion as a better target. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also merged what I considered the key info into Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences (but not deleted the original article) and did some further improvements on the article. --Erp (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, this merge would not result in a deletion of Stanford University Department of Psychology; I think it would be appropriate to leave a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 one external links on Stanford University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140702230601/http://www.netvalley.com/silicon_valley/Legal_Bridge_From_El_Dorado_to_Silicon_Valley.html to http://www.netvalley.com/silicon_valley/Legal_Bridge_From_El_Dorado_to_Silicon_Valley.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150322162310/http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/americas-most-beautiful-college-campuses/3 to http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/americas-most-beautiful-college-campuses/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130707043657/http://scpku.stanford.edu:80/about/ to http://scpku.stanford.edu/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130702083007/http://scpku.stanford.edu:80/building/ to http://scpku.stanford.edu/building/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212083544/http://thestanfordchallenge.stanford.edu:80/by-the-numbers/overall/ to http://thestanfordchallenge.stanford.edu/by-the-numbers/overall/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314054424/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/college/highest-grad-rate to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/highest-grad-rate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110401111246/http://www.stanford.edu:80/group/themed/coops/columbae.html to http://www.stanford.edu/group/themed/coops/columbae.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140110014310/http://www.stanford.edu:80/dept/pe/cgi-bin/cardinalrec/clubsports/ to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pe/cgi-bin/cardinalrec/clubsports/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130521144911/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/olympics/spec-rel/081412aab.html to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/olympics/spec-rel/081412aab.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150109002605/http://music.stanford.edu/Assets/StanfordHymn.pdf to http://music.stanford.edu/Assets/StanfordHymn.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130120104442/http://registrar.stanford.edu/bulletin/4913.htm to http://registrar.stanford.edu/bulletin/4913.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110430043003/http://www.stanforddaily.com/2009/10/07/mausoleum-next-to-die/ to http://www.stanforddaily.com/2009/10/07/mausoleum-next-to-die/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704182330/http://osa.stanford.edu/greek/learn/whatis.htm to http://osa.stanford.edu/greek/learn/whatis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211130555/http://www.lambdaphiepsilon.com:80/about.php to http://www.lambdaphiepsilon.com/about.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100816154500/http://blogs.sun.com:80/dador/entry/sunw_stanford_university_network_workstation to http://blogs.sun.com/dador/entry/sunw_stanford_university_network_workstation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

More on the Lead
I see the current lead as giving brief info on most aspects except the academic. I put in a first statement but am trying to finding some good sources that emphasize both the breadth and quality of Stanford academics. If I were to go quirky I might mention Stanford Classics as being top rated by the NRC http://www.papyrology.org/index.php/news/4-graduate/graduate/125-nrc2010-3 However there is the whole question on whether rankings are anything but popularity contests. Thoughts? --Erp (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about individual departments, I don't think that belongs in the lead. --MelanieN (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No more like examples; Stanford is known for Engineering, but, it also has many good humanities and social science departments. We could cite the number of highly ranked departments say according to the NRC standards.  Unfortunately I'm having trouble making heads or tails of their information.   US News & World Report is a bit more clear (but fewer departments) but almost certainly more of a popularity contest (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/stanford-university-243744 #2 in English, #5 in Economics, #4 in History, #2 in Political Science, #1 in Psychology, #4 in Sociology; and http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/stanford-university-243744 #1 in Biological Sciences, #4 in Chemistry, #1 in Computer Science, #3 in Earth Sciences, #5 in Math, #2 in Physics, #1 in Statistics; http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/stanford-university-02020 for various engineering programs). Erp (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that more about academics is needed. But basically, the lead should follow the flow of the whole page (something like: General intro --> History --> Admin.& Organization --> Academics & life --> Notable people, as suggested in the previous discussion) with a concise and precise summary of each part. I think the current one is a bit wordy and too long. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Stanford rankings, prestige, etc.
User:Yairr has twice removed a sentence from the lead paragraph about Stanford's reputation and rankings, citing "puffery". All of the information was well sourced, and it is routine to include such information in the lead paragraph of well-known universities. See, for example, University of California, Berkeley; Harvard University; etc. Yairr similarly removed well sourced information from University of Southern California. I reverted at both articles; we are not supposed to remove sourced information without discussion. Yairr then repeated his deletion at this article and accused me of POV editing (I guess that was also why I reverted at USC?) Other editors have now reinstated the information here. It should not be removed again unless consensus is reached here to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's re-assuring to see that everything I predicted has come to pass: proliferation of this nonsensical boosterism in the lead, defending it by appeals to precedent of other universities doing it, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo request
It would be great if someone could provide a photograph of the Landau building at at 579 Serra Mall. I'd like to put it on the page I'm developing about Ralph Landau. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Might be a bit tricky to get a good picture since it is surrounded by other things. Stanford also has a fairly strict policy on photography http://ucomm.stanford.edu/policies/photo-film-policy.html which has left me a bit puzzled about whether I or anyone can take pictures for wikipedia articles.  --Erp (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've raised this question with the Stanford communications office; more info when I hear back from them. jxm (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

People section
I'm inclined to chop almost all the people section since we have a List of Stanford University people. To be exact chopping almost everything from Government and Politics on. Perhaps leaving the bit about the number of Stanford alumni winning Nobel Prizes or Rhodes and Marshall scholarships. If we don't include any names, no one can feel slighted and we might get the article back down to a reasonable size (and half-way readable). --Erp (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally support that idea, which has been suggested before. And I was going to suggest the exact same things to keep: the general (without names) first section under "faculty", and the last sentence under "alumni". Let's wait to see if there is any other input, and if there isn't, let's do it. --MelanieN (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Chopped. --Erp (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea, but wonder whether all of the notables "chopped" are already in the List of Stanford University people. Has anyone checked? Contributor321 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet though we may want to overhaul the People article also. Erp (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've integrated in the professors in the list except for Tenzin Tethong who I couldn't verify. Not sure I feel up to tackling the alumni sections (I estimate about 100-200 of them listed though with most already in the list) Erp (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job! Now that I can see the existing paragraphs without all the clutter, I wonder about these two sentences: "The university has 27 ACM fellows. It is also affiliated with 4 Gödel Prize winners, 4 Knuth Prize recipients, 10 IJCAI Computers and Thought Award winners, and about 15 Grace Murray Hopper Award winners for their work in the foundations of computer science." That information is unsourced. And while those awards are not trivial by any means, I'm not sure they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with the Nobel and Turing. --MelanieN (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't a very interesting section especially with all the listing of numbers. Certainly Nobel, Turing, and Field prizes are a different level from the others, just as Rhodes and Marshall scholarships are a different level from most other student scholarships. This may be a case of less is more and just point people to the sources which list those numbers for anything but the top.  We may also want to think outside the box; should we talk about regular staff.  Should we talk about racial/gender diversity in the faculty.   BTW I've put the stuff I subtracted from this article in User:Erp/Sandbox_list_of_SU_people and removed all the ones in List of Stanford University people, people should feel free to integrate the former into the latter (just note in the former what you've integrated or why you've chosen not to integrate [e.g., person was not at Stanford]).  Also I'm trying to start a discussion on the latter page on what should be included in each person's info.  Erp (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

terminology on land
I've tried to distinguish in the article between the founding grant land (aka main campus) and the central campus (aka where the students are) especially since a lot of what is on the founding grant is treated elsewhere in the article as not part of the central campus (e.g., SLAC, Jasper Ridge) and some is leased elsewhere (e.g., Palo Alto and Gunn high schools, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Research Park). I may not have been completely successful. --Erp (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

important date coming up
October 1, 2016 is the 125th anniversary of the University's opening day. It might be good to have some more Stanford articles, ideally including this one, up to featured article status by then to possibly get featured on the main page. General thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stanford_University where I posted the original message. Specific thoughts on getting this page up to FA here. --Erp (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As part of this, I've been checking urls and in particular I will note the university's moving department, group, and people web sites from www.stanford.edu to web.stanford.edu.  There are redirects at this time but no guarantee of this lasting for long. Erp (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Stanford University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430043012/http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1018874 to http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1018874
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430042959/http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=954 to http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=954

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Stanford's failure to release mugshots of student rapist Brock Turner?
Treating one of its students with "kid gloves" -- big news in the media, no mention in Wikipedia, come on. "...As proof that Turner has gotten the kid glove treatment, activists have noted that it wasn't until Monday that Stanford and the authorities even released his mug shots...." NBC News.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is kind of a WP:NOTNEWS thing. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is part of a Stanford pattern of protecting white privilege then it is not news at all but something that should be reflected in this highly-pro-Stanford article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources to build some context around that? Then it would be part of a piece of encyclopedic content and not just some passing news. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked, didn't find anything much, but I'll keep looking. In the meantime, almost the entire article is positives, like it's an advertisement, written by persons with a pro-Stanford POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * yep too many universities are full of WP:BOOSTER. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tom tag-bombing isn't helpful.  What specific parts of the article fail NPOV?  What exactly is missing? Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016
Add section on Stanford Campus Culture under Student Life.

Public record statement on Stanford Campus Culture. "I’ve been shattered by the party culture and risk taking behavior that I briefly experienced in my four months at school." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/brock-turner-statement-stanford-rape-case-campus-culture

2620:0:1000:5700:6085:D50:78B7:A2E3 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A single individual's experience does not make for a reliable source, especially when it comes from a convicted rapist trying to shift blame for his crime Cannolis (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Student groups section
Few thoughts: Thoughts? Erp (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to look at the paragraph on business oriented groups especially since there has been some controversy about selectivity and funding from general student fees (see http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/12/15/assu-student-groups-take-issue-with-sals-open-membership-policy/ and http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/04/04/volunteer-student-organizations-selectivity-raises-concerns/)
 * I'm inclined to say that any group mentioned should be established and be fairly prominent.
 * The Black Community Services Center has its own article and as an umbrella center for a lot of student groups at Stanford probably deserves a mention. There are other umbrella centers (see https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/who-we-are/student-affairs-offices-and-centers).  The centers receive direct university funding and staffing so are more than just student groups; they are diverse and include the Office for Military-Affiliated Communities, LGBT Community Resources Center, El Centro Chicano y Latino, Women's Community Center, and Bechtel International Center.

Edit request on 11 June 2016
In the first sentence of the second paragraph under the "Safety" section of the article, please wikify Brock Turner. Thank you. --2601:646:A480:362E:EC62:B745:175:2A21 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Article is almost 100% advertising and glowing praise
I'm talking about this version which has practically no criticism or controversies, and is entirely laudatory like a college brochure. Here are a FEW of the many many instances....--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Seriously? This doesn't look like it was written by public relations people trying to outdo themselves over who could write the best advertising copy? Puh-leeze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "...The university is also one of the top fundraising institutions in the country, becoming the first school to raise more than a billion dollars in a year..."
 * "...Stanford's academic strength is broad with 40 departments in the three academic schools that have undergraduate students and another four professional schools...."
 * "...and companies founded by Stanford alumni generate more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world...."
 * "...It is also one of the leading producers of members of the United States Congress...." (okay, that is a criticism)
 * "...The Stanford University Libraries (SUL) hold a collection of more than 9.3 million volumes, nearly 300,000 rare or special books, 1.5 million e-books, 2.5 million audiovisual materials, 77,000 serials, nearly 6 million microform holdings, and thousands of other digital resources, making it one of the largest and most diverse academic library systems in the world...."
 * "...Notably, the Center possesses the largest collection of Rodin works outside of Paris, France...."
 * "...Stanford has a thriving artistic and musical community..."
 * "...Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer..."

Check out this chart. See anything wrong?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sheesh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your tags and think they should be removed. Everything that you complain is "advertising" or "glowing praise" is cited to independent reliable sources. If you can find criticism or negative information, with independent reliable sources to support it, please add it. Or please take a look at Harvard University for comparison. If something is a major prestigious university, it is not "advertising" to say so. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And you went to where? Stanford? Is it possible you're a bit biased here?--

Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Also, that Harvard has an equally brochure-ish article does not justify Stanford having a similarly brochure-ish article. The Harvard article does have some negatives like this one... "...University policy is to expel students engaging in academic dishonesty to discourage a "culture of cheating."[94][95][96] In 2012, dozens of students were expelled for cheating after an investigation of more than 120 students.[97] In 2013, there was a report that as many as 42% of incoming freshmen had cheated on homework prior to entering the university,[98] and these incidents have prompted the university to consider adopting an honor code...." (see the fourth paragraph of this section. In contrast, the Stanford page is squeaky-clean like a designer suit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say exactly the same things about the article University of California, Berkeley - Stanford's archrival. As I noted, all the superlatives are sourced to independent reliable sources - because they are true. You did cite some examples of boosterish language or sweeping generalizations which I will try to remove from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. You claim that this article does not contain anything negative about Stanford. Apparently you missed the section "Government expenses controversy", the section "Civil rights", the paragraph detailing Mrs. Stanford's oddities, and the mention/link to the firing of Edward Alsworth Ross. And that's just in the small portion of the article I have reviewed so far. Would you care to retract your claim that (in contrast to Harvard) the Stanford article contains nothing negative and is "squeaky-clean like a designer suit"? --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Funny you point out ".Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer..." as I recently added that section - my only contribution to this article. Thing is, that is 100% accurate. They are.  You can google the shit out of that and you will find it is true and I found the lack of that section to be a hole in this article.


 * Personally I don't like those ranking charts - you find them at article after article on universities and somehow they always manage to pick the ones where they are great.


 * Then let's remove the chart.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is language you have identified that is typical WP:BOOSTER - you can go through the article in about 15 minutes and clear most of the puffery adjectives out; the underlying facts are going to remain very positive as Stanford is one of the best universities in the world.  (There are some things that are top of the heap and this is one of them) Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why must I go through the article removing the boosterish language? I tagged the article to that effect; you untagged it TWICE -- I don't edit war so I'll leave it at that, but really, this is against the ethics of Wikipedia. I'm bringing this up at the NPOV noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Plus there's no mention of the firing of professor H. Bruce Franklin -- a tenured professor who was anti-Vietnam War -- a big issue regarding the freedom of speech. This article is a brochure and makes the rest of Wikipedia look amateurish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be more helpful if you could identify specific items that you believe should be included (as you've done above with H. Bruce Franklin) than continuing to make broad and unactionable observations.
 * For what it's worth, it doesn't appear to me that the current rape case is worth mentioning in this article except for *maybe* a sentence. Right now it seems to be much more about short-lived outrage and controversy that has little to do with the university and much more to do with the perpetrator, judge, and the perpetrator's father.  If it turns out to be something more - and people are indeed asking if there are wider implications or issues - then we can and should add that.  But right now it appears to be a news story that can provide readers with very little information about this institution. ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Think we're all agreeing that the rape case isn't all that important, ElKevbo. But the brochure-ish nature of the article, 100% positive, glowing, no negatives, no balance -- all I did was put a tag on to that effect, and I was reverted twice, got called for TAGBOMBING or DRIVEBY tagging (I really don't do much tagging at all except when I feel it's warranted). Please address the main problem: it's a brochure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go again - "no negatives". Please see my partial list, above, of "negatives" in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Article as of today (June 9 2016) much improved thanks for ongoing efforts by Jytdog and MelanieN and Bsb80, less brochure-y, good job people; only thing I hope we don't go too far in the other direction about the rape incident which will probably fade soon in importance in a year's time, maybe it only deserves a sentence or two at most.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * when I created the Safety section and put the "expand" tag on it, this is the kind of content i was going to come back and expand with. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * i went through the article and removed all the puffery I could find, and i went looking for negative stuff that boosters may have left out (to really cover NPOV) and found some things that I added. I think the article is neutral and I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jytdog, nice work! --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

History of Stanford University
 Support split - Article is over 100 kB, therefore, the history section should be split to a new article entitled History of Stanford University. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Support — Seems a bit lengthy to me. ♔ First Lord of Downing Street ♔ 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Post to prevent archiving  --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Proliferation of company names
Given the large number of companies started by Stanford people, I suggest that we start a category of companies started by Stanford University people (with perhaps a subcategory for those using Stanford licensed technology); not sure on what to call it. In the meantime I've made a section in the List of Stanford University people for just company founders to which we can point to (someone might also do a list of just the companies article. Erp (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Followup. If we have a list, what criteria should be used given that their are dozens of notable companies.   I note also there is already a list in Stanford_University so having two identical lists on the same page doesn't make sense. --Erp (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To "The" or not to "The"?
Recently two people have added the word "The" to "Leland Stanford Junior University", citing the Founding Grant which does use the word "The" at least once. Two other people have removed it, pointing out that the university's website and the university seal do not include the word "The". I am on the side of leaving it out, per WP:COMMONNAME as well as common sense. IMO the name the university currently uses for itself should be used, not the name that is found on an ancient document. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging.--MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My two cents: probably The was part of the official name, but in common parlance, it is not used much as a conventional literary standard. I suppose a test would be what most people use when referring to this institution; my sense is they would be disinclined to preface it with The. So I suppose I'm agreeing with .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most people call it "Stanford University". 0;-D When the full name is used, it is often in a joking sense, like when other schools ask "what's a junior university?" About the only group that uses the full name consistently is the Leland Stanford Junior (pause) University Marching Band. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of WP:COMMONNAME when adding "The" to the name and no longer believe it should be included. Contributor321 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think "The" should be included in the official name because it is part of the official name. That is simply a fact. If you look at the founding grant or the IRS form that was originally used as a source for the official name, both specifically include "The." Obviously, most of the school's website uses simply "Stanford University" and I don't contest that. I am simply referring to the official, full name which is unambiguously "The Leland Stanford Junior University." I think that that fact should be correctly reported on the page, that's all. Further, Stanford's website does in fact use "The" in the official name. See the first sentence of this page: http://facts.stanford.edu/about/ or refer to the office of the general counsel's page on the official legal name: https://ogc.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2004%20-%20Memo%20from%20DLZ%20re%20Legal%20Name%20of%20the%20Leland%20Stanford%20Junior%20University_553066_1.PDF or, once again, read the founding grant or the tax reports. There just is no ambiguity here at all; I'm sorry. I would like to change it back to include "The." pinging Dlw1954 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, the Founding Grant is clearly the ultimate authority on the name. I don't know what was meant by the school itself is the authority on its own name. Everyone knows that unofficially the school goes simply by Stanford University; that has nothing to do with the official name. The school was brought into existence by the founding grant and it would be illegal for the school to try to change the name as established in the grant. The founding grant is clear and it says: "we will that for all time to come the institution hereby founded shall bear his name, and shall be known as The Leland Stanford Junior University." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlw1954 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that recent legal brief is interesting. However, it is not necessarily true that "the official, full name is unambiguously "The Leland Stanford Junior University." " "The" is not included in the University's official seal. Anyhow, according to WP:Official name, the "official" name of the subject is not always used as the article title. I realize the article title is not what we are talking about here; the article title remains Stanford University; you are just talking about the lead sentence and the infobox. Even that, here at Wikipedia, does not necessarily use the "official name". Some comparable cases: I once worked for the University of California, Berkeley, and I learned that all official documents had to be credited to "The Regents of The University of California" (capital T both places); also the word "The" is included on the university seal; yet the word "The" is not bolded as part of the title on the Wikipedia page. Harvard University is called Harvard University here, yet "the corporation's formal title remains the President and Fellows of Harvard College". So it's not an open-and-shut, this-is-how-it-has-to-be case. Let's see if we can reach consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. The University files its taxes under the title "The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford University". That title uses "the", but lower case (unlike The Regents of The University of California); lower case often implies "the" is NOT part of the title. Make of it what you will. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And "simply a fact" is an argument that carries little weight here. WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME are more relevant.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize that my comments were a little bombastic and I'm sorry for taking that tone. However, I do think that facts should matter more than guidelines. Can anyone find just a single official source where the official name does not include a "The" (or "the" but only when preceded by "The Board of Trustees of")? I feel I've provided a lot of evidence and there's no evidence to the contrary. I see that the "the" is lower case in that IRS page, however in the OGC's note it is capitalized when used alone (i.e., when not preceded by "The Board of Trustees of"). Also on this page of the OGC it uses a capital "The" even when preceded by the Board: https://ogc.stanford.edu/stanford-legal-facts . And, yes, of course I'm not suggesting we change the page title just correct the opening sentence to correctly identify the university's official name. I understand if you don't like how "the" sounds (I'm not sure I like it either), but that's really what the name is and there is ample evidence that this is true. Are there any guidelines that say you must purposefully misidentify the official name of an institution in a sentence in the page (rather than a title or anything like that)? Dlw1954 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I realize the seal has been noted to lack "the." Note that it originally did include "the" and also that the seal is not a legal document. Dlw1954 (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that the California Constitution uses just "Stanford University" (Article 20, section 2 though I couldn't find the section they referred to). A look through the Stanford Daily archives showed both usages (with or without 'the' before Leland Stanford Junior University) right from the beginning. I note that UC may use the 'The' more emphatically because saying 'A university of California' makes sense (saying 'A Leland Stanford Junior University' would require some vivid imagining). I'm inclined to leave off unless quoting or the phrase is used as an adjective (the Leland Stanford Junior University ping pong team). Erp (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing to agree with and the others as per reasons given above. One other thing: I write as a hobby, and the word the is often superfluous, unnecessarily formal, and adds no new information other than to indicate that a noun is soon to follow. The word is often omitted in everyday conversation as well. If Wikipedia adds The in the lede sentence, it is original research-ish as if we're claiming that everybody uses The when referring to the school, but they don't.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns about how it sounds and that if any one of us, personally, were choosing the name that we might choose to omit the leading "the." However, I think that we should use the name as it actually is and not as we would like it to be. By using a "the" we are not claiming that most people use it; the sentence would just say that that is the official name and it is. Nobody actually uses the official name... All official sources (and we should use official sources if we're calling it the official name) use a leading "the." How about we remove that phrase from the first sentence so that it just reads "Stanford University is..." And we add a sentence in the history section saying "The Founding Grant established the name of the University as "The Leland Stanford Junior University." Sometimes the word "the" is omitted and most often simply "Stanford University" is used."? Compromise? Dlw1954 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , you find joy in argument.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to find a compromise, Dlw. I think the opening sentence should stay as it is - or possibly: "Stanford University (full name Leland Stanford Junior University)" if we are that hung up on the word "official". But I wouldn't mind putting the Founding Grant information into the History section. How about this: "The Founding Grant established the name of the University as "The Leland Stanford Junior University." In modern usage the word "The" is often omitted from the full name, and the university is most commonly referred to as "Stanford University" or simply "Stanford"."


 * Sorry for my slow reply. Yes, I agree with those changes. And I think full name is indeed more accurate than official name. Thanks. Dlw1954 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In a footnote if at all. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

trustees
I've added a note on the board of trustees; however, I see that the university web page (http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/) say 38 is the maximum number of trustees while latest legal info I can find has 35 being the number. The web page also lists 36 trustees (though I'm not sure whether the president as an ex officio member counts in the 35). Anyone know whether 38 is correct or a typo? If the former do we have a source. BTW I've also been compiling a spreadsheet of all the university trustees which now numbers over 200 and been adding cat tags to those who already have wiki pages. --Erp (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a new article on Timothy Hopkins who was the last of the original trustees and a founder of Palo Alto.  It is still fairly rough and could really do with some pictures. --Erp (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Other US College Rankings
Inaugural WSJ/THE Ranking of US Colleges

Reuters Top 100: The World's Most Innovative Universities - 2016 Rchau (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)rchau

Ranking and Status
Given that Stanford is almost universally ranked among the top ten universities in worldwide university guides, this article lacks any reference of that status, particularly in the introduction. Comparing this article with that of Harvard and others, and there is a clear disparity between treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.48.29 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is the section Stanford_University. I note there is a slow edit war going on between @Unitedreland and @Rectk over the lede).   I would go with not having it there or else referencing to the section and using neutral wording (e.g., "highly ranked by many surveys see...").  To balance things out we might want to include in the ranking and reputation how it rates as regards to reported crime (admittedly with a large resident population [so more on-campus burglaries] and perhaps with students being more willing to report sexual assault Stanford's ranking there doesn't appear so good). --Erp (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we should include crime stats in the right section of the article. It would help to provide a more neutral look at the university. As for the lead debate, this has been discussed time and time and time again: all the same ideas and rejections apply to Stanford. See Talk:Harvard University and take a look through their archives. Rectk (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then something similar should be included in the articles of ALL of the top universities of the world. Except "top" is very vague... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedreland (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also can anyone explain why it's necessary for a rankings or prestige reference to be included in the lede (besides boosting one's university)? Doesn't this article (which already cherrypicks quite a few rankings imo - see the 11111 table in the rankings section) already mention this numerous times in the body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedreland (talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually most (not all) major universities DO include their high-ranking status in the lede, usually in much more detail than this. See, for example, University of California, Berkeley, UCLA, University of Michigan, etc. Currently Harvard University has exactly the same lede sentence - "one of the world's most prestigious universities" - as this article. Information about its status as one of the world's top universities has been in this article's lede for years, and has survived multiple attempts to remove it (sometimes by users identifiable as associated with UC Berkeley). The lede actually used to contain far more information on the subject, now relegated to a footnote, so the single sentence currently in the article (unless it's been reverted again) is pretty minimal. Is it just the word "prestigious" that is behind the current edit warring? Maybe "highly ranked" would solve the problem? Maybe we could borrow a sentence from CalTech: "Caltech is frequently cited as one of the world's best universities." As for crime stats, I would oppose including that in the lede. That would be WP:UNDUE as it is just one of many, many facts and statistics about the university - and I don't find that information in the lede of any other university's article. It is included in this article,in the section "Safety". --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm all about fighting boosterism where one finds it, but in this case, I tend to be on the side of those who argue for including a note about Stanford's prestige in the lead. I don't think it's necessary to include a detailed list of rankings, but I think any reasonable editor would agree that Stanford is amongst the most prestigious US universities. That's an accurate assessment of public perception of the place. Whether the prestige is merited or not can be covered elsewhere if there are reliable sources, but I think a Wikipedia reader coming here to learn about Stanford finds his or her understanding enhanced by knowing that Stanford is a prestigious university. Esrever (klaT) 17:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of the articles you listed use different wording than "prestigious" and often include information about high rankings later on in the lede (aka not in the first sentence). Also there is no reason why, if Harvard University has a sentence remarking on it's influence, Stanford deserves one too. I'm sure many editors would agree that Stanford and Harvard are not equivalent in terms of societal impact, when Harvard has produced many times more Nobel Prize winners, US Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, foreign heads of state, and other influential alumni than Stanford has.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedreland (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You might look at the rankings for that, rather than your own subjective impression - or comparing a count of illustrious alumni where one school was founded 250 years before the other. Actually, about the only universities in the country that can be mentioned in the same breath as Harvard are Yale and Stanford (sometimes referred to as "the Harvard of the West"). --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yale??? Are you  joking ? 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't think I was being more subjective than you saying only Yale and Stanford can be mentioned in the same breadth as Harvard... What about Princeton? What about MIT? What about all the other top 10 universities? Chicago, Columbia, MIT, Berkeley all have more Nobels than Stanford. And the last time I checked, Nobel Prizes were introduced after Stanford was founded. How can you so subjectively say that only two other universities in the country can match Stanford? I hope it's not because you're a Stanford graduate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedreland (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was being facetious. But what goes in the article should not be based on our opinions. It should not even be based on a single metric like number of Nobel Prize winners. It should be based on what Reliable Sources find when they factor in whatever they think is important to determine this kind of ranking. From that you get: Times Higher Education "World University Rankings" ranks Stanford third among world universities, after CalTech and Oxford. U.S. News and World Report "Top World University Rankings" lists Stanford 4th, after Harvard, MIT, and UC Berkeley. The Telegraph  "Top 100 world universities by reputation" lists Stanford third, after Harvard and MIT. To say Stanford is "prestigious" is not alumni hype. It is verified by virtually every independent source that rates this kind of thing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you moved it to the second paragraph of the lede. That's fine. (Should we combine the current one-line lede sentence into what is now the second paragraph? I believe there are guidelines against more than four paragraphs in the lede section.) Looking further, I found that "note 1" contains two sentences, one of which was supported by a no-longer-existent link so I removed it, and the second of which kind of reduplicates the "prestigious" thing without adding anything. I propose to eliminate the footnote entirely, and simply use its references as sources for the "prestigious" sentence you moved. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I'll combine the first and second paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedreland (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Discoveries and Innovations section to new article?
I'm inclined to move the Discoveries and Innovations and/or Research Commercialization sections to their own article simply because it will take over this article given the number of important discoveries at Stanford. In particular I would spin off a 'list' type article and describe here the process (more or less the Research Commercialization section). I note also that Discoveries and Innovations only seems to cover the research side but not the teaching side. I'm pretty certain Stanford has made some innovations in Education. So my proposal: Thoughts? --Erp (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename the Research Commercialization section to Discoveries and Innovations
 * move the list stuff under the current Discoveries and Innovations to a new article. Not sure on a title but perhaps List of Stanford University discoveries and innovations.  I note the existence of List of SRI International spin-offs but we may want this to be a bit broader.
 * Well, offhand I don't think the section is in danger of taking over the article. I note that the "see also" links, like Cal Berkeley discoveries and innovation, do not lead to separate articles; they lead to a section in the University article. That suggests that separate articles, even for a place like MIT or Cal, are not the norm. I certainly agree with combining Research commercialization (what an ugly, buzz-word-ish name) into Discoveries and innovation, and adding educational innovations. {Stanford-Binet, anyone?) Nice idea but I don't think really justified as of now. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016
I would like to mention the many activities students experience that makes Stanford unique. One, is fountain hopping. Many incoming students get their first bonding excursion during either SPOT or New Student Orientation (NSO) where their leaders take them on a route for fountain hopping. This is a quintessential Stanford tradition for students and gives a fond memory as they look back upon their college experience. Hawthsie (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: we do not include trivia and you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record it has been around since about 1983 (earliest mention in the Stanford Daily) with some intermissions when the fountains were turned off due to drought. It is probably as least as important as some traditions already mentioned.   though I would like to see some documentation on its history (me looking through the Daily archives doesn't count).  Stanford apparently has 25 or so fountains though only some are used for fountain hopping.   Some of the fountains could fall under landmarks or art.  Most notably the White Memorial Fountain (aka The Claw) designed by Aristides Demetrios back in 1964.  I've actually added the Claw to the Landmarks section and added a brief mention of fountain hopping --Erp (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Table Self Promotion
There are clear conflicts of interest in the table presenting only number one rankings for stanford in domestic measures. Rankings are cherry picked from hundreds of university rankings that do not present stanford as number one. They are in violation of wikipedia's self promotion rules as stated in Wikipedia is not advertising WP:Promotion as well as in Self-serving biases and Framing Biases. They could have easily chosen not number 1 rankings, like number 25 rankings for some stanford activities, but are using this as WP:PROMOTION. The table on the right has a more neutral point of view, and should be the only table shown for rankings. WP:NPOV What about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or any other elite school, is Stanford automatically better than them? While Stanford may be egotistical, they are not that arrogant. The table on the right agreed upon by wikipedia neutral consensus allows for that, not this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs)
 * I have searched the talk page archives and there is absolutely no consensus for the table of puffery remaining. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Theroadislong this table is pure puffery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved Editor Note Newer sections on talk pages are supposed to be at the bottom of the page, so I moved it. Also, please remember the 3rr. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not remove this a fourth time. It should be discussed on the talk page here.  Two editors total made comments that this table is puffery and self promotion.  I hope this talk page can resolve this.  Best Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia pages for the Ivy League and Public Ivys, like Stanford, are crammed full with this kind of thing. Ratings, ratings, ratings.  I for one do not have time to fight a battle over it, which clearly is important to the point of obsession by both administrators and students from these schools. This issue affects many pages, and might be better resolved at the WP administration level as a policy.  Jax MN (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be better to be resolved by the WP administration as a policy. Do you think that the table on the right is more neutral?  It seems like that is the same table every US university uses, which shows a variety of the most legitamate of the domestic and global rankings. and might be the best choice for displaying rankings in a neutral format.  My thoughts are that is the one being used by every single school in the US and should be the table shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs)
 * The rankings table is POV who has decided which rankings to include or exclude? For example we could add that it comes #14 Most diverse college in USA or #33 Best college in Athletics, or  #553 Best college locations or  #621 most conservative college in USA. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

, I was puzzled by your references to "the table on the right". I was looking for something here on the talk page. Now I see the one you are referring to and I agree it is probably enough for this article. The larger table which was removed can stay removed as far as I am concerned. Sorry for my earlier misimpression of what we are talking about here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . Other editors are welcome to comment as well on the removal of this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs)

The table is not puffery or self-promotion, as it accurately states sourced rankings, and it includes rankings where Stanford is NOT ranked number 1. The table provides valuable information useful to the reader, and was included for years without objection. Removing it does a disservice to readers, and applicants. Tyhbvf (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above the table is POV who has decided which rankings to include or exclude? For example we could add that it comes #14 Most diverse college in USA or #33 Best college in Athletics, or  #553 Best college locations or  #621 most conservative college in USA, it is pure puffery only the best rankings are shown. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tyhbvf is now edit warring to include the table when clearly there is no consensus. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on verifiability WP:V includes WP:ONUS, which states "While content must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion, and does not guarantee that any content must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Contributor321 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So if the operative standard is whether the table "improves an article," it seems pretty clear that the table, by providing sourced and accurate rankings, including rankings where Stanford is not ranked at the top, improves the article. The table certainly provides useful information to the reader and potential applicants. Just because dozens of other rankings are not included is surely not a reason to exclude the table. If that were the standard, no mention of any ranking for any college could be included unless all rankings (potentially dozens) were included for a college. That is, frankly, an absurd standard not required by Wikipedia rules. Tyhbvf (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no concern with helping potential applicants to the university! Who decided that those rankings should be included and not others. The table does not improve the article it clutters an already overlong page. f|Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Theroadislong's objections are becoming ridiculous. Every editor has to decide what to put in an article, including in this case what rankings to display. Under Thero's analysis, EVERY article contains info that the editor chose, and thus should be excluded because "who decided what info should be included and not others." To then state that the rankings should be excluded because it "clutters an already overlong page" is purely subjective opinion that simply proves Thero has no valid objection.2605:E000:C746:61F1:A26F:AAFF:FE65:D4FA (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with immediately above post and Tyhbvf. The objections to the previously available rankings table are groundless. The rankings table should be restored Pedit1 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)( this editor's 50 or so edits in three years are mostly connected to ranking Stanford University. Theroadislong (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I find it highly suspicious that the above comment by User:2605:E000:C746:61F1:A26F:AAFF:FE65:D4FA is their very first contribution to Wikipedia. No previous edits, and this user starts their Wikipedia editing by weighing in here? I smell sock puppet, and place no weight on their input. Contributor321 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an IPv6 user so indicates the person didn't log in. Might be trying to be anonymous, might be not in a situation to login, might be an error. --Erp (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also a long history of Stanford editor(s) posting fake rankings see here . Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Less is more in this case especially given how long the article is already. Personally I would go with one line and a footnote (except the current template table doesn't fit with a note).  In addition quote some reputable non-Stanford sources on specific strengths/weaknesses of the university--Erp (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, more nonsense objections to inclusion of ranking table. That someone in the past may have posted fake rankings is plainly NOT a reason to exclude valid and sourced rankings.  And one editor's wholly subjective opinion that "less is more" is no ground for exclusion of non-repetitive accurate information.  And contributor321, rather than address the anonymous commenter's points on their merits, instead makes an unsupported ad hominem attack on the commenter. Cardbuff (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC) this editor's only contribution to Wikipedia is to include favourable ranking for Stamford University. Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, Theroad proves he or she has no meaningful response by attacking the editor, instead of refuting the editor's points. Just admit you have no valid objection to the table of rankings, instead of launching ad hominen attacks. Cardbuff (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a good read of WP:DUE: we're not allowed to cherrypick sources. If we were to include a table of rankings then we'd have to include those that put Stanford further down than near-number-1. And then that runs into WP:NOTADIRECTORY: we're not a catalogue of college rankings (not just for Stanford - this applies to all schools). is referring to the notion of single-purpose accounts, and while it is often an implied assumption of bad faith, but on the other hand, is him indirectly questioning whether you are here to build an encyclopedia. I have no position on this latter point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jasper very much for your helpful explanation, and citation to various Wikipedia policies. The WP:DUE article states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." That quoted policy suggests that the table of rankings should NOT have been removed, but instead at best supplemented with some additional rankings of equal prominence.  This would not require including every single ranking ever created, but just those in well-circulated or well-known publications.  Single purpose accounts are not a violation of Wikipedia policy provided neutrality is maintained.   Because the table provided rankings where Stanford was far from number one, there is no violation of the neutrality principle.  Thank you again Jasper for your very helpful comments! Cardbuff (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a table that is a wikipedia template (Template_talk:Infobox_US_university_ranking) and so presumably used widely. If other rankings are needed, I suggest modifying the template to allow them and this discussion belongs on the template page not here.  I've reworded the opening sentence so it better reflects what is on the current table (that Stanford ranks high and is often number 1). --Erp (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am a Stanford grad and second to none in love of the university. And I will say (in my arrogance) that Stanford doesn't need this kind of extraneous table. Like the Harvard University and Yale University articles, this article should include the standard university ranking table and a brief paragraph about its standing in the academic world - and that is enough. I concur with the removal of the additional table. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case all of this ranking puffery is already included in the text of the article here Stanford University we don't need to over egg the pudding by including a table as well. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Companies, which to list
in a recent edit noted "Companies and entrepreneurship belongs in the Notable Alumni section. Universities do not get credit for founding companies." The edit among others was reverted because this is incorrect. Stanford quite frequently owns the patent and provides leave for people to develop commercially stuff that was started at Stanford. However I would cut from the list any company that did not start as Stanford research (or something equally strong). In other words each one listed should show a clear connection to Stanford (and not just the founders having a connection). For example Schwab does not belong but Cisco does. Thoughts? --Erp (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Stanford quite frequently owns the patent and provides leave for people to develop commercially stuff that was started at Stanford." If you can provide me a source that states this it absolutely should be in the article - whether this deserves it's own section is a central part of this debate. This seems to be more of a subsection within the Research section rather than a list of companies based on a patent from Stanford University in the middle of a university article. Pdyusmep (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The italicized material is copied from User talk:MelanieN
''In your summary for the RV of Discoveries and Innovation section you don't address any of the issues I presented. Universities don't found companies, people and alumni do. To credit a university with founding a corporation is absolutely ludicrous - Google was founded by an MSU alum (Larry Page) - Shall we put Google under the MSU Discovery and Innovation section? You are going to start a dangerous precedent with editors and IPs from certain universities wanting to credit their university with founding Facebook, Microsoft, etc. when often corporations are founded by people from a variety of institutions. More importantly, I repeat, universities don't found private companies. Academia, in principle, kind of totally goes against that. As for academic discoveries, these belong in the research section found on most university pages. I can't see how your revert edit (given your entirely vague summary) is anything but an indulgence of your institutional pride. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my summary - I am more than willing to have a list of Stanford alumni and their respective start-ups/achievements, but it's frankly gauche to frame it in context of a university. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

''Hello, User:Pdyusmep, and thanks for your note - although we really should discuss this at the Stanford talk page rather than my user talk page. Maybe we should copy this discussion there, but I'll answer you here for now.''

''The Stanford article's "Discoveries and innovation" section has a "see also" note whose purpose is to show that many other university articles have the same kind of section - suggesting that there is Wikipedia consensus to include such sections. Most of the discoveries and innovations listed in that section are not just things discovered somewhere sometime by alumni; they were actually done at Stanford or begun as Stanford projects. For example, you mentioned Google: good example. Actually Google got its start as a research project by two Stanford grad students while they were working on a Stanford project, and Google's search engine originally ran on Stanford servers.''

''The Stanford article's section also includes a "Businesses and entrepreneurship" section listing companies founded by students, professors, or alums. You said "More importantly, I repeat, universities don't found private companies. Academia, in principle, kind of totally goes against that. " Actually, that is a total misconception on your part. If you read the intro to that section it makes clear that Stanford University itself has a strong bent toward encouraging its students and faculty to start private companies - a tradition going back to Hewlett-Packard, whose founding was strongly assisted and mentored by engineering professor Frederick Terman, later the university's provost, to the point of initially giving them free office space on University land. Varian Associates was another early Stanford-spawned tech company. Such entrepreneurial encouragement on the part of the University led directly to the creation of Silicon Valley. The university continues to encourage its students - undergrads as well as grad students - to start companies. These are important and well-sourced facts about the University, part of its identity, and worthy of inclusion in its article.''

''I hope this demonstrates that there is a strong rationale for this section at the Stanford article, as well as consensus to include such a section at major research university articles generally. If you still think it should be removed, please start a discussion at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)''

'' :@MelanieN: I don't think any of the examples provided demonstrate a rationale for connecting an academic institution to a private company. Firstly, Academia in principle does not mix with the private sector. This line is blurred in practice, but regardless a separation is still maintained between the academic institution and the private company with the alumnus or affiliate as the intermediary (note the alumnus ≠ the institution). "Actually Google got its start as a research project by two Stanford grad students...". Facebook was started in a Harvard dorm room by Harvard students on a Harvard server; shall we credit Harvard with starting Facebook? Same goes for Microsoft. Jeff Bezos' interest in Space Exploration began while he was a member/president of the Space Exploration Club at Princeton; shall we credit Princeton for BlueOrigin? Warren Buffet states he follows a single investing philosophy he extracted from Columbia Business School; shall we credit CBS for his billions and the success of Berkshire Hathaway? You've merely demonstrated that Stanford alumni and others with some affiliation to the university have founded these companies in their spare time. All major universities encourage their students to be entrepreneurial. I apologize for any offense, but your rationale amounts to the type of discourse which follows: "I go to Harvard and we have John F. Kennedy", "I go to Penn and we have Elon Musk". As if achievements and identity of the individual and institution are one. This is reductionist and simply stupid thinking. As for Wikipedia consensus - all of these sections have been created by a single user - Minimumbias. Pdyusmep (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Pdyusmep (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation
Minimumbias expanded the "Discoveries and innovation" section, but he did not create it. The "Discoveries and innovation" section is longstanding, including the citation of companies like Google and the "see also" list to show that other universities have similar sections. For example, here is the page from last January: A year ago this month there was a discussion at the talk page about whether to move the section to a new article, which wasn't done.

I'm glad to see you are now discussing it here. I am about to go out, so I will address Erp's question about how to choose what companies to mention later. I agree there should be a strong connection, but that is going to be the case for many Silicon Valley companies which Stanford fostered.

I'd just like to comment: You have strongly expressed your opinion that universities have nothing to do with private businesses, that in principle they "go totally against that". What you say may be typical of Harvard attitudes, which I notice has no such section in its article, but it is not universal among academia in general or among major research universities in particular. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies, or any Reliable Source commentary, that support your position that academia and the private sector do not mix. On the contrary, the article cites sources like these: --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You continue to take my words out of context and now you are bordering on manipulation of them. I'll repeat - I said in principle Academia is a bubble that does not align itself with a corporation - an academic institution isn't to a company what an angel investor is to a company. Academia very obviously doesn't align itself with the private sector in the sense that it doesn't follow a hard-n-true consumer model of education "I'm paying for this education and the customer is always right" because it is not reasonable or desirable in a moral sense. This superficial separation between corporations and academic institutions is certainly not a "Harvard attitude". If there's any institution, which has blurred the lines between academia and private sector it's Harvard. Harvard's endowment is proof of that. There is no institution with more conflicts of interest than Harvard. And so, in practice, of course they mix. The question here is whether or not you are to attribute a university as the progenitor of a company or instead attribute it to an alumnus or to a research discovery which is just that. This will depend on how you attempt to frame it within the article (does it remain in "Research", "Notable Alumni", or does it have its own section which defines Stanford's "Discoveries and Innovations" as including certain companies). Very straightforward. If the assumption is that a Stanford patent provided the product/technological framework for a company to be founded I would suggest that it exist as a subsection of the Research section and include its implications in the private sector. I would suggest this for all university pages especially Carnegie Mellon. Pdyusmep (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


 * Hi, Pdyusmep is simply attacking me and reverting my edits, and sorry for the trouble in Stanford's page. For reasons why, please refer to Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Pdyusmep is frequently contributing the Wikipedia page of Columbia University, instead of Harvard. The double standard Pdyusmep adopted is clear. In Columbia's page, it states "alumni and affiliates include 5 Founding Fathers of the United States – amongst these an author of the Declaration of Independence and an author of the United States Constitution; 10 Justices of the United States Supreme Court; 20 living billionaires; 123 Pulitzer Prize winners; 39 Academy Award winners; 3 United States Presidents....." A founding father did not found the U.S when he was at Columbia, an Academy award winner did not win Oscar when he/she was at Columbia, a US president did not become president when he was at Columbia, etc. So, why does Columbia get the "credit" and show off? Minimumbias (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Universities produce alumni. You are correct, you were reported by me for COI after taking a look at the content you've edited. Everything you cited above are alumni - Harvard has produced 8 US Presidents. Harvard did not create the Obama Brain Initiative because Obama is an alum and Obama started the brain initiative. What do you not understand about this? Pdyusmep (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There may be other issues that involve personalities rather than content; I at least would prefer to deal with the content issues here. So getting back to Pdyusmep content issue.  First  "academia" is not the same as universities. Universities include much more than academics.  In Stanford's case it is a research institution, a teaching institution, a major landlord, a local political entity, a major investor, closely connected to two hospitals (which are also tenants), and a spinner out of companies (I note that Wikipedia's article on Corporate_spin-off mentions Oxford University's spin-outs). Second let us take the cases of Yahoo and Google,  these started at Stanford by Stanford students as projects.  There isn't a particular research discovery that can be pointed to for either of those companies so they don't fit under Research and they are too closely connected with the university to be listed just under alumni (most of which show up under the separate List of Stanford University people).  Third Stanford is known for fostering new companies (spin-outs) so a section on that activity with a few examples is necessary for this article.  Whether the current section is the best way of doing it isn't clear, but, you cannot just delete it and replace it with nothing. --Erp (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of the companies on the list are by no means associated with Stanford under the criteria you have offered so far in this discussion. As an initial step I think we can agree to remove all companies not associated to Stanford by a patent of some kind. Pdyusmep (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which I pointed out in my initial post. I've now removed most of the companies as not being closely associated with the university. Though I may have gone a bit too far (I chopped off the end a bit abruptly and have now restored a few).  Note this should be an example list and not an exhaustive list.  As such each should probably have a short paragraph with references about their connection to Stanford to illustrate something about Stanford.  We might want to do this historically (e.g., HP first for instance).  --Erp (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Snapchat was a project that Spiegel took on individually with his friends for one of his classes, I'm not sure how that is applicable to the list. Further what's the basis for Logitech being on that list? Pdyusmep (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OTOH, the Google founders were working on a NSF-funded grant supervised by Terry Winograd, which enabled the university to take an ownership share in the original page-ranking algorithm. Stanford was also an early-stage investor in the company, and (probably) continues to receive revenue from this holding. Thus, it seems like Google has much closer links to the university - both research-wise and financially - than Yahoo, which was more of a 'good idea' brewed up independently by a couple of students. Just my 2c! jxm (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The examples of Yahoo and Google offer a potentially useful case study on company relationships with the university, and the distinctions among them. The founders of Yahoo started the project as a free-standing indexing service using their own server, which was connected to the campus network. The impact of the net traffic eventually resulted in them being asked to relocate off-campus. I believe that Stanford had no early-stage investment or IP relationship with the company, but we should verify this.

The book Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 discusses the relation of Stanford with regional companies, mostly Stanford spinoffs, and compares the mutually supportive relationship between Stanford and Silicon Valley companies to the arms-length relationship between MIT and Route 128 companies (less about Harvard, though the author is at Harvard). I think it's a good idea to only list companies that took some technology or support from Stanford, not every company that happened to have a Stanford co-founder (or you'd have to list my company Foveon). Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Recently removed companies SGI and SUN were very closely related to Stanford, with their initial tech being developed there (I should know, as I helped the founders when they were at Stanford and I was at Xerox PARC). Some of the other removed ones, too, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm glad to see a productive conversation going on about this issue. Just to note that any contributions from Pdyusmep can be ignored. That user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a long-time troll. In fact I think I will strike their comments. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

data breach and fellowship controversy
"Stanford’s elite business school caught cheating — by one of its own MBA students Fellowship grants were used to rank students according to their value to the school" its not a big deal at this point, but its noteworthy. i put it in the history article, as a sentence. i dont think it needs to appear here. any thoughts?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stanford University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120104455/https://wasc.stanford.edu/system/files/FoundingGrant_1.pdf to https://wasc.stanford.edu/system/files/FoundingGrant_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416110748/http://giving.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-endowment-faq.pdf to https://giving.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-endowment-faq.pdf
 * Added tag to ftp://reports.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/csl/tr/82/229/CSL-TR-82-229.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009065021/http://hillel.stanford.edu/about/ to http://hillel.stanford.edu/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528005547/http://chapters.kappakappagamma.org/betaeta/pages/our-chapter.php to http://chapters.kappakappagamma.org/betaeta/pages/our-chapter.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120104456/http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/chiomega/cgi-bin/history.php to http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/chiomega/cgi-bin/history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209070557/http://www.stanfordmarketing.org/recruitment/ to http://www.stanfordmarketing.org/recruitment/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanford University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702150359/http://sfimprovfestival.com/2014/01/31/tall-grande-venti-takes-top-bay-college-title-to-rep-sf-in-nationals/ to http://sfimprovfestival.com/2014/01/31/tall-grande-venti-takes-top-bay-college-title-to-rep-sf-in-nationals/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Academic Boosterism
This page currently uses words such as "prestigious,"is still highly subjective and is not objective information (Refer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism for Wiki's guidelines on Academic Boosterism - specific examples of using the word "best," "prestigious," etc is not encouraged). There needs to be consistency in the Wiki community as to how we allow subjective phrasing of these universities are. University of Chicago resolved this problem by providing objective information as such: "It holds top-ten positions in various national and international rankings"

I brought this to attention for Columbia University and Princeton University both pages in which their sentences of academic boosterism has been deleted. We should do our best to provide as objective information as possible and do the same for the Stanford page. 68.65.67.46 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Noted that the term "prestigious" was changed to "often ranked as a top-ten university in the world". The rankings of the sources cited in this page: Academic Ranking of World Universities. Stanford = 2, USNWR = 3, QS = 2, Times Higher Education = 3. The page could say often ranked in the top-100 which is just as accurate as saying top-10 without being very accurate at all. An accurate and objective description would be "often ranked as a top-three univeristy in the world".

To top it off, I noticed Harvard is described as "one of the world's most prestigious universities" which is the definition of "academic boosterism" as defined by Wikipedia. A lot of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again
To quote from a consensus above: ''But what goes in the article should not be based on our opinions. It should not even be based on a single metric like number of Nobel Prize winners. It should be based on what Reliable Sources find when they factor in whatever they think is important to determine this kind of ranking. From that you get: Times Higher Education "World University Rankings" ranks Stanford third among world universities, after CalTech and Oxford. U.S. News and World Report "Top World University Rankings" lists Stanford 4th, after Harvard, MIT, and UC Berkeley. The Telegraph "Top 100 world universities by reputation" lists Stanford third, after Harvard and MIT. To say Stanford is "prestigious" is not alumni hype. It is verified by virtually every independent source that rates this kind of thing.''

Yes. Certain universities, like the subject of this article (and also the usual suspects, none of whom I need to name - that sort of being the point) are demonstrably more 'eminent' than their peers, whether that's expressed in terms of reporting on prestige, magnitude of endowments, traditional rankings, research output, whatever. The single sentence I am returning to the lede is imperfect, and not even mine; if someone wants to rewrite it, or find superior sources, please go right ahead. But Stanford is not just another university (which, strangely enough, nobody actually ever seems to want to dispute), and a sober summary of the sometime masturbatory trophy cabinets of rankings and accolades, etc. that the usual suspects used to sport is necessary for the lede to do its job of being a lede. This isn't Stanford chauvinism; I'll happily move on to the others who are similarly and unimpeachably in this class after this is established. If someone objects to some aspect of it, let me offer a simple suggestion: sharpen the causal link, or add other sources, or whatever, but unless you actually dispute the contention - or any reasonable rephrasing of the gist (which is a precise gist, before someone attacks that), do not tendentiously remove in violation of consensus, but improve. Advocata (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to keep essential information in the article, and for your clear defense here of the need for such language. You have restored the sentence and loaded it down with a ton of references, which I hate to see in the lede. I agree with you that there is a problem with the sentence itself: it seems to try to explain in a single sentence WHY Stanford is prestigious, instead of stating the simple fact that it is. ("Proximity of Silicon Valley"? Really? By that standard, San Jose State and even Foothill College should be up there too.) I would prefer something like "Respected ranking organizations usually list Stanford as among the top five universities in the country and the world." With a link to maybe three such rankings, although they are listed already in the text. Pinging ElKevbo to join the conversation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The numerous references are there in consequence of what you've probably seen just now in the page's recent edits. That notwithstanding, though: if I'm frank, I'd like to throw out most of the lede as it currently stands, and replace it with something that precisely and in a structured manner explains what Stanford 'is' as a university, since what currently exists is needlessly generic and says far less than it should. Someone currently reading the lede will come away with a bunch of disconnected facts, instead of getting a quick overview of how the university developed under Terman in tandem with Silicon Valley, what the nature of its 'academic strength' actually consists in, etc.
 * As far as rankings go, if we move any into the lede, I'd favor it being in service of rendering Stanford more precisely, vs. generally; ideally, at the end of the lede, it should be manifestly clear that Stanford is what it is, instead of blearily gesturing at it through some description that holds for the generally-reputed rankings. The lede currently mentions the number of graduated astronauts (!?) - but says nothing about the existence of engineering/computer science, or the professional schools, etc., let alone the relative/historical/cultural importance of those. I think a redraft is needed, and will try to get on it. Advocata (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you're writing a statement that explicitly focuses on Stanford's place in rankings (e.g., "Stanford is highly ranked by numerous ranking systems"), I'm dubious that you'd be able to fully support this kind of statement with rankings. First, these statements usually go well beyond rankings and draw in other ideas like prestige, respect, and productivity.  Second, these statements usually make claims about the university being exceptional over a long period of time and that's difficult to prove with rankings that are often focused on a single year e.g., using just a few years' worth of rankings don't establish a long-term trend.  Instead, if one is making broad assertions about prestige then one should cite a wide range of credible sources, preferably those from highly qualified authors (scholars, experts, etc.) who have explicitly made the judgment that you're trying to support.  I think that in the best cases all of those sources would be from secondary or tertiary sources e.g., authors who have explicitly made a careful comparison among many universities by drawing on many sources.
 * On another note, I'd very much welcome someone writing a brand new draft of the lead of this or any other article! I imagine that Wikipedia articles would very much benefit from a long-term cycle of slow accretions of edits by many authors followed by intensive rewriting by a small number of authors to consolidate everything in a more unified voice. ElKevbo (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo, what you are suggesting (citing a wide range of credible sources) would be too long, too detailed, and too many sources for the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize what's in the text, after all. As for "these statements usually go well beyond...", "these statements usually make claims..." -let's talk about what we want in THIS article, and not bring in your apparent general feelings about how other articles are written. That's why I suggested a sentence at the end of the lede paragraph saying Respected ranking organizations usually list Stanford as among the top five universities in the country and the world. That is undeniably factual, would summarize what is in the text, and would not get into a whole dissertation about WHY Stanford is so ranked - which would not belong in the lede anyway. Something like that would meet your criteria of "highly qualified authors (scholars, experts, etc.) who have explicitly made the judgment that you're trying to support". I agree with both of you that the whole lede section needs work. Things have been randomly stuck into it that are not lede-worthy, and as Advocata says it is hard to get a sense of what the university is about. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If it's something that has been so widely written about that it warrants inclusion in the lead of an encyclopedia article then surely you can find a handful of high quality secondary and tertiary sources that support it.  We arrived at a pretty good compromise at Harvard University. ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I no longer have any idea what exactly the "it" that everyone is discussing is, but am aiming to put up a first draft of a revamped lede here, pursuant to which I suppose "it" doesn't matter. All this said, we do need some sort of better guidance (ideally rising to the level of policy) on how to optimally write the ledes for universities and similar institutions, since the interchangeable bromides look to be endemic across universities, and anything (e.g. the rfc) pitched more narrowly (e.g. 'should rankings go in the lede'?) will yield nothing of value until the main problem (of endemic vagueness and ledes that fail due to generality) is dealt with. The current #-of-alumni-or-affiliates-qualifying-as-X formula that almost all boosterist sentiments seem to be getting channeled through is, frankly, worse than the bingo-card-o'-selective-rankings under WP:IINFO, and more inaccurate to boot. A discussion for the wikiproject or talk page of WP:PRESTIGE...? Advocata (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that a Wikipedia-wide RfC posted in WT:UNI would be the way to go; I was thinking about putting one together myself. It would take some time to put together, though, since I think we'd want editors with all major points of view to participate in drafting the RfC.  And we'd want to include plenty of example to illustrate the many different approaches that are being taken in different articles, including those that many people agree are problematic e.g., edit warring over the inclusion of different phrases, obvious POV statements that are repeatedly inserted or linger for a long time. ElKevbo (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really not following you here. In what sense are the Times Higher Education "World University Rankings, the U.S. News and World Report "Top World University Rankings" (probably the best known and longest-established such ranking around), and The Telegraph "Top 100 world universities by reputation" not "high quality secondary and tertiary sources"? What would be an example of a "high quality secondary and tertiary source," if these are not? --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They're primary sources discussing their own ranking systems. If you're talking about the long view (e.g., not just the most recent couple of years or decade) and you're looking at U.S. institutions then I'd start with historians of U.S. higher education like Lucas or Thelin.  I'd also look in U.S. higher education journals to see if anyone has published any relevant peer reviewed scholarship (e.g., History of Education Quarterly, Review of Higher Education) that examines this specific institution and places it in a larger context or presents a thoughtful meta-analysis of other sources of information.  You might also find some books that would be helpful but I'd caution against the many admissions-focused books and guides that are written primarily to promote institutions, promote the author, and sell books; the best example of a good book in this area would be Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter, a book whose authors have impeccable higher education expertise and whose publisher is well-known and respected for higher education publications.
 * In other words, you should not be combining sources to draw a new, original conclusion but you should be citing others who have already drawn that conclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Proximity of Silicon Valley" is an issue. First Stanford is not in "proximity" but is actually located in Silicon Valley. Second by the "proximity" measure, Foothill college, Santa Clara college are also well known because they are located in Silicon Valley as discussed above. Third "Proximity to Silicon Valley" also belies that fact Stanford was instrumental in the development of Silicon Valley.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley for the contributions Stanford made to Silicon Valley including those by Frederick Terman Stanford's dean of engineering and provost, who encouraged faculty and graduates to start their own companies along with the development of Stanford Industrial Park which fostered and housed many of Silicon Valley's founding companies including Varian Associates and Hewlett Packard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018
Change "Stanford's undergraduate program is one of the top three most selective in the United States" to "Stanford's undergraduate program is the most selective in the United States."

Reason for change: the statement about 'three schools' begs the question of what the other 2 schools are? All 5 of the references report Stanford's rank, but the 2nd and 3rd ranking schools are inconsistent. Here are three additional references that report Stanford's rank: https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/selection/profile16.html https://www.educationcorner.com/colleges-with-lowest-acceptance-rates.html http://www.collegesimply.com/guides/low-acceptance-rate/

These two reference report on other universities that are usually ranked near Stanford. Their acceptance rates rank higher than Stanford's. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/3/31/harvard-regular-admissions-2017/ http://www.businessinsider.com/ivy-league-harvard-yale-princeton-acceptance-rates-class-of-2021-2017-3

Moreover, when you do an open Google search on "stanford university acceptance rate", the result is "4.8%". Additionally, when search three similarly ranked schools: "harvard university acceptance rate", "yale university acceptance rate", and "princeton university acceptance rate", the Google results are 5.4%, 6.3%, and 6.5% respectively.

True, these rankings are unpredictable and they vary from year to year, ranking institute to ranking institute. Thus the only fact to be drawn from the references is that Stanford ranked first in their rankings. Also this fact is a key metric that prospective students, their parents, and guidance counselors are looking for, so it shouldn't be buried deep in the article. Higheredresearch (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Per WP:SYNTH. Theroadislong (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Change "Stanford's undergraduate program is one of the top three most selective in the United States" to "Stanford's undergraduate program is the most selective in the United States." Agree. Stanford has the lowest admit rate in the US. It is not one of the top three it is the most selective. Or simply say Stanford has an admit rate or 4.3%. The way it is phrased right now is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018
Request that an established reader fix the broken link in Reference #90 from https://provost.stanford.edu/about-office to https://provost.stanford.edu/about-the-office/

Thank you Texaslegend (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the change! Hickland (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018
there is a "was a former" thst should be "is a past" if the person is still alive or "was a past" if they are currently dead. Otherwise, a former something is that something. The opposite of former is current and the person is not currently therefore there is something amiss with the logic. 2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC) We are talking about a past time, 1885, and referencing something even further in the past, Leland Stanford's time as governor (he stopped in 1863). However at the time of the founding he was a US Senator. I've switched the order to make this clearer. --Erp (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what that sentence is trying to convey is that Leland Stanford was no longer governor of California at the time he founded Stanford University. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but WP also acts as an endorser of what is acceptable writing. An illogical statement is not what WP wants to be known for.2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One should probably look at the context: "The university was founded in 1885 by Leland and Jane Stanford in memory of their only child, Leland Stanford Jr., who had died of typhoid fever at age 15 the previous year. Stanford was a former Governor of California and U.S. Senator who made his fortune as a railroad tycoon."
 * We do not follow certain rules of writing because we want to use up paper or ink or time. The forum of WP is not for the private, for the person for the passing--it is from what I understand for everyone that can use it. Everyone does not share the same information or the same amount of information or the same background. One of the reasons why we do not understand somethings written years ago is because the expressions did not contain a full understanding. Interesting bringing to the fore that you expect people to know before they read something. For some people reading something is to learn about something they do not know. That is usually the point of a reference work. A reference work is not meant to be something you know but what you want to find out about. That is a fundamental problem with your statement.2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you just wrote. I do get that you dislike the word 'former' and think there are some prescriptive rules that state it is used incorrectly in this article (and the other articles you've been editing [some of which did have an incorrect use]). I note that the OED has as a definition of former "Used to designate a former holder of an office" and as an example cites the 1970 Encyclopedia Britannica "President Hayes..appointed former Senator David M. Key..to his cabinet."  It does note that this usage is more American and that a British equivalent is "ex-"; could the issue be a difference in dialect?   Can you point to some credible references supporting  the style change you want (e.g., that a statement such as "In 1885 Leland Stanford was a US Senator and former Governor of California" is wrong)?   --Erp (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Brock Turner reference needs updating.
The judge in the case, a Stanford graduate, faced a recall effort in the aftermath.[231]

The judge in the case, Stanford graduate Aaron Persky, was recalled on June 5, 2018 as a result of a campaign spearheaded by Stanford law professor Michele Dauber .FinderOuter57 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Outdoor House as residence location for undergraduates
After the location where Toyon (sophomore preference) is listed, there should be an additional element in the list. it should be Outdoor House. Outdoor House is a undergraduate themed house that focuses on strong community and relationships through outdoor experiences.

I can not make this edit because the page is restricted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.252.4 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Change "proximity to Silicon Valley" to "birthplace of Silicon Valley"
To add to the initial comment about the inaccuracy of describing Stanford as being in "proximity of Silicon Valley" is the fact without Stanford there would be no Silicon Valley. Frederick Terman the engineering dean at Stanford (called the father of Silicon Valley) encouraged Stanford graduates to stay and develop companies in the bay area most notably Bill Hewlett and David Packer who started HP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Terman In addition he spearhead the development of the Stanford Industrial Park that leased campus land to startups. see https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58349 Today Stanford Research Park has over 150 companies and 23 thousand employees. More than 50% of Silicon Valley product is due to companies started by Stanford alumni. Stanford is the birthplace of Silicon Valley and to say it simply is in proximity ignores the fact that Stanford is the single bigggest reason Silicon Valley got started and exists today. see https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/arab/en/wipo_idb_ip_ryd_07/wipo_idb_ip_ryd_07_1.pdf  Stanford is technically located in the heart of Silicon valley on the pennisula.. and not in proximity which again makes the proximity moniker inaccurate by this measure too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with the Greek Life Section
There have been two changes in Stanford University's Greek Life situation since the section was created. As of Spring 2017, Stanford University allowed the Zeta Iota chapter of the women's fraternity Alpha Chi Omega to establish itself on campus. The information should be now: "Eight historically NPC (National Panhellenic Conference) sororities, five of which are unhoused (Alpha Phi, Alpha Epsilon Phi, Chi Omega, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Alpha Chi Omega) and three of which are housed (Delta Delta Delta, Kappa Alpha Theta, and Pi Beta Phi) call Stanford home. http://stanfordisc.weebly.com/alpha-chi-omega.html The second change is that the charter of Stanford University's chapter of the Sigma Chi fraternity has been revoked. The on-campus fraternities should now be: "Ten historically NIC (National Interfraternity Conference) fraternities are also represented at Stanford, including five unhoused fraternities (Alpha Epsilon Pi, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Delta Tau Delta, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and Sigma Phi Epsilon), and five housed fraternities (Kappa Alpha Order, Kappa Sigma, Phi Kappa Psi, Sigma Nu, and Theta Delta Chi). These fraternities operate under the Stanford Inter-fraternity Council (IFC). https://www.sigmachi.org/press-release/sigma-chi-international-fraternity-closes-stanford-chapter

Change "Stanford's undergraduate program is one of the top three most selective in the United States" to "Stanford's undergraduate program is the most selective in the United States." Stanford's admit rate is 4.3% which is the lowest in the US and has been the lowest in the US for the past 5 years. Top three is misleading and inaccurate. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/4/9/admissions-rates-record-lows-across-ivies-stanford-mit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ however this redirect is not protected, you may edit it directly as appropriate. — xaosflux  Talk 13:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Stanford was modeled after Cornell not Harvard
Regarding "Jane and Leland Stanford modeled their university after the great eastern universities, most specifically Cornell University and Harvard University" while Stanford University has been modelled after Cornell (https://www.quora.com/How-are-Stanford-University-and-Cornell-University-related-historically)where are the links to substantiate the claim that Stanford was modelled after Harvard. A quick search shows that the story of the Stanford wanting to build a memorial for their son at Harvard is false https://www.truthorfiction.com/stanford/ and can not find any evidence to support the claim that Stanford was in fact modeled after Harvard. Unless a verifiable source is found and cited it would be more accurate to say "Jane and Leland Stanford modeled their university after the great eastern universities, most specifically Cornell University" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wont-stanford-it/ The Stanfords did found their university, modeled after Cornell and located on the grounds of their horse-trotting farm, in memory of their son (hence the school’s official name of “Leland Stanford Junior University”) — not because they were rudely rebuffed by Harvard’s president, but rather because it was what they had intended all along. Stanford was modeled after Cornell... again no mention of Stanford being modeled after Harvard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.19.61.173 (talk • contribs) 15:38, January 18, 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a wealth of scholarly information on this subject so I strongly recommend looking into it to find some better sources. (I'm not arguing for or against the proposed change or the information that's been presented; I'm just saying that there are much, much better sources available.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

agreed on that point.. even Stanford history on the waybackmachine makes no mention of Stanford being modelled after Harvard. Importantly the claim that Stanford was modelled after Harvard is completely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no reference to Harvard being a model at all while the claims Stanford was modelled after Cornell are at least present.


 * Late reply, definitely modeled after Cornell; however, the Stanfords did seek and get advice from then Harvard president, Charles William Eliot. Eliot's 1919 letter describing the meeting  can be found at https://purl.stanford.edu/zk100zx0318  It is also quite specific that the Stanfords only sought some general advice on different proposed projects and then later Jane sought some advice on choosing trustees for the new university. --Erp (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Jordan Hall (Stanford University)
Not notable to be a stand alone article as per WP:GEOFEAT  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Stanford University lectures on YouTube poster (A3 international paper size)

 * https://i.ibb.co/KjpcgWL/Stanford-University-You-Tube.jpg
 * https://archive.fo/XCmsb/4fcbd81e277f3aedfb0dd03e613b8244a8bd625e.jpg


 * upload it on WikiMedia Commons


 * common A3 because you are supposed to print it at home or at a print shop and stick it to you wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4118:0:4D2D:CCF9:6707:5197 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

updates
Endowment and donations University of Texas System now has the largest endowment in the US (47 Billion) and the order of schools with endowments larger than Stanford's was changed to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C40:1B70:1D27:6A92:65B1:8DAB (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Source? Contributor321 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)  source = https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-09/ivy-league-endowments-hurt-by-hedge-funds-natural-resources

Student Life section, Athletics subsection "Stanford has won the award for the top-ranked Division 1 athletic program — the NACDA Directors' Cup, formerly known as the Sears Cup – annually for the past twenty-three straight years." This needs to be changed to twenty-four years (to be consistent with the introduction which mentions 24 consecutive years).

Land section The 2018 General Use Permit is a substantial development plan to facilitate the expansion of student population, adding 3150 housing units for students, staff and faculty, of which approximately 1700 will be for undergraduates and 900 for graduates. This is in final negotiations with Santa Clara County and City of Palo Alto. The permit process is expected to conclude in the summer of 2019.

Academics section, Teaching and Learning subsection Full-time undergraduate Tuition is $17,619 per quarter for the 2019-2020 year ($52,857 annually).

Academics section, Reputation and Ranking subsection The sentence "From polls done by The Princeton Review in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, the most commonly ..." can be updated to "From polls done by The Princeton Review in the seven years since 2013, the most commonly ..."

Rchau (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)rchau

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * StanfordChapel.jpg

Relevant discussion on WT:HED
A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome Shadowssettle(talk) 10:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

New page (Asia-Pacific Research Center)
Asia-Pacific Research Center was recently created. I'm not sure if it's notable—would someone be interested in checking it out? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Award laureates and scholars
I miss Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Connely as two Academy awards winners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.12.130 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Raymond Burr
This actor is shown (with photo) as having attended Stanford. But, as indicated in the Wikipedia article on him, much of his biographical data is unverifiable and some is demonstrably false. He claimed that he took courses at Stanford despite never attending high school. But his article indicates that he graduated from Berkeley High School. It is also interesting that he is the only famous Stanford student shown for which there is no indication of a degree and year or of never-graduated status.

I strongly recommend that he be removed from the Stanford article. Rontrigger (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Stanford (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)