Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The oldest university in continuous operation

Different sources are showing different universities as the oldest, but according to the Guinness World Records, the oldest university is University of Karueein, and it is stated in the records as the following:

"The oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco."

Moreover, UNESCO introduces Medina of Fez by stating "home to the oldest university in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerim Demirel (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Please see the extensive discussion of this point in the talk page archives. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've revised the introduction to try to clarify this definitional matter for those who come to the page without reading the talk page archives first. It took me an extended period of time to figure out why the definition of a university was so narrowly constructured. (It's genealogical rather than conceptual, which strikes me as weird. But lots of editors seem to agree, so I have to defer there.) I don't think one should expect readers to figure out all of these old disagreements. If you don't like my formulation, please revise, but please don't just cut. The in-text note is only illuminating after one knows the background debates. The definitional specification needs to be in the text itself. (And not in paragraph three, which is too late.) 2601:1C0:CA80:1E0:D477:AEA7:B872:ABF8 (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. 001blondjamie (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Madrasahs, like al-Qarawiyyin, are not and have never been universities by the mainstream definition we go by, and thus don't belong in this list. A fact that has been discussed many times here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is a new discussion. Wikipedia policy allows discussion at anytime as far as I know. Lets discuss! 001blondjamie (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• First you can't cite Wikipedia, you need a outside source for the mainstream definition of universities. Second Madrasa, like the University of Al Quaraouiyine in Fes, Morocco is the world's the first degree awarding institution of higher learning in the world according to UNESCO and Guinness World Records. Which fits the mainstream definitions of University so according to Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary and TheFreeDictionary.com. Out of all these definitions of University, there was a single passing remark about Europe which was made by Dictionary.com which says, "Continental European universities usually have only graduate or professional schools." I am not arguing about the origin of the word which is European as far as we know. I am arguing about definitions and concept. 119.157.213.42 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Please see the extensive discussion of all these points in the talk page archives. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't like to discuss various mainstream definitions that I provided. 119.157.213.42 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Guiness and a couple of the others aren't reliable sources, and the others report a wider modern day definition of University, which is different from the definition for a mediaeval university, which is what we go by. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And, as remarked before, there has been extensive (nay, exhaustive) previous discussion of both these points on this page, which is all recorded in the archives. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead re-word? Suggestion

Based on this sentence in the lead " To be included in this list, an educational institution must have satisfied the traditional definition of a university[Note 1] at the time of its founding.[1]" many of the entries would be removed in the non-European section as so many of these institutes were formed as colleges, primary, secondary, university colleges, madrasas etc. To make sense for the rest of the article I would suggest a re-word to:
The educational institutes listed here met the traditional definition of a university[Note 1] at the time of their founding, though they may have existed as a different kind of institute before that time.[1]

I'm open to suggestions, it is simply wrong at the moment, the Africa section is a great example as almost all the universities there were founded as schools and colleges and by the above definition we would therefore not include any of them on this page. Mountain^cirque 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The wording is indeed not quite right, and doesn't reflect the way this list has changed over the years. The key thing is that the date we use for determining "oldest" is the date of founding as a university, not the date of founding of any precursor institutions, which many universities indeed have. There's a separate problem with the very early universities, as some of these have no clear date of foundation, but in most cases there's some sort of consensus on what we use, based on common sense (in particular Cambridge must post-date Oxford because it was founded by scholars leaving Oxford, and so on). I'm not entirely convinced by your proposed rewording, but I'm sure we can find something. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have just made a minor amend to the proposed text. I'm not convinced either but thought I would start us off somewhere. The point you make on the earlier dates of foundation (as non-university bodies) is crucial and needs to be addressed to avoid confusion as to why some universities are denoted as the 'oldest' when others have earlier foundations. Mountain^cirque 13:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

How about
Inclusion in this list is determined by the date at which the educational institute met the traditional definition of a university[Note 1], although it may have existed as a different kind of institute before that time.[1]
Still not quite right, but nearer I think. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy to second that version. Mountain^cirque 09:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Add University of Elbasan in 1909

Dorivip (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Aleksandër Xhuvani University did not become a university until 1991 - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2016

University of Pecs in Hungary is the oldest Hungarian University and one of the oldest in Europe , was established in 1367 . 94.248.136.217 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Can you please provide a reliable source to support your claim. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

The University of Pécs was established in 1367, but has not been in continous operation since that time. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Aliah University is the oldest in India

Aliah University founded by the first Governor General of British East India Company Warren Hastings, is the oldest university in India that still functions. It was built in 1780. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.49.129 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It only became a university in 2008. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Sarajevo Madrasah a University ?

WIkipedia clearly defines what is a university on the "university" page; "Universities were created in Italy and evolved from Cathedral schools for the clergy during the High Middle Ages.[3]"

Then, on the list of oldest universities, Wikipedia writtes; Other institutions of higher learning, such as those of ancient Greece, ancient Persia, ancient Rome, Byzantium, ancient China, ancient India and the Islamic world, are not included in this list owing to their cultural, historical, structural and juristic dissimilarities from the medieval European university from which the modern university evolved

Is Ottoman Madrassah really a university ? If it is, why exclude all the other Ottoman Madrassahs throught the empire from the list of oldest universities ? Why is only Medressah of Sarajevo included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanzerKorps (talk • contribs)

• No, madrasahs are not and never have been universities. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oldest university in Canada and the US (and other places)

The oldest date is for Harvard (1636), but it was not officially recognised as a university until 1780, after at least two other institutions, also listed here (Penn and W&M), who both claim to be the oldest university in the US (and thus in the 'continent' as defined here). While the logic of following the dates and only bolding Harvard seems attractive, I am concerned that this means we are making a choice as to which of the claims we accept. This would seem to be contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy of presenting the facts and letting readers decide rather than taking sides. My preference would be for either bolding all three claimants, or changing the page and not bolding the oldest university on any continent to avoid such problems entirely.

A similar issue arises in Africa, where Fourah Bay College was clearly a university-level institute from 1876, well before Cairo in 1908, but was not given the title of university. This in turn knocks on to the oldest post-1500 in England where, if Fourah Bay College's claim to be the oldest in Africa is dismissed, the same logic would dismiss the claims of UCL and King's College London, meaning they should not feature on this page. My view, as I said above, is that we should include all claims (or none).

I'd be interested in what others (particularly Jonathan A Jones, who flagged this up as contentious) think about this. Robminchin (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to flagging multiple universities as the oldest in a group. If we genuinely believe there is actual controversy then it would be better not to flag anything. Indeed I would generally favour removing all the bold flagging in all sections. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with removing all the bold flagging, that sounds like the best solution to me unless someone else has objections. Robminchin (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

University of Paris and continuous operation

The definition of "continuous operation" poses many problems, especially because the definition of "interruption" is unclear. In the case of the University of Paris, it could perfectly be alleged that some part of the faculty remained in place and the granting of degrees continued throughout the period during which the institution no longer operated under the designation "University of Paris", and therefore the university somehow continued under different names. Following the French Revolution, after a very short suspension, several of its faculties (medicine, law) continued to operate independently, until the university was refounded as such in 1896. The University of Paris persists through its constituent universities and through an umbrella body, the "Chancellerie des universités de Paris".

Of course the University of Paris should be included. That it is not is most likely POV-pushing by British editors who want to get Oxford University first. The University of Paris was founded before 1500 and still exists today, plain and simple, and it doesn't matter that it was partially suspended at some point - the fact that it has existed for nearly a thousand years is what matters here. If tomorrow Cambridge was closed for a few days would it be immediately removed from this list? Ludicrous. In fact, I'm sure if we dig into the history of British universities, we'll find that they've probably all been partially closed at some point during wars, etc. Laurent (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't since the list explicitly is about universities in continuous operation. Which of course excludes all universities whose operations have been suspended at some point in time, and there's quite a few of those, even if we only count universities established before 1500AD, not only the University of Paris. As for your comment about "British editors wanting to get Oxford University first" it's plain silly, and says a lot more about your attitude towards British people than about British attitude towards the French, especially since it's an Italian university, Bologna, that is first, and not Oxford, a university that would top the list even if Paris was included... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the definition of 'continuous' could use some refining. Many European universities were shut 1939-1945, for example, and a number of interruptions occurred to the Italian universities as various wars rolled through. For many of these, that there were short interruptions is given in the notes (for Oxford, as the point has been raised, there were a couple of times when the university suspended teaching, and it relocated a few miles to Reading at one point for a few years, but it managed to operate continuously through wars and never appears to have disappeared and re-appeared). Looking at the list, interruptions of up to ~30 years have been allowed (Rostock). That would seem the upper limit of what is acceptable - essentially a generation without the university being in operation. The period of suspension of Paris (and the other French universities), seems to me to be too long to claim continuity.

The second question is whether Paris was genuinely closed until 1896, or whether the reforming of the faculties under the University of France preserved the essential character of a university. It certainly seems that the Paris Academy of the University of France has at least as good a claim to have been a university as University College London and King's College London do for much of their history. Robminchin (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times here, and it's worth browsing the archives. The general feeling was that it was hard to come up with a simple definition of institutional continuity, but that for long closures, e.g. those of more than 30 years, we would need clear evidence of some kind of genuine continuity. There was also a general feeling that the breakup of Paris was so thorough that it didn't really exist as a university anymore, although of course there are successor bodies. For what it's worth I take the view that Oxford should be dated from 1167, and so would clearly come after Paris if Paris were restored to the list. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I was about to make some suggestions on criteria for inclusion but to be honest my criteria just like the ones being used all feels a bit like original research. What do third party sources say about this? We exclude the University of Paris but also non-Western universities - for instance a university in Iran and another in Morocco are often mentioned as the oldest in third party sources I could find. That all seems arbitrary and not supported by sources. Laurent (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Excluding early non-Western schools is not the least arbitrary since we go by the traditional definition of university, a very distinct form of school that is very different from early non-Western schools (see University#Definition). And with no similarity whatsoever to for example madrasas (such as the one in Morocco) other than being a school of higher learning. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading back through the previous discussions on this topic (as a rough estimate, about 90% of the 5 pages of talk archives) leads me to the following conclusions:

1. There is a minority view in the expert literature that the ancient non-Western universities should be regarded as universities.
2. Inclusion in a list article is, by its nature, binary, so including the views of a small minority would be contrary to WP:UNDUE.
3. If the balance of expert opinion should shift, then they should be included – but this would affect far more than this page, e.g. major re-writes and mergers on other pages (as you would expect when a field undergoes a paradigm shift).
4. To avoid different pages reaching different conclusions, I would think such a determination would require a CfD advertised on all affected pages. This talk page would not be the correct place to reach such a determination.

It may be possible that we can improve our coverage of the minority view in the written (non-list) section. It would be better to discuss this under a separate heading so it can be easily found later (because it will come around again, it always does). Robminchin (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking up on the Chancellerie des universités de Paris mentioned above, and found it described itself as "La chancellerie est, enfin, un établissement public qui gère les biens indivis des universités héritières de l'ancienne Université de Paris.".[1] This follows the view that the University of Paris is a 'former university'. Similarly, The University of Paris-1 Pantheon-Sorbonne says "Depuis sa constitution en 1971, Paris 1 a constamment exprimé son attachement à un modèle universitaire combinant ouverture et recherche de l'excellence".[2] – It certainly seems to regard itself as being founded in 1971. This certainly argues against placing Paris on the table (and also against it being placed on the table of later European foundations), but possibly we should mention the division of the university alongside its earlier suspension in the prose section. (Do we need a specific section on omissions?) Robminchin (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of oldest universities in continuous operation. 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/20090117202932/http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/overall_rankings/worlds_oldest_universities/ to http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/overall_rankings/worlds_oldest_universities/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601144614/http://www.ug.edu.gh/index1.php?linkid=243&sublinkid=72 to http://www.ug.edu.gh/index1.php?linkid=243&sublinkid=72
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/about/index.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

British regions

For some reason, claimants to be the oldest post-1500 university in England were included, but the oldest post-1500 universities in the other regions of the UK were removed. I have put these back in. I would note that if the UK is treated as a whole, rather than split into regions, the undisputed oldest post-1500 university is Edinburgh, not any of the English institutions, so the article as it existed was not internally consistent. Robminchin (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a problem when somebody converted the later parts of the article to table form. Previous versions had made clear when a entry's appearance was based on a regional claim in a federal or similar state, but this mostly got trashed in the table conversion. The present situation is a bit of a mess to be honest. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I've gone for including all English and Welsh institutions that make a claim, noting whether Rüegg includes them or not. It would be possible to cut the list down by only including institutions Rüegg considered universities, but this seemed likely to prove controversial. Robminchin (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading over the archives recently, it seems likely that my decision to include all institutions making a claim was contrary to earlier decisions to maintain a strict definition of what counts as a university for the purposes of this list. It would be more consistent with this to:

• Remove UCL and KCL and instead put in a note along the lines of "University College London and King's College London are also sometimes named as the third oldest university in England based on their foundation dates of 1826 and 1829 respectively and on different definitions of what constitutes a university, but did not have the power to award degrees until substantial later". This would be in keeping with the third oldest university in England debate page, which notes that "Deciding which is truly the "third oldest university" depends largely on the definition of university status and how this is applied historically".
• Change the date for QUB to 1908
• Remove Aberystwyth and change the date for UWTSD to 1852 (earliest degree awarding powers, albeit very limited), adding a similar note referring to Aberystwyth to that for UCL and KCL

I would appreciate the thoughts of others on this. Robminchin (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The consensus on other institutions in the post-1500 lists (e.g. the French universities and the madrassas in north Africa) seems to have shifted to giving the date of foundation and then following it with the date an institution became a university. This seems an acceptable solution for the British universities as well. Robminchin (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As you say, that seems to be how the consensus is developing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of oldest universities in continuous operation. 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://archive.is/20130111172053/http://www.news.unina.it/dettagli_area.jsp?ID=12275 to http://www.news.unina.it/dettagli_area.jsp?ID=12275
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722053757/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/court-office/documents/medieval_university.pdf to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/court-office/documents/medieval_university.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/STDAVI_1%20DOC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911115746/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/university-of-new-brunswick/ to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/university-of-new-brunswick/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://guide.georgetown.edu/slideshows/slides/show11_slide5.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of oldest universities in continuous operation. 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/20130815204514/http://www.uct.ac.za/about/intro/history/ to http://www.uct.ac.za/about/intro/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030025742/http://www.uofk.edu/en/about/historical to http://www.uofk.edu/en/about/historical

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What about universities elsewhere - other than Europe?

Jama Al-Azhar (Al Azhar University) in Egypt was founded in 970/972 as per Wikipedia's own article on that subject (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University)! It's quite surprising that this university has not even been mentioned anywhere in the article. Am I missing something? I will appreciate if someone would explain the reaosn (I didn't want to edit the article since I wasn't sure why such a prestigious and famous institution was omitted in the first place. There's got to be some reason. Right?)

This point has been discussed in enormous detail on this talk page in the past, and you can find this past discussion by browsing the archives. In essence the current rough consensus position is that such institutions were not universities at the time of founding, and their precedence for the purpose of his list runs from the date at which they first became universities and not the date of founding of any precursor institutions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Having gone through the archives, and having no horse in this race, it seems that the current consensus is based on a pure linguistic definition of "university" that is defensible but really a tad ridiculous when you take a step back. Yes, the very term "university" came about to describe medieval European institutions of higher learning, and we could argue that there was no such thing as a "university" before Bologna. But that would be like arguing there was no "army" - a word derived from Latin - before Roman times, and the massive Greek and Chinese organisations of armed men who fought wars before the emergence of Latin were not "armies".Kraikk (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hear hear! Wikipedia's own article on the University of Al Quaraouiyine directly contradicts this article, with good reason. --87.114.16.219 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. I'll modify the article accordingly, with a reference to the debate. In the University of Al Quaraouiyine article it is already debated, and there are mentions referring to it as university since 970. Samer.hc (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added University of Al Quaraouiyine as it holds the Guiness world record as oldest university: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-university

With all due deference and respect for the consensus opinion on this point, it seems to me to be Eurocentric bologna. I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of the anonymous author of the first comment in this thread. To the ladies and gentlemen who composed this list I say this: your prejudices are showing. This article is not worthy of Wikipedia, a truly international endeavor. — Aetheling (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• This list is about universities only, a unique kind of school "invented" in Europe, with a corporate structure and degrees granted by the corporation, not by individual teachers, and to a common standard used by all mediaeval universities, so that a degree granted by one university was recognized also by all other universities. And it took hundreds of years before that kind of school spread outside Europe, which is why the list is Eurocentric. You're free to create a similar list of the oldest still existing madrasahs (which is what Al Quaraouiyine and others were founded as) in the world, or there might even already be such a list, but madrasahs were not, and are not, universities, and do not belong in this list. And the same goes for the Christian cathedral schools that were direct predecessors to universities (many mediaeval universities were originally founded as cathedral schools, and have thus existed since long before they became universities), and had many similarities with madrasahs, though in most cases considerably older (a handful of still existing cathedral schools predate Islam...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation @Thomas.W. I understand it has been a topic of high controversy in the past (e.g. [1]). I understand the approach is to define very clearly the term for building the ranking, and I'm fine with that, and with the definition you present. I would though attempt to cover the issue in the introduction so it doesn't come back again and again. I have been reviewing the archived debates and the references around it, and I don't see a clear resolution, and thus it is resurrected regularly. I understand the introductory paragraphs of the article aim to clarify this debate, and yet I believe the controversy is not mentioned explicitly, the included references are just from one side of the debate, and thus the article could be improved to appropriately respect WP:NPOV. I would suggest to do that mentioning the controversy explicitly in the introduction, briefly explaining that depending on the definition on university and the supporting references used, the oldest universities would vary, with examples. A way to do this is as it is done in the article University, where it says "The University of Al Quaraouiyine, founded in Morocco by Fatima al-Fihri in 859, is considered by some to be the oldest degree-granting university". The suggested editions wouldn't affect the ranking, just the introduction. Would something like that work @Thomas.W? Samer.hc (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Samer.hc: While you wrote this I posted a message on your talk page. I reverted your edit on the article both because madarasahs aren't universities and because the Guiness Book of Records, which you used as source, doesn't say that Al Quarayine is the oldest university in the world, only that it is the oldest still existing educational institution in he world. Which even that is totally wrong since the three oldest still existing and continually operated educational institutions in the world are three cathedral schools in the UK, The King's School, Canterbury, founded in 597AD, King's School, Rochester, founded in 604AD, and St Peter's School, York, founded in 627AD. Showing that the Guinness Book of Records isn't a reliable source. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: No problem with the revert, I understand. From the Guinness reference [1], the title says "Oldest higher-learning institution, oldest university" and the url shows "oldest-university", which is why I took it from there. I understood the institution is considered both by Guinness (i.e. oldest uni, oldest HLI). I agree the description does not reflect the "oldest university" from the title. Instead, it is for some reason generalized as "educational institution" which is confusing, and I agree with you obviously false. Nevertheless, I think Guinness is another proof there is controversy and debate around which are the oldest universities. Even without considering it, multiple sources refer to Al Quaraouiyine as oldest university, so I'd still follow my previous suggestion in the paragraph above. Could you please comment on that? Thanks! Samer.hc (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously Eurocentric. And the lede comes across as arrogant with Note 1 written rather haughtily in first person. The definition of "scholastic" in my Oxford American Dictionary refers to Christian theology and dogma, which may be historically accurate for the origin of the pre-1500 universities named here but becomes problematic for all of the later ones based on the European model that are "doled out" in the list of other countries around the world. It's generally true that most if not all of the "competing" oldest universities in other countries (e.g., Nalanda in India) were founded to teach local theology and dogma, with scholars who specialized in various branches of study (a key part of the Oxford American Dictionary definition of "university").

As I see it, the conundrum here is that universities change over time. The components of the "model" that were followed by later universities involved more humanities and science and less theology and dogma. More subtly, I doubt we can verify that ALL of the older universities in this list emerged in the form that is being defined here as university -- continuous operation for Macerata is questioned openly in its description, for example. I suspect that many of them began as something else (probably small), passed thru the scholastic model defined here, and then evolved into modern universities.

At the least ditch "historical" from the final paragraph of the lede. History moves on. And so can a WP "consensus". Martindo (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Note 1" is in the first person because it is a quote, not because there are haughty editors here. Earlier in Rashdall's chapter on the definition of a studium generale, which is referenced in that quote, he identifies three principal components:

(1) That the school attracted, or at least invited, students from all parts, not merely those of a particular country or district, (2) That it was a place of higher education; that is to say, that one at least of the higher faculties—Theology, Law, Medicine—was taught there, (3) That such subjects were taught by a considerable number—at least by a plurality—of Masters.

A footnote mentions that there are, pace the second of these points, "at least two instances of a Studium Generale in Arts only".[3]

A school just of theology (or of law or medicine), without teaching in "arts" (the medieval liberal arts, not what is normally meant by the term today), would not have been considered a university.

This definition probably holds (with the addition of degree powers – Rashdall notes (p. 12) that "the notion gradually gained ground that the jus ubique docendi was of the essence of a Studium Generale") through at least to the birth of the research university in the early 19th century, so is probably a good start for discussions as to whether other institutions elsewhere in the world were similar enough to this concept to be termed universities. (From its WP article, it looks like Nalanda meets the three earlier criteria from Rashdall, but it is not clear (from the article) whether it acted as a corporation, in the manner of the European universities, or as a centre where individual masters taught and awarded their own licenses, in the manner of a madrassa). Robminchin (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that it has been generally accepted on WP that "university" can be used in its general sense to describe institutions of higher education, even when the institutions are not universities in the strict sense. This was debated about a year ago with respect to Sciences Po, and is long established with respect to the colleges of the University of London and the campuses of the University of California to give but a couple of examples. In list articles, however, a more specific definition is often used, as consistency is important. The List of UK universities by date of foundation, for example, does not include the University of London colleges in the main list (although there is a separate section discussing them), and only has the former University of Wales colleges from the date they became independent universities (again, there is a section on colleges of former federal universities outside of the main list for those who want to see when they became university-level institutions).

This is something that is not consistently applied in the post-mediaeval section of this article. Many institutions (including some of the British ones mentioned above) are listed from the date they became higher education centres, not the date they became universities, while the French universities are listed with their original dates of establishment (with the interruption due to the University of France made clear in the notes).

Possibly this strict application of criteria in the mediaeval section and more relaxed criteria with explanatory notes in the post-mediaeval section offers a solution to the problem of listing other institutions from around the world that were certainly centres of higher education from ancient times but did not have the characteristics of universities until relatively recently.

I agree that this article doesn't currently do a good job of discussing the different viewpoints on what constitutes an ancient university, depending on whether the term is used in a strict sense or a more generic sense. But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in basing the main list here on the strict sense as long as it is made clear that that is the basis for the list. Indeed, it is probably only by using a strict definition that such a list could ever be sensibly created. Robminchin (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

With regards to "scholastic", my guess would be that Rashdall is referring to the sic et non system of disputation, not specifically its use in theology. Makdisi has argued that this was derived from the khalāf method in the madrassa, whether true or not the madrassa certainly used a very similar method of disputation in their teaching. However (to paraphrase Makdisi further), it is not the "scholastic" but the "guild" that is critical in the concept of the university, this corporate model being distinct from the individual teacher model of earlier institutions. Robminchin (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough discussion, Robminchin. I've said my piece and you've said it better and more authoritatively. The only thing I would add is for us to step back and consider what a user expects when she or he has this page come on screen. A historian is going to look at origins for "oldest" and move forward in time to confirm "continuous". Another user (perhaps most of us) will see "university in continuous operation" and be curious to see if he or she recognizes currently operating universities, as per the modern definition. So, perhaps most users will be looking backward in time and the modern definition should apply. Martindo (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that normally the best thing to do is to apply the definition that was current at the time in question, and I would think most people would expect this (whether they realise it or not). The problem with the modern definition (assuming you mean the loose use of university to mean any higher education centre) is that it is very general and is not what people normally expect to see applied historically. Most readers would be somewhat surprised, for example, to read that the second oldest university in England was not Cambridge but Queen Mary, University of London (via its assimilation of the medical school of St Bart's hospital, which had teaching as early as 1123). Cambridge would be followed by the Inns of Court and then (via its assimilation of Wye College) Imperial College London. King's College London (via teaching at St Thomas's hospital), St George's, University of London (a medical school now generally regarded as a university) and University College London (via teaching at Middlesex hospital) would follow, before the first provincial university – Birmingham (via teaching at the Birmingham Workhouse Infirmary and its successors) rather than Durham.

I doubt that people actually want to see a list such as this that uses a definition of university so far from what they expect – even if it is the definition they would use in talking about universities nowadays. I would say the correct place for such information is in notes rather than in the main date column used for ordering the table. Robminchin (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Better definition of oldest university and better sections?

To be eligible for inclusion on the list of the oldest anything, a something has to be remarkably old—that is, the items on the list must have outlasted all the things with which at their founding they were contemporary and that, even if long-lived, eventually succumbed to the usual natural and social forces that little by little undo every component of a social world, whereas the items on the list withstood those forces—so that when you see the date of founding you go, "Wow." It is remarkable that an institution founded in the 11th century should still be operating today; it is not remarkable that an institution founded in 1958 should. The fact that there is some university that counts as the oldest in continuous operation in every country does not mean that there is anything remarkable about its age. Let's not let the desire for articles to cover as many countries as possible lead us to ignore the logical restrictions on the topic itself.

I think the page should be reorganized into three sections. The second section should be entitled "Universities founded between 1500 and 1599," the third, "Universities founded between 1600 and 1799." Frankly, I think that even this third section may not really be necessary, since there are other institutions, like Lloyd's of London, that have been in continuous operation since the 17th century.

But if the community does decide to list the oldest universities in every country, then for God's sake let's be honest and list them by century and in chronological order. It is silly to follow alphabetical order and set the Yerevan State University in Armenia, founded in 1919, next to the University of Graz, founded in 1585. Olivia de Haviland, born July 1, 1916, and so 101 years, 2 months, and 20 days old as of this date (September 21, 2017) is therefore older than Yerevan, so again, there's nothing remarkable about its age. What is the point of a list in which age is the point of comparison if you cannot use age as the point of comparison and actually find universities by age? Wordwright (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wordwright that there is mission creep here. There's enough controversy wrangling the definition of university (see my comment in the next section) that "oldest" + "continuous operation" + country list makes the page sprawl. I'm not sure that dividing by timeline would be the best solution. Instead, I suggest "Oldest University By Country" as a separate WP entry, with "continuous operation" shed as a defining factor for it (this dovetails somewhat with Wordwright's first paragraph above). Martindo (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The way the list is currently set up, the mediaeval universities are sorted by age in the first section and then the oldest post-mediaeval university in each country (organised by region) in the second section. This enables someone to easily find from the first section significantly old universities and, from the second section, when the first post-mediaeval university was set up in each country, thus tracing how universities spread. It is not clear to me how listing post-mediaeval universities by age would be more useful – these are already, by definition, younger institutions whose age is, as Wordwright points out correctly, not so remarkable – while removing Yerevan from the list on the grounds that it is relatively young would deprive the reader of the knowledge of how long there has been a university in continuous operation in Armenia. If you want to know which universities are of remarkable age, just stick to the first section.

I don't see any advantage, and many disadvantages, to removing "continuous operation" as a criterion. Is Clement V's bull establishing a university in Dublin in 1311 really more important than the successful foundation of the current University of Dublin in 1592? I can't see any good reason for this. Robminchin (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing, Robminchin. I was referring to Wordwright's proposal to split the list. The original list of oldest in continuous operation should be maintained (though I argue in the next section for expanding it beyond Christendom). But instead of removing all the "me, too" entries for numerous countries and putting them into two new chronological categories as he (?) proposes, I suggest creating a separate page Oldest University by Country. Or could be Oldest University in Continuous Operation by Country -- but I'd keep it singular and list no more than one university per country in the newly split off page. Martindo (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it would be possible to keep it to one per country, unless a strict definition were rigourously enforced, and even then governments have founded (or re-established in the case of France) multiple universities effectively simultaneously.

As I suggested below, I believe a better strategy would be to use the existing secondary list on this page as a means of conveying information about institutions that do not meet the strict criteria for inclusion in the main list, as is already done for the French universities. This would, to my mind, be a better solution to the inclusion of ancient non-European institutions than changing the historical definition of a university (any non-European institutions that do meet the criteria should, of course, be included in the main list). Robminchin (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Harvard University founded in 1636 or 1780?

Jonathan A Jones stated about a year ago HERE that "This point has been discussed in enormous detail on this talk page in the past, and you can find this past discussion by browsing the archives. In essence the current rough consensus position is that such institutions were not universities at the time of founding, and their precedence for the purpose of his list runs from the date at which they first became universities and not the date of founding of any precursor institutions." Has this consensus changed? If that is still the current consensus, why is Harvard University listed as having been founded as a university* in 1636 (*"university" would the implication based on the alleged past discussion), when the cites stated it wasn't "officially recognised as a university...[until] 1780"?

Then, just as bad, (1) the College and William and Mary (apart from their use of the word "College" in their name since they are an university but chose to continue using "college" in their name) claims a 1693 founding date, but the article states it most recently closed in 1888, which then means it wasn't in "continuous operation" since the 1693 date claimed in the article, but only since 1888. Also, (2) the University of Pennsylvania claims a founding date of 1755, but the article contradicts that claim when it cites it received its "Collegiate charter" (not its University charter) in 1755. Even if we were to accept as fact its claim that it is "the first American institution of higher education to be named a university (in 1779)", the article would need to list its founding date, at best, as 1779, not the older 1755.

Seems to me if these 3 institutions are going to be listed in this article, they need to be applied the same standard that, according to @Jonathan A Jones:, was apparently applied to the rest.

BTW, I make these comments from a reader's perspective, not as an editor. That is, I am relaying the first impression received when I perused the article and attempted to validate the founding dates listed with the justifications found in the space next to the founding dates.

Mercy11 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Defining a "university" in the US context is not simple as the collegiate colleges were all degree-granting institutions – i.e. what would normally be called a university. Harvard was a degree-granting institution from 1636, thus its inclusion from that date, while Penn was a degree-granting institution from 1755. The short pauses in W&M's teaching activities are – consistently with other universities on the list – not seem as disrupting its institutional continuity.

In general, however, you make a good point: the "global expansion" part of the list is less strict than the "medieval" part of the list. It includes, for example, colleges that taught for degrees of federal university rather than their own degrees but otherwise had all the characteristics of a university, and the French universities are listed with their original founding dates and an explanation of the c. 100 year break in their existence after the French Revolution in the notes. The question is, does the second "global expansion" section need to be as strict, or is the current slightly looser approach acceptable? And, if it is acceptable, is it being applied consistently? Robminchin (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yale University?

It is my understanding that Yale was founded in 1701, would it be appropriate to add that to the list of North American Universities ?

Harvard obviously should be there, and the presence of W&M and Penn is explained at First university in the United States (which really should be linked) – both were officially named as universities in 1779, and Penn was the first institute to have post-bachelor's education (a measure often used in the US of when an institution qualifies as a university), with its medical school being founded in 1765 (which isn't mentioned here). I presume the justification for Columbia is that it set up its medical school at pretty much the same time (1767), but that isn't included here either!

Yale's foundation date isn't particularly closer to Harvard's, so that doesn't seem a good reason to include it to me. I don't see any grounds in the first university in the US article (there is mention of it being the first to award PhDs, but that would be a claim to be the first research university, which isn't relevant here), but there may be something that article has missed that would justify its inclusion. Robminchin (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Belgium

I'm not sure why there would be the need to point out the region in which the university is currently located, as for any other country, only the city is mentioned. Especially considering universities are more something of the Belgian Communities not the Belgian Regions. Moreover: Liège & Gent are understandably included as founded in 1817 during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Ignoring the 1425 history, Leuven/Louvain and ULB(-VUB) are also mentioned (1834), but the first University founded after the Belgian revolution should be the University of Namur, in theory (1831). Other universities were founded just afterwards, before ULB-VUB et caetera: Cureghem University of Veterinary Medecine (also 1831) which later integrated the University of Liège, and then there is the Royal Military Academy (1834). What to do with those ? PCC7500 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Marketing and Oxford foundation date

It seems quite inappropriate to list Oxford as founded in "1096-1167", as this is not consistent with the standard used for other entries. Only 1167 should be retained, otherwise Bologna, Salamanca and others should be listed as much older. The current entry for Oxford looks biased. The list should not be hijacked for marketing purposes.

Nor should Wikipedia be hijacked for personal vendettas like yours (although of course it is all the time, including in many articles themselves). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.116.85 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

About University of Istanbul

Istanbul University called as "darülfünun" durinng early period of school and this type of school is very similar to western universty system. It reformed in 1776 according to western universities. In 1933, its only name changed to university. So its true information. I will change when you write. Tarik289 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

University of Paris

The University of Paris (La Sorbonne) is referred in this article to be founded in the mid-1100s, with other entries on the pre-1500 list being modeled after it, yet it doesn't appear in its proper place. Can this be rectified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotronic (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It hadn't been in continuous operation since then so it can't be included in the main lists, but it does get mentioned because of its historical centrality. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

About University of Macerata

I think putting Macerata on this list can be heavily disputed. Grendler writes: "Pope Nicholas IV conferred on Macerata a bull authorizing the establishment of a university in 1290, but nothing happened at that time.(...) No university existed in the fourtheenth, fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries" (p108) This is very clear. Moreover, Serangeli lists all the professors having taught there, and he starts in 1540. Finally, the date mentioned in the autoritative list of universities by Frijhof is also 1540. --David-de-la-Croix (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It does look like Macerata shouldn't be on the list. Even the current text on the entry (which seems to reflect the source cited there) points to it not being a studium generale until 1540. I agree that this should be removed. Robminchin (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

About University of Rostock

I do not see a line for the university of Rostock, founded 1419. Teaching was not discontinued there for long periods of time (a bit at the beginning, a bit during WWII, according to [of Rostock]. Is there a deep reason for not including it ? I believe it is more continuous than the university of Ingolstadt/Munich, which moved from Ingolstadt to Munich, and is listed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-de-la-Croix (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed (actually commented out – it's still there in the source) by Ghirlandajo in mid-December, with the edit summary "not in continuous operation". The text for the entry summarised the interruption in operation:

During the Reformation, "the Catholic university of Rostock closed altogether and the closure was long enough to make the refounded body feel a new institution". The university closed in 1523, but would appear to have reopened by 1551, when there are records of a number of professors being appointed, including Johannes Aurifaber, David Chytraeus, and Johann Draconites.

Robminchin (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Should we trust this claim that the university was closed between 1523 and 1551? In the Repertorium Academicum Germanicum, I find Mr Johannes Oldendorp being professor in the Law faculty from 1526 to 1534. This claim is backed by the Catalogus Professorum Rostochiensum. In general, I find the concept of "being in continuous operation" a bit vague. Any university was closed for some time because of wars, plagues, Reformation, Revolution. The question is when do we consider it being a long enough closure. If we stick to the definition of a University as a guild of professors and/or students, finding some identical professors before and after the closure can be a criterion.--David-de-la-Croix (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about WP:No original research. I also noticed that the Catalogus Professorum says "A professorship in Rostock from 1526-1534, which is stated in several sources, could not be proven beyond doubt (see: Pettke 1990)" [translation by Google; original "Eine Professur in Rostock von 1526-1534, die in mehreren Quellen angegeben wird, konnte bisher nicht zweifelsfrei belegt werden (siehe: Pettke 1990)"].

I also found this: "Die verblieben Dozentzen unterstützen zunächst die pläne der Herzöge zum Wiederaufbau der Hochschule. Im Herbst 1532 ließen sie damit den langjärigen Konflikt zwischen Rostock Rat und mecklenburgische Landesherrschaft um die Universität Rostock neu aufflamen. Die Auseinandersetzungen zogen sich mehr als drei Jahrezehnte hin und fanden erst in der Rostocker Formula concordiae vom 11. Mai 1563 einen Abscluß." [Google translation: "The remaining lecturers initially support the dukes' plans to rebuild the university. In the autumn of 1532 they let the long-standing conflict between the Rostock Council and the Mecklenburg sovereignty over the University of Rostock flare up again. The disputes dragged on for more than three decades and only came to an end in the Rostock Formula concordiae of May 11, 1563."] It seems there were ongoing arguments about supporting the university until 1563. If your German is up to it, it would be good to see if this source definitively says the university was in operation during this period. This looks to be a sufficiently authoritative source that if it does say that it would cast sufficient doubt on the statement from Chadwick 2003 that re-inclusion would be justified. Robminchin (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Neutrality and Original Research

Istanbul University goes back to 1453:

• Here is a secondary source: p 378 Google Books preview.
• Tertiary source: Encyclopedia Britannica
• Online sources: The World University Rankings [4]

I'll move it back onto top if there aren't any credible objections. Bogazicili (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that the institution which became Istanbul University can trace its origins back to 1453. the relevant question here is whether it was a university before 1500, which is the cutoff date for inclusion in the section of the article called "Founded as universities before 1500". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

So your criteria is if it was specifically called a "university"? That seems to suffer from a systemic bias. An higher learning institution with science and medicine is pretty much a university. Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for this article (they are in no sense "my" criteria) are defined in the opening sections. These criteria have been discusssed extensively on this page over many years, as you will discover if you read the archives. If you wish to change the treatment of Istanbul University on this page then you will have to first change those criteria. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. You (that's a plural "you") seem to have artificially narrowed the scope of this article to fit into a perspective of a certain view point, ignoring alternate view points in university article for example. The single source quote in List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation#Medieval_origins is especially ridiculous (and against WP:NPOV probably). But you (that's a singular "you") are right that it's an issue with this article itself. Bogazicili (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As has been discussed at length here, the definition here follows the standard usage of academic historians. See Wikipedia:Academic bias for a description of why "If a Wikipedia article has an academic (scholarly) bias, it does not mean taking sides and it is no violation of WP:NPOV". Robminchin (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a violation of WP:NPOV if you are ignoring sources such as UNESCO [5]. This argument has been made years ago Talk:List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation/Archive_5 as well. If you are claiming overwhelming agreement among academic historians, you'll need to back it up. Right now, you just have a source from a single book. It's funny people made the same "extensive discussions" argument 4 years ago too. That doesn't change the fact that viewpoints of various reliable sources are not represented at all.

Unless you can give me credible evidence of overwhelming agreement among academic historians, I'll put an NPOV dispute tag into this article. Bogazicili (talk)

Many sources are cited in previous discussions in the archive of this page. Here are a few (cut and paste, so please excuse the inconsistent formatting): Rüegg, Walter: "Foreword. The University as a European Institution", in: A History of the University in Europe. Vol. 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX. George Makdisi, "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", in: Studia Islamica, Vol. 32 (1970), S. 255-264. Verger, Jacques: "Patterns", in: Ridder-Symoens, Hilde de (ed.): A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. 35–76. Bender, Thomas: "Introduction", in: Bender, Thomas (ed.): The University and the City. From Medieval Origins to the Present, Oxford University Press, New York, 1988, ISBN 0-19-505273-0, pp. 3-10. Hyde, J. K.: "Universities and Cities in Medieval Italy", in: Bender, Thomas (ed.): The University and the City. From Medieval Origins to the Present, Oxford University Press, New York, 1988, ISBN 0-19-505273-0, pp. 13-21. Ferruolo, Stephen C.: The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and Their Critics, 1100–1215, Stanford University Press, 1985, ISBN 978-0-8047-1266-8, p. 5. I have found others in the past, but unfortunately my access to JSTOR seems to be broken currently.

Please note that UNESCO is not an academic source. It may be generally reliable, but if it is in disagreement with academic sources then Wikipedia prefers those. There is also the issue that "university" can be applied in a general sense to higher education institutions or in a more specific sense, as is done here. A list of the oldest highest education institutions in the world would indeed include many institutions not included here or only included with a later date. This does not apply only to non-European institutions but also to institutions such as University College London and King's College London, which are, on similar grounds, not included in the main list in at List of UK universities by date of foundation. Such a list could be constructed, but would not be a list of the oldest universities. Robminchin (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide full quotes? I don't think they are saying what you claim them to be saying. Or they are not saying what this article needs. For example, you cited Hyde 1988. I think you meant Hyde 1991, which is also referenced and quoted in the article: "The statement that all universities are descended either directly or by migration from these three prototypes [Oxford, Paris, and Bologna] depends, of course, on one's definition of a university".

To justify the narrow definition in this article, you will need either:

1) A secondary source which shows most experts agree with this narrow definition, such as a secondary source that includes a survey of these type of experts, showing overwhelming agreement

2) Or you need to change the title of this article to something like "List of oldest universities (medieval Christian definition) in continuous operation"

Until then, you can not monopolize the word "university", since other reliable sources also use alternative definitions. Eg:

"Although universities did not arise in the West until the Middle Ages in Europe, they existed in some parts of Asia and Africa in ancient times." Britannica

Refers Taixue as Imperial University p 97 [6]

Calls University of al-Qarawiyyin "oldest continually operating university" p 24 [7]

Above are just few examples, I'm sure more can be found. Unless you find option 1 above, these sources are not represented in this article. That breaks Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

These are references from earlier discussions that are in the archives, as I said, mainly provided by Gun Powder Ma. It looks like "The University and the city ; from medieval origins to the present" (the book containing the Hyde 1988 paper) was republished in 1991, which would explain the two dates.

A difficulty arises in list articles in representing multiple viewpoints, as a coherent list requires criteria that are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" (WP:LISTCRITERIA). It's not possible, in a single list, to have multiple overlapping sets of criteria. This is different from a standard article, where all definitions are discussed with due weight given. To include all universities on this list that meet a minority definition would be to give undue weight to that minority definition.

The question really is, then, what is the majority definition. As Hyde says in the article you quote, it "depends … on one's definition of a university", before going on to state that he "must define a university very strictly here" and referencing the definition by Rashdall. Makdisi discusses whether madrassas and universities are the same, coming to the conclusion that they are not, differing both in their organisation and in their system of certification – both basically coming down to the existence of the corporation, or universitas, in Europe that Hyde similarly refers to as the defining characteristic.

I am open to discussing a different definition, but as yet you haven't put one forward. If this is the only definition in the literature then it can hardly be non-NPOV to use it. Individual articles that refer to an institution as a university don't actually give usable criteria that we can use to create a list. Robminchin (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no one single definition. That's the point. This article needs to be inclusive of all other viewpoints. You have not been able to demonstrate they are undue, since you only gave individual opinions of few people. For example, based on above quote, al-Qarawiyyin needs to be on top. And in notes part, you can add view points that do not agree. So you will need input from all reliable sources. But if you want to maintain the narrow definition in this article, you will need to move it. Bogazicili (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This list uses a definition from academic sources. You have not offered another point of view as to what the definition used here should be. If you cannot do so, then there is no NPOV dispute. You can't just say "it's wrong because it doesn't include this institution", you actually need to suggest an alternative. If you do so, we can discuss that. But a list has to have criteria, so you need to actually make some positive suggestions. Robminchin (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It uses A definition. That's the problem. I already explained there is no one single definition. Different sources use different definitions, so you cannot artificially decide on A definition yourself. You need to represent all sources. You also need to review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And I already gave the specific template. If X source considers A a university, and Y source doesn't, you can put both viewpoints of X and Y in the notes. A will still need to go to earliest spot though in terms of year though. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The preponderace of scholarly sources on the history of universities use a common definition, which is the definition used in this article, as you would expect from following WP:ABIAS. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If there were two sets of criteria in use in the literature, a majority and a minority, the page would follow the ordering of the majority; to do otherwise would be to give WP:UNDUE weight to the minority opinion.

As WP:LISTCRITERIA makes clear, lists should have criteria supported by reliable sources; the criteria currently used here are indeed supported by scholarly sources, which, as noted in Wikipedia:Academic bias, is the best option and is not a breech of NPOV. No alternative criteria that are supported by scholarly sources have been advanced. If there are no other criteria to discuss then there is no NPOV dispute and the tag should be removed. Robminchin (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither this nor any other article "needs to be inclusive of all other viewpoints." The policies and essays linked above (e.g., Wikipedia:Academic bias, WP:NPOV) make that clear. This part of the NPOV policy also makes it clear and very explicit.

It would be entirely reasonable to ask if we are fairly representing the major scholarly viewpoints in this list article. But that would require additional sources that are of equal weight to the ones already in the article to be presented for discussion and I haven't seen that happen yet. Please let me know if I've missed them! ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is why I asked "A secondary source which shows most experts agree with this narrow definition, such as a secondary source that includes a survey of these type of experts, showing overwhelming agreement".

You cannot claim you represented "major scholarly viewpoints" based on few sources cited, when they are just giving their personal definitions, especially when you are going against tertiary sources like Britannica.

Again I suggest you change the title of this article, if you want to keep the more narrow scope: "List of oldest universities (something to convey the more narrow scope here) in continuous operation" Bogazicili (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any evidence of any other scholarly viewpoints on how a university is defined. As it says at WP:UNDUE (paraphrasing Jimmy Wales) "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Robminchin (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've given examples with reliable sources, contrary to the table here. That should be enough. But for more sources, I'll get back to this. Bogazicili (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "sources", the term "oldest university(ies) in continuous operation" is not very common (e.g. Scholar search and mainly links to an academic critic of this very list, citing it as source (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2018.1553490).

Would you agree that the definition of "university" evolved with time? In that case I think we would achieve a better neutrality by splitting the list according to the article University and create / enrich the corresponding lists from the content of the list here:

* Early Islamic universities

* Medieval Europe List of medieval universities

* Early modern universities List of early modern universities in Europe List of colonial universities in Latin America

* Modern universities List of modern universities in Europe (1801–1945)

* (not sure if that is the same level as the four categories above) National universities

* (not sure if that is the same level as the four categories above) Intergovernmental universities

Regarding the "continuous" statement, it would be more interesting to know the "predecessor(s)" and "successor(s)" of each institution.

--Anneyh (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There are cogent arguments for deleting this list, and contrariwise there are cogent arguments for spinning off lists like List of the oldest madrasa in continuous operation as actual articles rather than just sections. But if an article under this name continues to exist then it's hard to see an argument for any defining principle other than the current one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Some sources also talk about higher education in general (eg: "Based on limited records that remain from ancient times, higher education institutions (HEIs) were established in ancient Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe. Among the most famous of these ancient HEIs include the library of Alexandria in Egypt, the Imperial Nanking University in China, and the University of Bologna of Italy" p 355). This should be a sub-article of a higher education list. Bogazicili (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The nearest equivalent to that article is Ancient higher-learning institutions, though strangely that article has little on Islamic institutions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The above quote mentions the "Imperial Nanking University in China, and the University of Bologna of Italy" as ancient HEIs. They also evolved into modern universities. Bogazicili (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This list includes a clear definition, but the definition itself is an issue, making the article an WP:OR. More time is spent by contributors on the discussion than on the content.

Was the list ever proposed for deletion/split? I was pretty active a few years ago, then I had to pause as I was working with universities and did not want any interference. --Anneyh (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall a formal deletion or split proposal. The discussion of deletion I have seen is mostly at other pages such as Talk:List of medieval universities. The issue that Robminchin alludes to below, that giving actual dates to the very earliest universities is challenging, is also relevant. Other articles have occasionally been spun off from this one, but the overall history is complicated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this list is one giant original research, as it uses the personal definition of an author. From the first source:

"The statement that all universities are descended either directly or by migration from these three prototypes [Oxford, Paris, and Bologna] depends, of course, on one's definition of a university. And I must define a university very strictly here." That is why I had requested a source which shows this is the definition used by most historians. There hasn't been any. Bogazicili (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're seriously going to try to argue that Hastings Rashdall, Kenneth Hyde, Thomas H. Bender, Hilde De Ridder-Symoens and Jacques Verger are not reliable secondary sources for the history of the university then all I can say is good luck with that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, look at the double standards here: he is crying Wolf!, while trying to tell us a nobody-author who interpreted Makers of Canada weighs more than the authors of Makers of Canada themselves (leading historians). Yreuq (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not my argument. Read my previous messages. Bogazicili (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that Hastings Rashdall, Kenneth Hyde, Thomas H. Bender, Hilde De Ridder-Symoens and Jacques Verger are reliable secondary sources for the history of the university. But from reading some of those books, I do not remember of a constant definition from medieval times to nowadays (thus my suggestion to split) nor the relevance of "continuous operation" (rather the concept of existing more than a few years for a significant period). Overall, this article creates a lot of unnecessary debates for around 10 years. --Anneyh (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Would a possibility be to include a list of institutions whose university status is disputed? The list as currently is uses a strict definition that includes only institutions that all academic sources are going to agree are universities. We could place a list below this of pre-1500 institutions that have disputed status. This would include non-European institutions referred to in some academic sources as universities but excluded by other academic sources, along with any European institutions that fall into the same category. This would be a way of reflecting that some historians may use a different definition without giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority claims that an institution was a university. Robminchin (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it would not. The problem with the article is that it is original research, virtually entirely. Starting with rotten compromises like "Oh, let's have two oldest per country" and so on. Meaning, editors like you are trying to substitute interpretations and definitions for charters (legal permits to start teaching and bestowing degrees). And the more you discuss it, you try to make it more Original Research, not less. Yreuq (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is about the pre-1500 period when all universities are shown, not just the oldest in each country. Your comment appears to be off-topic. Robminchin (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Another idea to get out of this nonsense would be to structure the list per continent, allow two universities per country when the "oldest" is disputed between sources and mention the "predecessor" of the institution (e.g. Cathedral school). --Anneyh (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring it with a section for each continent with perhaps some subsections for more complex and lengthy subunits would be very helpful; the current structure is quite strange and offputting.

Arbitrarily limited each section to only two entries is absolutely unacceptable; we need to follow the scholarship and document what the experts have written, not place pre-emptive and arbitrary limits on what we'll include (beyond defining the subject of the article, of course). If there are multiple legitimate claimants that are well supported by high quality, reliable sources then we need to include them. ElKevbo (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. The entries should be limited to one per country because the article is about legal statuses as a university (or college, which was the same thing before the 20th century), not about someone's interpretation of whether a school was or was not a university/college. Yreuq (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for building on my badly formulated "limit". What I had in mind was just a simple mean to avoid having the 19,900 HEI listed in WHED (https://whed.net/home.php) added to the list. --21:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)