Talk:Stanford University
|
An event mentioned in this article is an October 1 selected anniversary. ---
Contents |
Municipal association
Stanford U. is not in Palo Alto! All addresses direct to "Stanford, CA" and not "Palo Alto, CA". --Jiang 20:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Stanford, CA is NOT a city as explained in the article. I would like to see some confirmation and proof otherwise. Kowloonese 06:18, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, my bad then...the article used to call it a "town" and someone changed it not too long ago without me noticing... --Jiang 06:21, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Headers
Jiang, would you please revert your addition of headers to the Stanford University article? I spent a long time tonight on a complete rewrite and I put the things were they were for a reason. It had a nice flow and logical coherence after I was done, and now it does not. Let's let the page grow a bit more, organically, before we chop it up. Thank you in advance. jengod 08:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, our dictators have decided that the table of contents should go above the first header, thus forcing us to limit our introduction to a paragraph or two. Sooner or later, all that content above what was in the first header needs to be broken up into sections. Why not start now? The page is long enough for a TOC to be useful. Wouldn't starting now allow time for logical coherence to be established? How would more content prevent headers from breaking the flow? The Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities template could be applied too. --Jiang 08:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, I don't think I did much damage to the flow. Why should campus landmarks be separated from the paragraph on the physical campus by a discussion of the number of undergraduates? Is the band part of the athletic dept? --Jiang 08:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Seriously dude, this page was a wasteland for a really long time. I just gave it some soul. Don't force a template on it, don't make it make sense, don't build a TOC where one currently doesn't need to be. This page doesn't need you right now. It's fine. Please leave it alone. AND YES, THE BAND *IS* PART OF THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT. jengod 08:21, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Why yes, I am. Does that disqualify me from contributing to this article? jengod 08:25, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
- No, I'm just trying to figure out why, rather than explaining why I violated the "logical coherence" of your text (part of my edit which you later partly restored), you ignored the issue, tried to establish possession of this article, and asked me to leave this article alone. --Jiang 09:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Alumni list
What is the logic behind the ordering of the alumni list? Or is there none? The degree and year should be added. --Jiang
Rankings & Reputation
Hi, I have reverted the page back to last edit. Some people seem to feel that anything that damages the school's reputation should not be placed here, even if it's true. Please recognize that Wikipedia articles should be neutral. Therefore, both positive and negative aspects of the school should be written. In this most recent case, Jengod decided that the comment "Stanford ranks lower than Harvard, Yale, and Princeton in U.S. News Rankings" to somehow be a violation or vandalous. This is a fact, and there is nothing wrong with stating it as such.
- The comment was a crack at Stanford's ranking, deliberately inserted by a Yale IP address into the first sentence of a long article, in an attempt to make Stanford look bad. The presentation of facts can be manipulated to influence opinion almost as well as opinionated writing. silsor 02:42, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
- "Although Stanford students often refer to their school as the "Harvard of the West", for the past 10 years it has consistently ranked below Harvard, Yale and Princeton in the U.S. News and World Report annual college rankings." I reverted because it was denigrating and useless, but provide me a table of USNewsWorldReport undergrad and grad schools rankings for Stanford, Yale, Princeton and then Harvard. If it turns out to be true, which I suspect it is not, then surely add it in. It definitely won't start a ranking war amongst college rivals throughout the U.S. Also, a quick look at the edit history of Acorn and the IP address that made the origin edits reveals a very short Wikipedian history almost all of which is devoted to dismissing "lower Ivies" and promoting the prestige of Yale-Harvard-Princeton. All of which are damn fine institutions, but this is not a college fair, this is an encyclopedia. jengod 02:56, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
- "Stanford ...[is] one of the most prestigious [universities] in the world" is as NPOV as such things get. Does anyone doubt it's true? It's not even saying 'top thousand', much less 'more prestigious than Reed College'. --wwoods 08:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mistake In Translation
The German phrase "Die Luft der Freiheit weht", found on the Standford emblem, is subbed incorrectly ("Let the winds of freedom blow"). A correct translation would be:
"The winds of freedom blow"
Even more correct: "The wind of freedom blows"
- Yes, "the wind of freedom blows" is the most correct translation. But I'm guessing they're leaving it as "the winds of freedom blow" because of the Beavis and Butthead connotation that "blows" carries. As in, huh huh dude... like, the wind of freedom totally BLOWS! User:Jawed
- It is a bad idea to change a translation to thwart a misinterpretation by immature high schoolers, when the incorrect result leaves millions of mature Germans thinking that this university cannot teach the German language properly.
Well, to be a stickler about it, a word-for-word translation would be "The air of freedom blows" -- former Stanford pres. Gerhard Casper (German by birth) noted that -- but that's not really in the spirit of the motto, which I think was originally Latin. "The winds of freedom blow" is a perfectly reasonable and arguably more poetic-sounding translation. In any event, I don't think a plural version of "die Luft" even exists, and it's certainly not always the case that you would want to be so literal as always to match number in a translation -- die Hose and die Brille, pants and glasses respectively, are both singular in German but plural in English, for example. -Ergative 19:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a question so much of avoiding immature misinterpretation rather than being more idiomatic English. In English, metaphorical winds are almost always plural: "the winds of change", "the winds of war", "the winds of fortune", etc. I think "the winds of freedom" is much more natural sounding than "the wind of freedom". Although this doesn't match the exact syntax of the German, I think it captures the intent of the German while sounding like more natural English. Of course, one can find examples of singular metaphorical winds, so one could aruge that this alteration is not strictly necessary. Nevertheless, surely German speakers understand that not every phrase can be translated to English with word-for-word exactness. Nohat 19:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (On edit conflict, also what Ergative says) Nohat 19:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Based on the text of Stanford ex-President Gerhardt Casper's 1995 paper, Die Luft der Freiheit weht - on and off: On the Origins and History of the Stanford Motto [1] (http://www.stanford.edu/group/identity/dieluft.pdf) (PDF), the correct translation of the motto (which is a possibly-incorrect German translation of a Latin phrase) appears to be "the wind of freedom is blowing" (see end of p. 2 of the pdf). This is the translation found in David Jordan's (Stanford's first president) 1896 paper on Ulrich von Hutten. However, Casper's paper also discusses the fact the "luft" actually means "air," not "wind," so the motto, if accurately translated from the original Latin, would be "Der Wind der Freiheit weht", and that the translation from the original Latin directly to English produces "the wind of freedom blows." However, the paper also quotes from Jordan's 1893 Charter Day speech at Berkeley, in which Jordan himself translates the motto as "the winds of freedom are blowing" (see middle of p. 3 of the pdf). In the paper, Casper never explicitly states what he deems to be the correct English translation of the motto. A 1995 Stanford press release ([2] (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950919Arc5095.html)) regarding the presentation of the above-mentioned paper contains the translation "the wind of freedom blows," and a Stanford webpage on the founding of the university ([3] (http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/founding.html)) says the English translation of the motto is "the wind of freedom blows." Based on the above, I believe we should consider the most-appropriate translation of the motto to be "the wind of freedom blows," despite the more poetic nature of "the winds of freedom blow" and the possible increased accuracy of "the winds of freedom are blowing" and "the wind of freedom is blowing." Hence, User:Pdehaye's edit to the translation of the motto should remain.
- I just realized (long after the fact), that I forgot to sign this edit. And it took me a fair amount of research too. Darn. -- ericl234 talk 10:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Lead section
This article needs an expanded lead section about 2 paragraphs in length. --Jiang 04:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
added Memorial Church / Mausoleum articles
These could use some content...
Stanford Memorial Church Stanford Mausoleum
Reputation revisited
OK, as it stands the article reads "Stanford University...is one of the more prestigious universities in the U.S.," which is pretty wishy-washy, no offense to whomever eventually phrased it this way (Jengod?). I do remember the NPOV objections to the various ways this was worded in the past, and not to be petty about it, but other schools who have as much right as Stanford to claim being one of the most prestigious universities in the world have articles that say this:
- "Harvard is one of the world's most prestigious universities"
- "Yale University...[is] one of the most prestigious and well-known [universities] in the world."
- "Penn is known as one of America's best universities, and is internationally known as one of the world's most prestigious universities"
- "Duke is recognized internationally as one of the leading institutions of higher education in the United States"
- "Columbia is internationally recognized as one of the world's foremost and most prestigious research universities."
- "Northwestern University is one of the United States' premier institutions of higher education"
- "One of the most prestigious universities in the world, Brown distinguishes itself..."
etc.
So, would people be in favor of changing the phrase back into something along the lines of what was there before?
(disclaimer: I am a Stanford alumnus) -Ergative 01:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Motto is wrong
I don't think the motto Die Luft der Freiheit weht is correct. The actual motto is: Stanford -- we're better than you!
Queued images
Stanford_banner.jpg
Vintage Stanford University postcard
CSLI
Could someone merge CSLI with this page, or rename and expand the CSLI article, thanks--nixie 01:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cornell faculty
I reverted your change because it seems odd why you would only mention the Cornell faculty. You could provide a full breakdown of where all the other faculty "hailed" from. But I'm not sure it makes sense to single out a single school. Why this one? What about the other faculty?
I mention this, because I find it to be significant that half of the original faculty all had roots from the same school. I happened to find that fact while reading an official Cornell source and thought that others might be interested in that little factoid.
--Xtreambar 13:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Your information is back in the article. It is significant, especially because Leland Stanford Sr. had previously tried to donate contributions (in memory of his deceased son) to the prominent established institutions in the East such as Yale and Harvard, which subsequently rejected him. Had they accepted Stanford's offerings, Stanford University never would have been born. Their rejection inspired Stanford to establish his own university, and importing a large number of Cornell people was definitely sending a message to the East Coast education establishment that Stanford was serious about his mission. David Starr Jordan, Stanford's first president, went to Cornell as an undergraduate. Regarding the pejorative comment one person wrote about Cornell being the "worst of the Ivy League", many current prominent faculty members at Stanford received their bachelor's degrees from Cornell, such as former Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, Stephen Krasner (recently appointed to a high position in the State Department by Condolezza Rice), and Religious Studies professor Hester Gelber.
- Heck, that story was told as a joke, at least 25 years ago. The punchline was the unnamed mother losing her patience and saying, "Come on, Leland. Let's start our own university!"
- —wwoods 16:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Stanford pictures in Wikimedia Commons
Please contribute more pictures: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University
Jawed 08:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Old Chemistry Building
I recently walked by the old Chemistry Building on the Stanford campus. It has been unoccupied for a very long time -- the grass around it is waist-high, there are trees growing in front of the doors, the windows are shuttered, and the entire building is fenced off. The building carries the inscription "1900" on the front. It's a window into the past.
Does anyone know what's up with this building? Why is it unoccupied and abandoned? Jawed 07:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it's structurally unsound as a result of one earthquake or another. It's a historically significant building, so they can't/don't want to tear it down, but renovating it probably wouldn't be cost-effective. Ergative 13:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The 1903 building, condemned in the mid-1980s for seismic safety reasons, is one of the few damaged buildings on campus that has not been restored since the earthquake."[8] (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1999/october13/lomaquote-1013.html) jengod 19:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Full Moon on the Quad?
Has anyone here actually witnessed Full Moon on the Quad? I'm a student here and eager to try this out :) Are there really just girls waiting to make out with guys? Please enlighten me.
- this hardly seems like the place for this question, but the answer is, more or less, yes. i say more or less because it depends on your definition of "make out". of course, it varies by girl, but my (one year of) experience indicates that it ranges from a peck on the cheek to a slightly longer kiss with tongue. -- ericl234 talk 09:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
List of Stanford University people?
What do people think about moving the list of notable students, alumni, and faculty to a separate writeup as I've done for Case Western Reserve University (see List of Case Western Reserve University people)? Either way seems to be OK, just thought I'd suggest it, as many other universities are doing the same (Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc). See Category:Lists of people by university affiliation for a full list of other schools with such lists. - Mark McCartney (talk) 18:43, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
- Support. jengod 20:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well this is nowhere near a consensus but I just went ahead with the move anyway. I didn't change any of the structure, so feel free to revise if you would like. If anyone has any complaints please discuss them here. - Mark McCartney (talk) 14:36, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
"second-largest university complex in the world"
I always hear that this university has the second-largest complex in the world. So what is the largest in the world? Jawed 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think I've heard that it's something in Russia...University of Moscow, perhaps, if there even is such a thing. But I have no idea if this is correct or not. -- ericl234 talk contribs 09:35, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I was always told it was Duke University. Our article says, "Duke owns 212 buildings on 9,432 acres (38 kmē) of land. That includes the Duke Forest and the Sarah P. Duke Gardens." jengod 18:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Removal of copyright notice
I removed this copyright notice from the page:
University seal and S-tree images © Stanford University
because I thought it was unnecessary as the copyright status of each image is clearly explained on each image's Image: page, which can be found by clicking on the image. It is important that in cases like this we don't make it appear as though it is our policy to specify copyright status of each image inline on every article. If we did, articles would just be long mazes of copyright info. Keeping on the separate image info page is both sufficient and preferable. Nohat 00:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)