Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The oldest university in Canada

The article simply lists the oldest chartered universities without getting into details of any specific charter. The (provincial) charter of the University of New Brunswick is older than the (royal) charter of the University of King's College (currently listed as the oldest), so I propose the below substitution. The only issue here is whether a provincial charter is the same as a royal charter (tomato or tomato). Some editors from the UK (go figure) such as Robminchin and Jonathan A Jones have reverted this change, apparently believing that the royal charter worths more despite being issued years later, and despite the fact that university education in Canada is at the local level. This boils down to the issue of whether the article is about simply stating the facts (stacking the dates), or interpreting the facts (allowing POV). Yreuq (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Location		Current name	Year	Notes
Current	Original
Canada (Fredericton, New Brunswick)	New Brunswick (Fredericton)	University of New Brunswick	1800 (as university; collegiate school 1785)	First established as the Academy of Liberal Arts and Sciences in Fredericton, New Brunswick in 1785. Received a 1800 provincial charter signed by Jonathan Odell, establishing it the College of New Brunswick, making it the oldest chartered university in Canada.

References

Despite the rather lurid prose above I have never expressed any opinion on the substance of this debate, but simply pointed out that a disputed edit should be discussed here rather than repeatedly remade. No doubt Robminchin will be along soon to clarify his substantive concerns. But beginning this discussion by making wild and unsubstantiated allegations about some sort of British anti-Canadian plot is not a sensible way to proceed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Simple: the article lists the world's (not just monarchies') oldest chartered universities by their founding charter's date - irrespective of the charter characteristics. Simple: dates and other facts are not subject to discussion. Simple: stop vandalizing the article. Yreuq (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the reference provided it was chartered as a college, not a university, in 1800. "On 12 February 1800, over the signature of Provincial Secretary Jonathan Odell, the College of New Brunswick received a Provincial Charter, the first college in Canada to be so honoured." Indeed, the article continues to refer to it as "the future University" after the collegiate charter was issued. There is no evidence in the references provided that the charter of 1800 either conferred degree-awarding powers or made the institution a university, which is what I said in my edit summary. It's nothing to do with it being a provincial charter; please do not put words into my mouth that suggest I said otherwise. You will notice the American and Australian universities are dated from the provincial acts that established them, so precedent on this is quite clear – if it was made a university or degree-awarding college by a provincial charter in 1800 then it should be listed from that date (probably alongside UKC given the closeness of the dates), but the page referenced points to that only happening with the 1827 charter (which made it a "College with the style and privileges of a University").[1] It's not the character of the charter as provincial rather than royal that is the problem, it's its character as a collegiate charter rather than a university charter. Robminchin (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The dilemmas of the Was-it-a-university-or-a-college type are vague even nowadays, let alone in the late 1700s. Just look at your favorite University of King's College - is it a college or a university? Besides, there seem to exist no references detailing even the charter dates for most universities in the list, let alone the descriptions or dates of classes. At any rate, this article is not about "the world's oldest universities by the date university teaching commenced" but by the date when they obtained permission to start teaching as institutions of higher learning. Yreuq (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, according to the source cited, "In 1820, Somerville was formally named President of the College of New Brunswick and, in April 1822, he held the very first college classes in Fredericton. This development helped spur efforts to set the institution on a firmer footing." It appears from this and from the rest of the article that the 'college' consisted, in fact, solely of the academy until the 1820s and that it only commenced operations as an institution of higher learning in 1822. It would be somewhat dubious, therefore, to say that it has been in continuous operation as a university since 1800 even if (which is yet to be shown) the 1800 charter did grant it the powers of a university – this would require further discussion. Robminchin (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If this issue is not about the provincial v. royal charters, then let us observe the precedents: under the Oxford entry in this same article, one reads: "1096–1167 (charter granted in 1248)" and under Notes: "Oxford claims its founding ("...teaching existed ... in some form...") as early as 1096 and no later than 1167". The "Oxford claims" (so there are no independent sources) and "in some form" (so it is unknown if at the university level) statements mean you lose in this debate. Or are you going to insist on double standards? Yreuq (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please try to add your comments at the bottom, it helps them to be found.

To answer your first point, this page lists institutions by continuous operation as a university. The University of King's College was chartered in 1802 as "the Mother of an University", the same form of words used to establish the University of Dublin. The 1828 charter granted King's College, Fredericton the "style and privileges of a University". You have not provided any evidence that the College of New Brunswick chartered in 1800 had the powers of a university, whereas we know that the University of King's College had those in 1802.

A range of dates is given for the University of Oxford due to the uncertainty in when teaching started (possibly this should be revisited, but that is a discussion for another thread). That is not the case at the College of New Brunswick, where we know college-level teaching started in the 1820s. Robminchin (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"This page lists institutions by continuous operation as a university" - no, it lists oldest universities by the date of the license (charter) to start teaching, not when teaching started (at whatever level). Dates teaching started are impossible to determine beyond doubt for most if not all universities, unlike dates of documents. Some people are better organizers than others and can act faster: raise funds, find buildings, hire personnel - so who cares? In determining the age of a legal entity, only dates of legal documents matter.

"A range of dates is given for the University of Oxford due to..." - that example was not about the range, but the double standards: Oxford can have its date based on hearsay, but others can't even if based on perfectly legitimate charters. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, eh? I don't think so. Yreuq (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion and no one producing (a reference to) the University of King's College legal document/charter that preceded the University of New Brunswick's legal document/charter, I restored this entry. Please do not vandalize. Yreuq (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not restore this unles and until consensus is reached. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not revert or comment edits which are based on discussion you do not participate in, especially because you being from Oxford have a conflict of interest.Yreuq (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yreuq You need to demonstrate that UNB was in operation as a university. You have not yet shown that it was even a university under the 1800 charter, despite repeated requests. The oldest charter that has been produced that grants UNB the powers of a university is from 1828, the oldest for UKC is 1802, thus UKC is, by the evidence so far produced, the older university. If you can show that UNB's 1800 charter granted it the powers of a university then it will be worth discussing whether it was in operation as a university, but you need to produce that evidence. That UNB is older as an institution is irrelevant; this is a list of the oldest universities in continuous operation, not a list of the oldest institutions that eventually became universities. Robminchin (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"That UNB is older as an institution is irrelevant" - this shows you are not interested in arguments or following Wikipedia rules. I advise you consult instructions on how discussions are conducted, and provide a verifiable reference that shows a legal document of any other university predating the legal founding document of the University of New Brunswick. If you cannot, then you have no argument. And no, this is not the list of schools "in operation as a university" - there was no disctinction between university and college in the 1700s and you have not produced a reference to the opposite there either. Yreuq (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is, in fact, the List of oldest universities in continuous operation. It is for you, as the person proposing the change to provide the evidence that UNB was chartered and operating as a university prior to UKC. Please do not try to edit-war in changes that have not gained consensus. Robminchin (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We can all read the title, but the problem is in your trying to expand that title's meaning to include the "university and not college" criterion you made up (your POV). This discussion boiled down to: (1) Can you produce a verifiable reference stating that the University of King's College's founding legal document predates the University of New Brunswick's founding legal document? (2) Can you produce a verifiable reference that a university and a college were different things in the 1700s and that the two charters explicitly state the type of the institution of higher learning? Since you already admitted in the above that the University of New Brunswick is the oldest and thus addressed Question 1, it now remains for you to address Question 2, and we will have brought this little discussion to an end. Yreuq (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It is on you, as the person proposing the change, to provide evidence to back up your proposal. But, yes, it is fairly easy to show that charters were explicit. If you look at the 1802 UKC charter, or the 1821 charter to McGill, or the 1827 charter to Toronto, or the 1828 charter to UNB itself, you will find that in all cases they are explicitly stated to be "Mother of a University" (as also used for Dublin in 1592), "should be deemed and taken as a University" or "a college with the style and privileges of a University". Where charters were not explicit in granting the powers of a university to a college, e.g. St David's Lampeter in 1828, Kings College London in 1829, or the College of Durham in 1657 (which petitioned separately for the power to award degrees in 1659), or in the Act of Parliament that established Maynooth College in 1895, they established a college that did not have the powers of a university. Similarly, with the exception of the 1693 charter for William & Mary, the charters for the colonial colleges in what became the United States appear to have generally been explicit in granting degree awarding powers (and the original Latin charter for William and Mary describes it as a studium generale). The lack of an explicit grant of degree-awarding powers to Harvard after its 1690s charters were revoked caused stress to Increase Mather in the 1700s, although it had awarded degrees from the 1640s that had been recognised by Oxford and Cambridge. Edinburgh also apparently lacked explicit degree-awarding powers at its foundation (under a charter issued not to it but to the town corporation), which has led to speculation about a lost charter. This was regularised a few decades later by the Scottish parliament, but Edinburgh (like Harvard later) issued degrees from the very start.

This gives us three basic types of degree-awarding college:

1. Those that just assumed the right from the start and won generally acceptance of this. This happened very occasionally early on, but by 1800 this had been replaced by explicit grants. Also, the College of New Brunswick does not appear to have assumed the right to award degrees.
2. Those explicitly granted the power to award degrees.
3. Those explicitly granted the powers of s university.

So, as I said at the top of this discussion, "if it was made a university or degree-awarding college by a provincial charter in 1800 then it should be listed from that date". Otherwise, it should not be. Robminchin (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have verifiable references that the charters say and mean what you claim they do, and that university and college were not the same thing in the 1700s? All articles must follow the rules on verifiability. Yreuq (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I do. But the burden of proof lies on you as the person proposing a change, so I'm rejecting your attempt to distract by shifting the burden. You need to produce evidence that the College of New Brunswick was explicitly granted either degree awarding powers or the status of a university by its 1800 charter. As you have consistently failed to do so, I am assuming that you are unable to do so. Until you produce some evidence in support of your claim rather than demanding more and more evidence from other people, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Robminchin (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "yes, thank you, I do"? lol Where are they? I can not believe I have to spell it out, but here: you are not supposed to keep such references to yourself in your private collection, but produce them here for everyone to see and verify! And no, I do not have to prove anything - an article that violates verifiability rules must be corrected by following the rules. If you do not want to continue, it means you can not produce verifiable references, and you admit you lose. Yreuq (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Not with the editor who removes it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Only if the old version already complied with verifiablity rules. The point is: all current articles must be verifiable. Yreuq (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two references provided for the 1802 date for the royal charter constituting UKC as the "Mother of an University", and this can also be easily verified from other sources. The current version thus complies fully with verifiability rules, at least with regards to UKC. If you wish to add UNB, the burden of verifiability falls on you. That is Wikipedia policy.

You also need to move away from the concept of 'winning' or 'losing' an argument. If UNB was verifiably a university from 1800 then we would all win from including it; if UNB was not verifiably a university from 1800 we would all lose from including it. I've not been able to track down any source to verify that it was a university from 1800, thus I oppose its inclusion until such time as such evidence is found. If such evidence is found, I will be happy to include it and will not feel I have lost. But that evidence has not yet been presented. Robminchin (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As the above references say, the UNB was organized as a college (university) in 1785 and chartered in 1800. Here is a verifiable source from the US Office of Education stating that university and college were the same back then in colonial America, and even in the UK: ...in Cambridge and Oxford, highly developed colleges were arrogating university functions. In this particular Trinity College stands as an intermediary between Oxford and Cambridge and the American colonial colleges. The latter exercised the university function of conferring degrees. They have maintained the original college organization with slight modifications to the present day. At Harvard from early times the name "college" or "university" was used indiscriminately. The contradistinction between the college and the university was not clearly made until in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when, for example, the title "Yale University" was adopted in connection with Yale College. Do you have a counter-reference to support your POV that university and college were not the same in colonial America? All current articles must meet the rules on verifiable references. If you do not, you lost. Yreuq (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already been clearly stated on multiple occasions that evidence that it was a degree-granting college – like those in the US that, as it says in the section you quote, "exercised the university function of conferring degrees" – is sufficient. We do treat these degree-granting colleges as equivalent to universities, but you have not presented any evidence that the College of New Brunswick was a degree-granting college. You need to actually present this evidence. Robminchin (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. The above most reliable reference is non-specific, meaning it applies without discrimination to all colleges/universities before the 20th century. The "Makers of Canada" also states explicitly that the University of New Brunswick is the former College of New Brunswick. Yreuq (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes it WP:SYNTHESIS, even if your interpretation were correct. And the Makers of Canada also says that "Until the year 1829, the New Brunswick College was merely a classical school". Robminchin (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here, of course (regardless how many times you two kept repeating it). Just some WP:OR by you two, as you keep telling us that the article is about interpreting charters, but it is about what the title says - oldest something (anything) - meaning dates. Charters are legal documents (permits to start teaching and bestowing degrees) issued to a legal entity. Charters come with the date of issuance and some text. One can dispute even the dates and meanings of (the text of) charters, sure. But to do so, you must quote a legal scholar who had done it, not a historian. So far, you both failed to produce any reliable source by a legal scholar. Yreuq (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yreuq seems very upset that I am not participating particularly actively in this discussion. That's simply because I am reading what other people are writing and assessing the strengths of their arguments. So far I see that Robminchin has provided a detailed and cogent discussion of the issue, identifying the apparent flaws in the proposed edit and further identifying the sort of evidence that would be necessary to change the conclusion. Meanwhile Yreuq has failed to answer any of the questions raised, and has instead responded with ad hominems, irrelevant asides, and accusations of conspiracy and vandalism. So, no, I do not support Yreuq's proposed edit, and will not do so until Robminchin's concerns are properly addressed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the length of your tirade, you are the only one who is very upset. Please cease ad hominem attacks in a discussion you do not partake. Afraid that listing the University of New Brunswick for what it is (Canada's oldest university by founding legal document) would set a precedent that kicks your Oxford from the list along with its unsourced claims of being older than Methuselah, amebas, and as it happens - charter? Rightfully so! Yreuq (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Robminchin is there a case for including the University of New Brunswick on this page as an additional entry, not replacing University of King's College but supplementing it? We have done similar things in other cases where there are competing claims of this kind. (Indeed we have entire pages about the Third-oldest university in England debate and First university in the United States.) Or are there too many competing claimants in this case to make that approach workable? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is some evidence that UNB had the powers of a university from 1800 but didn't use them until the 1820s, this would certainly be reasonable (as I think I suggested above). If it only became a university in 1828 then this would bring in Toronto (1827, with a virtually identical charter to UNB's 1828, even down to both being called King's College), and McGill (1821) as well as UKC. Robminchin (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As in the above, you keep claiming you know what charters say and mean but fail to support your claims with verifiable references. All articles must follow the rules on verifiability. Yreuq (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've managed to track down some sources that actually verify that the College of New Brunswick held degree-awarding powers under its provincial charter. As suggested above, we should list both UNB (as the earliest chartered) and UKC (as the earliest in operation and the first to be named a university), i.e.:

Location		Current name	Year	Notes
Current	Original
Canada (Fredericton, New Brunswick)	New Brunswick (Fredericton)	University of New Brunswick	1800 (in operation from 1820)	Established as a school in 1785. Provincial charter in 1800 established the College of New Brunswick, with "power to confer degrees in the liberal arts and sciences in the same manner as they are conferred by the universities in England". First principal of the college appointed in 1820 and first university-level classes given in 1822. Reincorporated as King's College, Fredericton and granted "the style and privileges of an University" by royal charter 1828.
Canada (Halifax, Nova Scotia)	Nova Scotia (Windsor)	University of King's College	1802 (as university; college 1790)	Established as a school in 1788. College established and incorporated by act of the provincial legislature 1789. Received a royal charter in 1802 establishing it (after the model of Trinity College, Dublin) as "The Mother of an University".

References

Thanks, looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you both agree that both schools were universities when chartered - and there can be no two oldest anything - the UNB is Canada's oldest university. There is no need for a compromise now after I found a reference that university and college were the same in colonial America (The contradistinction between the college and the university was not clearly made until in the last quarter of the nineteenth century...), so it does not matter anymore what the second-oldest university's charter says. Yreuq (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't know anything about the history of higher education in Canada but there is a tremendous amount of disagreement about the definition of a university and when the first university was founded in the United States (so much so that we have an entire article about it. So it would not be at all surprising that we should list multiple contenders for the title of "first/oldest university in <any country>." It's certainly something we need to see explicitly discussed by education historians; we cannot rely on inferences and guesswork made by Wikipedia editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we have multiple entries for many countries due to the impossibility of adjudicating without it being Original Research. For the US, we list both the first degree-awarding institution (Harvard) and the first to be named a university (both William & Mary and UPenn, as these were in the same year). For Wales we have both Lampeter, which had very limited degree awarding powers as a college in 1852, and the University of Wales, which had full degree awarding powers and was named a university in 1893. We currently explicitly state in the article that: "In some countries (particularly the US and those influenced by its culture), degree-granting higher education institutions that would normally be called universities are instead called colleges, in this case both the oldest institution that would normally be regarded as a university and the oldest institution (if different) to actually be called a university are given."

The added complication here is that UNB didn't actually start operating as a college or university until 1820 (according to multiple sources including a scholarly journal article on the history of education in New Brunswick). Listing both is very much standard where there is uncertainty like this. It's also worth noting that as UKC was chartered as a college by the provincial legislature in 1790, if we follow Yreuq's argument (which I disagree with, as noted above) that 'college' and 'university' meant exactly the same thing in Canada at the time, so any institution called a college should be regarded as a university, it is UKC, not UNB, that we would list as the oldest. Robminchin (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that Wikipedia editors are having to do this kind of research. Hasn't this work already been done by one or more education historians in Canada? ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Robminchin, no: only executive branch issues permits (charters), while legislative can not do that. Thus according to the below definitive source from Canadian historians, the UKC has never received a provincial charter prior to receiving a royal charter, but only an Act (by the provincial parliament) appropriating funds to it in the amount of £400 per annum (preparing the grounds for the royal charter of 1802). Note below that a provincial charter (in red) is referred to only once - for King's College of New Brunswick (that later on became UNB), while a royal charter (in blue) is referred to twice - both for UNB and King's College of Nova Scotia (that later on became UKC) - meaning UKC operated without a charter until 1802 (note the wording for UNB: "originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800", but no such wording for UKC - it only says "opened in 1790" but it does not say "opened and chartered in 1790"):

• "King's College (New Brunswick). Charter granted by George IV, 1828, (...) originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800."
• "King's College (Nova Scotia). An academy opened at Windsor, Nova Scotia, 1788. The following year an Act passed for "the permanent establishment and effectual support of a college at Windsor," and £400 per annum granted towards its maintenance. Under this act, King's College opened in 1790. Received royal charter, 1802" Yreuq (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

There are many institutions established by legislation rather than executive action. While technically these are acts rather than charters, they are often referred to as charters. Harvard, for example, was established (in 1636) and incorporated (in 1650) by action of the provincial legislature (see references in the article), so clearly "college" in colonial America includes those created by legislative action (and, of course, an act can do anything that a charter can and more – the King in Parliament has all the powers of the King alone). The University of Sydney was similarly established by an act of the provincial legislature in 1850, receiving its royal charter eight years later. However, I haven't (yet) found any evidence that UKC had degree-awarding powers under the 1790 act, only under the 1802 charter, so this remains a crucial distinction. Robminchin (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If King in Parliament sufficed for this purpose, no one would need a royal charter. Massachusetts Constitution mentioned Harvard as a historic milestone, but I am not aware of any Act. Australia is not a good example when discussing Canada, US influences being one major complication. Your "degree-awarding powers" criterion (your OR!) makes no sense since you do not understand the difference between legislation and permits (charters). While it is true that legislation can focus on anything, only obtaining a permit marks the legal beginning of an entity. Laws are enacted based on an agreed political motivation/interest. But permits are issued pursuant to an entity having met all the legal and functioning prerequisites for becoming a legal entity (here: securing facilities, staff, teaching material, etc.). A parliament has no instruments of verifying this prerequisite, but executive branches (including monarchs) do - in form of ministries, inspections, committees, emissaries, etc. As shown in the above definitive source for the UKC, a school can start operating without a permit (and start conferring degrees even), but it is at the government's discretion whether any legal papers issued by such a school (like degrees) will be legally acceptable (meaning: valid for further obtaining rights and privileges by the holder). Once it issues a permit however, the government surrenders its discretional rights, and the legal entity becomes solely responsible for its actions. Your misunderstanding of the basic principles of an organized society is becoming cumbersome to this discussion. Yreuq (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to interpret laws and legal documents; please find sources that explicitly address the topic of "oldest university in Canada." It's particularly inappropriate when there are thousands of higher education scholars and a large body of scholarship, including scholarship specifically focused on the history of education. ElKevbo (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors interpreting 200+ year old documents is original research. Please find sources that explicitly address this topic that do not require interpretation. ElKevbo (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

See below, and please do not re-post your nervous comments everywhere; posting a specific comment once will suffice. Yreuq (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Realised I left off the reference to the University of King's College in A History of Higher Education in Canada as "the first institution outside of the British Isles in what was to become the British Commonwealth to be granted a university charter".[2] Robminchin (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no searchable book at that link, just metadata. Sources must be verifiable. Besides, your source was by someone with a Ph.D. in English and Education. On the other hand, I have already posted a definitive source (above) by a famous Canadian historian Lawrence Johnstone Burpee and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society Arthur Doughty, showing that the UNB is the earliest chartered university in Canada (1800), with the UKC a close second (1802). Yreuq (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. That's exactly the kind of reference - a peer-reviewed publication written by a scholar with specific expertise in this area - on which we should be relying for this topic, not Wikipedia editor interpretations of primary sources. The only shortcoming is that the book is a few decades old so we don't know if there have been any changes in interpretation or access to source material that may have changed how scholars understand this. The odds of that occurring for this specific question are really small so it's not a deal breaker by any means. ElKevbo (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That alleged (unverifiable) source was by someone with a Ph.D. in English and Education, while mine was by leading historians; see above. Yreuq (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to look up what Wikipedia:Verifiability actually means, in particular WP:SOURCEACCESS. The two sources cited are not in contradiction – A History of Higher Education in Canada refers to UKC as being the first to receive a university charter; The Makers of Canada refers to the College of New Brunswick being chartered in 1800 but does not specify that it was chartered as a university. It is your interpretation of chartered as meaning 'chartered as a university' that is the problem here. You are going beyond what the source actually says – see WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Robminchin (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Robminchin: I am not rejecting your source because no one besides you can access it, but because, being written by a non-historian, it is less reliable (if at all?) than my source by Canada's leading historians. It seems that mine leaving out some text from the above Makers of Canada quotation has caused some doubts - for this, I apologize. Here is that quotation in full (with the three-dots part now filled): "becomes University of New Brunswick, 86; originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800, 86.". Undoubtedly, it was the UNB that originated in the College of New Brunswick and got chartered in 1800 ("becomes... originated... and chartered"). Yreuq (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "no one besides you can access it?" And why in the world do you think you can claim that a peer-reviewed book published by a university press that explicitly focuses on this subject is not reliable? These kinds of claims make it difficult to accept that you are arguing in good faith. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A university press did not write the book, a non-historian did. These kinds of claims make it obvious that you are not arguing in good faith. Yreuq (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't understand the distinction between an author and a publisher or how an academic press operates then you're out of your depth in this discussion. If you do understand those things then you're clearly not engaging with us in good faith. In either case, further discussion with you is a waste of time and I will be ignoring you until you change your behavior; I recommend that all other editors do likewise. ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I am here to discuss reliable sources by historians. You are a late arrival trying to steer the discussion to personal attacks. Ignored. Yreuq (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the link you posted in an attempt to discredit his standing as a historian, Robin Harris's "primary teaching and research focus remained the history of higher education. His contribution in this field was recognized by his appointment in 1970 as University Historian" at the University of Toronto. You, meanwhile, are trying to argue for an idiosyncratic interpretation of entries in the index to a work by other historians. You don't get to pick and choose and selectively interpret in this manner. I agree with ElKevbo that it is clear you are not engaging in good faith here. Robminchin (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To recap: It became clear to me from the outset (as seen from my first few entries in this discussion) that you Brits here act as a group with an agenda (also seen from my below section on Oxford that you all so far ignored as a group - proving that you do act as a nationalist group here). Your agenda is to protect both the Oxford entry and Canada's colonial place in the British monarchist (weird) sense ("L'fait c'est moi."). You as a group even proposed a most ridiculous "compromise": in the above: to list "several" "oldest" universities (or even "many" as you did with US "oldest" universities, ruining US entries in this same category for the above nationalist/chauvinist/colonial purpose). But since common logic says that there can be only one oldest anything, your game here is debunked. Your only reference was by a person no one heard of before, of non-historian background. He is so nobody that he does not have his Wikipedia article, unlike the famous historians I quote. What his job title was, is unrelated to his abilities as a historian, of course. But this does not fit your agenda, so now you will probably write a most "fabulous" article about him. The fact that his conclusions are the exact opposite to those by famous Canadian historians Lawrence Johnstone Burpee and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society Arthur Doughty speaks volumes about his "abilities" and not acting in good faith. Finally, I did not interpret those historians' words - I did not have to, as they only state Canada's facts: "King's College (New Brunswick) becomes University of New Brunswick, originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800.". So it was the UNB that originated in the College of New Brunswick and got chartered in 1800 ("becomes... originated... and chartered"), making it the oldest chartered (legally operating) university in Canada. The only question now after you were caught red-handed is whether Wikimedia will let you Brits get away with your colonial who-cares-about-facts game indefinitely or restore this article that you so grotesquely hijacked. Yreuq (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

As an addendum to this discussion, I looked up the actual text of the volume from The Makers of Canada that is referred to in the quotations from its index given above. I give the whole paragraph here to avoid any suggestion of selective quotation:

In 1816 an Act was passed providing for the establishment of grammar schools in several counties of the province. At that period St. John and St. Andrews had already grammar schools which had been established under separate Acts, and Fredericton had an academy or college, which was founded by a provincial charter granted by Lieutenant-Governor Carleton in 1800. The counties of St. John, Charlotte and York were therefore excepted from the operation of the general Act for the establishment of grammar schools. This Act, after being amended in 1823, was finally repealed by the Act of 1829, which endowed King's College at Fredericton and made new provisions for the establishment and support of grammar schools throughout the province. King's College at a later period developed into the University of New Brunswick. It had its beginning in the original charter of 1800, already referred to, which established the College of New Brunswick. In the same year the governor and trustees of the College of New Brunswick received a grant, under the great seal of the province, or a considerable tract of land in and near Fredericton for the support of that institution of learning. Until the year 1829, the New Brunswick College was merely a classical school receiving from the legislature annually two hundred and fifty pounds, which was hte same amount then allowed to the St. John Grammar School.

— James Hannay, The Makers of Canada: Wilmot and Tilley (1909), ed. Duncan Campbell Scott, publ. Toronto: Morang & Co. Ltd., pp 85-86

This makes it clear, both explicitly and by context, that what was incorporated by the charter of 1800 was a school. This is not, of course, an unusual usage of the word "college" - it appears, for example, in the names of Winchester College (1382), Eton College (1440) and Dulwich College (1619). Robminchin (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This "Fredericton had an academy or college, which was founded by a provincial charter granted by Lieutenant-Governor Carleton in 1800" and "University of New Brunswick (...) had its beginning in the original charter of 1800, already referred to, which established the College of New Brunswick." - both say explicitly "college" not "school"! If it was not a college, it would not be officially named and chartered as College. Obviously, school is used generally. Besides, we know from the U.S. Office of Education reference that in both England and North America "the contradistinction between the college and the university was not clearly made until in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when, for example, the title "Yale University" was adopted in connection with Yale College.". Yreuq (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The statement "Until the year 1829, the New Brunswick College was merely a classical school" seems crystal clear to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Let me see if I get this correctly: In his account of the Makers of Canada reference (written by leading historians), an author nobody has ever heard of has made a derogatory statement. And now you two want to assign a higher weight to that statement by that nobody than to the Makers of Canada reference itself? If that's not the biggest joke in the history of Wikipedia, I don't know what is. And a classical (pun intended) example of why Wikipedia insists on reliable sources. Get serious, or get lost. Yreuq (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you are confused. The quote I gave is from the Makers of Canada volume on Wilmot and Tilley. It isn't someone writing an account of the Makers of Canada; it is the actual article for which you were quoting the entry in the index to the Makers of Canada. Robminchin (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. Your seer was a local nobody who wrote his derogatory statement ("merely...") 100 years after the fact and 100 years before the Internet - without quoting his sources! He "knew" things that had eluded the leading historians in Canada and the US for a century before and a century more. Yours is a classic example of an unreliable source. Yreuq (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that the Makers of Canada is a reliable source that must be believed when you quote the index but is a "classic example of an unreliable source" when someone else quotes the actual text. This is a source you yourself provided the citation for and I merely looked up, yet now it turns out to disagree with what you were claiming you disown it. That is not the way these things work. Robminchin (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You did not "look it up" - it is nowhere to be found in the verifiable linked source I quoted, and you do not provide a link to yours. You are the only one who is confused here. The Makers of Canada is not an interpretative source but a scientific index of primary sources composed by Canada's leading historians. When an article is about the oldest something (anything) - meaning dates, like this article undoubtedly is, the article is about scientific indexes - like the Makers of Canada. Your seer-nobody interpreted a stack of dates from the Makers of Canada using a derogatory statement ("merely...") about something that happened 100 years before his time and he did it 100 years before the Internet, without citing his sources. No leading scholar before or after him has made such an interpretation. So yes, yours is a classic example of an unreliable source. Besides, I am not aware of anyone on Wikipedia pushing for saucy sources as reliable ones. He had some personal agenda against the school, obviously (sounds like a dropout to me), so he vetted it out of his system as some vendetta of sorts, and we all get that. But to try to use his lonesome grievance as a reliable source is even more outrageous than the source itself. Yreuq (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The source you provided is The Makers of Canada: Index and Dictionary of Canadian History. If you read the introduction to that volume you will see that it is a supplement to the twenty-volume series the Makers of Canada containing both an index to that series and a 'dictionary of Canadian history': "This Supplement is designed to supply a double need: it furnishes an analytical index to the entire series of twenty volumes; and it affords a great deal of additional information, bearing on the subject-matter of these volumes, but which from its very nature it was impossible to incorporate in the text." (p vii). The Makers of Canada is described by the Canadian Encycolpedia as: "The Makers of Canada, a series of books designed to present a history of Canada through a study of its major figures. The original series contained 20 volumes which appeared between 1903 and 1908; an index volume was added in 1911 and a 21st volume in 1916. The publisher was George M. Morang of Toronto, and the editors were poet Duncan Campbell Scott and Professor O. Pelham Edgar of Victoria College; a third advisory editor, William Dawson LeSueur, was added later." It is not "a scientific index of primary sources".

For the index section, references are given using a letter to refer to the volume of The Makers of Canada that is referred to: "The titles of the volumes in the series are indicated by initial letters as follows: B George Brown. BL Baldwin-La Fontaine-Hincks. Ch Samuel de Champlain. Dr Lord Dorchester. F Count Frontenac. Hd Sir Frederick Haldimand. Mc William Lyon Mackenzie. MS Mackenzie-Selkirk-Simpson. R Egerton Ryerson. Sy Lord Sydenham. Bk General Brock. C Sir Georges É. Cartier. D Sir James Douglas. E Lord Elgin. H Joseph Howe. L Bishop Laval. Md Sir John A. Macdonald. P Louis Joseph Papineau. S John Graves Simcoe. WM Wolfe-Montcalm. W Wilmot. T Tilley." (p xvi)

If we now look at the quote you gave from the index in full, it says "King's College (New Brunswick). W Charter granted by George IV, 1828, 49; endowed by New Brunswick Legislature, 49; controlled by Church of England, 49-50, 51; proposed amendments to charter, 51-56; amendment bill finally passed, 56; becomes University of New Brunswick, 86; originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800, 86. T Proposal to convert into agricultural school, 20; cause of its unpopularity, 21, 48; terms of the Act of 1859, 48-49. See New Brunswick, College of; New Brunswick, University of." (pp 196-7). The W at the start of the entry refers, by cross-referencing with the instructions above, to the volume in the Makers of Canada on Wilmot, so the critical sentence "originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800, 86" refers to p 86 of the volume on Wilmot. This is the volume and page that I have quoted above, as you can check on Google Books: The Makers of Canada: Wilmot and Tilley. The author has not "interpreted a stack of dates from the Makers of Canada", he has written the volume of the Makers of Canada that was later referred to in the index to the series published three years later. Indeed, the references given in the index volume for King's College (New Brunswick) are entirely to the volumes on Wilmot and Tilley that were written by Hannay. He was chosen by the editors of the Makers of Canada to write this history and then cited by Burpee and Doughty in the index volume, so the idea that he was a "seer-nobody" with "some personal agenda against the school" really doesn't hold water. Robminchin (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about here? The only relevant part of the above tirade is "a great deal of additional information" (primary sources they had indexed). In the lack of references from the period, he has interpreted the primary sources (mostly dates) himself - 100 years after the fact and 100 years before the Internet (some guts - or malfeasance!). Not only was he "brave" to write about something he was in the total dark about, but he used a derogatory manner at that ("merely..."), disqualifying his writing on the subject as a saucy source altogether. If he were on par with other historians I quoted, he would have his Wikipedia page by now (unless you and your Oxfordian buddies now create one for him - which would make my point too). The point being, all notable historians before or after his time have failed to see and share in his seer vision (and to quote him, it seems - which makes you the first). In conclusion: his writing on the subject is lone, obscure, and saucy. Yreuq (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Makers of Canada is either a reliable source or it isn't. Your argument that the index volume (a WP:TERTIARY source) is reliable but the WP:SECONDARY volumes of actual history it is indexing are not makes no sense. You claim once again that they are indexing primary sources, but all the references in the index entry for "King's College (New Brunswick)" are to Hannay's volumes. Unless you have a coherent, fact-based argument to contribute, I see little point in prolonging this discussion. Robminchin (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who quoted the Makers of Canada originally, so it is you are questioning it while cherry-picking a part that suits you and desregarding the dates in its index. It happens so that the sole author of your part, unlike the authors of the index who are all leading historians, was a nobody seer who "knew" that the university was "merely" (insult!) a school. On the other hand, he have an ultimate (also interpretative as his) reference on the subject that says without doubt that university and college were the same thing in North America and England until the 20th century. Yreuq (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Discrepancies in dates of oldest universities listed

Some of the oldest universities listed appear to be given dates from the start of teaching (which is often what is listed on their web pages, etc.), not from when they became universities. Comparing the list here to the list given by Verger in A History of the University in Europe vol 1, p 62,[3] I see the following major discrepancies:

• Bologna: end if the 12th century (1088 here)
• Oxford: beginning of the 13th century (1096–1167 here)
• Cambridge: 1209–1225 (1209 here)
• Salamanca: before 1218–19 (1134 here)
• Sienna and Macerata do not seem to be listed at all by Verger – from the notes in their descriptions, it seems likely there was doubt over their status, but they don't even make Verger's list as institutions "whose status as universities is open to dispute".
• La Sapienza, Rome, disappeared at the end of the 14th century and was re-established in 1431 according to Verger.
• La Complutense, Madrid/Alcalá is listed as 1499 (1293 here) – the date of the Papal bull (note: the Google Books preview only shows up to Aberdeen in 1495 as page 65 isn't included, but this can be found by searching inside the book for 'Alcala'). This is also the date given on the map on page 68.
• Florence is dated from the Papal bull of 1349, but it's also said to have "transferred to Pisa, and thereby closed, in 1472"
• Pisa is said to have disappeared around 1360 and been re-established at the beginning of the 15th century.
• Ferrara is said to have disappeared in 1394 (i.e. after only 3 years of operation) and been re-established in 1430
• Catania is given as 1444, not 1434
• Munich/Ingolstadt is given by Verger as 1459 (the date of the Papal bull), we have 1472 (start of teaching, with Rashdall cited) here – the concern here is that Verger doesn't note this delay in opening (which he does for Genoa, see below) so possibly newer scholarship has shown it opened earlier than Rashdall thought.
• Copenhagen given as 1475 (1479 here) – no obvious explanation
• Genoa is given as disputable with a date of 1471, but noted as not opening until 1513 (1481 here)
• Compostela seems very dubious based on the description in the notes here (school in 1495, foundation of a university approved in 1504, Papal bull in 1526). As noted above, 1495 is not visible in the preview, but using the search function in Google Books doesn't find it on the list. It is also not included on the map on page 68.
• Valencia is given as 1500 (it's 1499 here – I haven't normally noted differences of a single year, but there's no reference given for Valencia currently), from doing a search within the book for 'Valencia'. It is also given with this date on the map on page 68.

Unless there are similarly academic and up-to-date references that contradict these, I feel that we should probably follow the dates given here rather than relying on the determination of Wikipedia editors as to when institutions meet the definition of a university. What do others think? Robminchin (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There's an obvious problem with the very oldest universities, that they all developed rather than being founded. Verger uses a conservative definition and ends up with some very late dates, but also unclear ones. Dating Oxford from 1096 is almost as ridiculous as claiming it ws founded by Alfred the Great, but one can defend a range of dates bewteen 1167 and 1254 depending on which features you take as defining. The situation becomes much clearer with later universities as a structure has developed into which they can relatively easily be placed. Given such uncertainties for the earliest universities the more fundamental question arises of whether this list actually serves any real purpose at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to stick to a single source while ignoring others, maybe you should move this page to List of oldest universities in continuous operation as defined by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens and Walter Rüegg. Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The only reliable list would be The oldest chartered (accredited) universities in continuous operation because the only reliable sources are legal founding documents, a.k.a. charters (permits). Only legal entities that have met all legal and academic prerequisites to begin teaching and bestowing degrees are issued permits (charters). Otherwise, it all becomes open to endless speculation and POV. People today tend to think that no system existed in those days, but that is not true: if charters existed, a chartering system existed too - nowadays called an accreditation system. Yreuq (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• With reverts such as this one, I have no hope if this article would improve. Has someone thought of nominating this article for deletion? 122.170.42.130 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not true at all. There are many eminently reliable sources on this topic. And, at least in the U.S., I would not equate our modern accreditation system with systems or processes of chartering institutions especially a few hundred years ago.

The challenge with this list is that many of those sources are not using the same definitions and parameters to it may be misleading or incorrect to blithely combine them. Without a single source or at least an assurance that multiple sources use similar enough definitions, I am very concerned that this article is misleading, confusing, or just synthesis which is prohibited. ElKevbo (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody suggested equating modern accreditation systems with chartering systems of those times. However, a chartering system back then did reflect the highest standards of its era and country, so we should go by those founding legal documents' dates. It is the same as going by dates of accreditations issued to universities nowadays. You can still attend an unaccredited university, but such a degree would serve your vanity only (it would not have much real value). Yreuq (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Verger's list matches pretty well with the dates given for corporate recognition of the earliest universities by Brockliss in The University of Oxford: A History (OUP, 2016). Having defined a university as "a self-governing ecclesiastical corporation of masters and students whose existence and organization were usually given initial legal recognition by the local municipal, state, or ecclesiastical authorities, and then confirmed by the pope or emperor, the highest authorities of all, through a grant of statutes. As the original meaning of the Latin word universitas or corporation suggests, the emergence of the university as an organization cannot be divorced from the concomitant development of the first urban guilds and town councils, whose structures it mimicked." (p 5), he goes on to say of Bologna and Paris (given on the list in Verger as "end of the twelfth century" and "beginning of the thirteenth century" respectively): "The first indications of the gestation of a scholars' guild comes from Bologna in 1189 when the commune forced the masters to swear not to transfer the studium to another town. Thereafter, evidence confirming that Bologna had become a universitas and announcing similar developments elsewhere proliferate. The collective identity of the many Paris schools received some sort of official recognition in 1194 when their scholars were implicitly given a grant of clerical immunity by Pope Celestine III, which were confirmed six years later by the king, Philip II. By 1208 a university had definitely begun to take shape. In that year the city's bishop, who claimed the right to license private teachers and interfere in their teaching, accepted that the masters could form an autonomous guild and police themselves, albeit under his ultimate control. In 1215 the pope blessed this arrangement by granting the fledgling university is first statutes." (p 6). Possibly most importantly, he also refers to Verger "For the location of Europe's medieval universities" on p 6, a clear indication that he thinks they are using compatible definitions. He also says of Oxford: "it has long been recognized that there were no schools of higher learning in Oxford before the end of the eleventh century and that the existence of the University as a legal and collective entity cannot be identified before 1214." (p 3) and "It is customary to credit Oxford with being Europe's third oldest university—after Bologna and Paris. But this merely reflects the fact that the first definitive evidence for its corporate existence dates from a little later than that for the other two and predates that of other early foundations." (p 8). This certainly seems to point again to the corporate existence as the defining factor. Edit: Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the book: [4]

I think all the definitions I've seen in comparative university histories cited on these talk pages use very similar definitions, albeit with some differences in wording. So I don't think we have a problem with definition, but we do – as you say – have an issue with dates having accreted from other sources (particularly universities themselves) that talk about the foundation of institutions rather than the date on which they met the definition. But we have the sources to fix this. Robminchin (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages and mandates the use of academic interpretations of events, not of undisputed dates/facts. But we could have two lists: Accredited v. Unaccredited universities. In the Accredited list, we would have only legally operating schools, and in the Unaccredited list, you could play with references and sources all day long - and no one would ever question your claims of Oxford hiring Methuselah as its provost, as long as you do not touch our Accredited list based upon founding legal documents' dates alone. Deal? Yreuq (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob - that's really helpful context. In the scholarly (and non-scholarly) literature about U.S. institutions, this discussion has focused very strongly on the precise definition of "university." That means that the discussion often focuses not so much on when an institution was founded - many institutions were not founded as a "university" but were instead founded as a "college," "seminary," "institute," or some other ill-defined institution - but when the institution became a university. That often devolves into finding the earliest date when the institution awarded a graduate degree but there are other definitions that are commonly used. Hence the multiple competing claims to "first university in the United States" which is different from a broader claim to "oldest college or university in the United States" (which Harvard University holds nearly unchallenged).

Do scholars of institutions and systems outside the U.S. make a meaningful distinction between "college" and "university" or is this a peculiar U.S. issue? Do we need to explicitly address this - the common definition of a "university" that excludes most U.S. colleges - in this article or is it sufficient to leave those details in university and articles specific to the U.S.? ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

They do not even in the US for the period before the 20th century, and here is a most reliable source stating "university and college were the same in colonial America, and even in the UK: ...in Cambridge and Oxford, highly developed colleges were arrogating university functions. In this particular Trinity College stands as an intermediary between Oxford and Cambridge and the American colonial colleges. The latter exercised the university function of conferring degrees. They have maintained the original college organization with slight modifications to the present day. At Harvard from early times the name "college" or "university" was used indiscriminately. The contradistinction between the college and the university was not clearly made until in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when, for example, the title "Yale University" was adopted in connection with Yale College." Yreuq (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Rashdall's characterisation of a studium generale in The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages as being (among other points) "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", seems similar to the concept of having to award graduate degrees. It comes with a footnote "That there are at least two instances of a Studium Generale in Arts only", referring to Saragossa and Erfurt prior to 1379, both of which were apparently referred to as being a studium generale in historical documents. The list by Verger omits Saragossa and only includes Erfurt from 1379, so it seems that this isn't a place where there is divergence as far as the 'main list' of pre-1500 institutes is concerned.

For later universities in Europe, the definition used for the chronological list in A History of the University in Europe vol. 3 (1800–1945) is "universities are regarded as comprising all institutions of higher education founded or recognized as universities by the public authorities of their territory and authorized to confer academic degrees in more than one discipline." (p 673),[5] (the list covers all universities operating in Europe in that period, not just the ones founded then). For America, the current practice has been to include the various claimants, so Harvard is listed as the oldest degree-granting institution while W&M and Penn are included for their claims to be the first institution formally recognised as a university, rather than trying to adjudicate a dispute. It's probably best to link through to the first university in the United States page rather than discussing the issue on detail here. Robminchin (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, I think one significant difference is that the non-general universities in Europe are specialist institutions – things like mining colleges or law schools – I don't think there's anything quite like the US liberal arts college that's basically just the undergraduate portion of a university. It's that the Inns of Court don't qualify as a university for awarding the Degree of the Utter Bar. Robminchin (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any source to support your POV that college and university were not the same thing before the 20th century? Here is mine stating that they were the same: Yreuq (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

ElKevbo, if you read the talk page archives, you'll see that this issue has been ongoing for literally like 10 years. Since you seem to have sufficient interest in this subject, I suggest gathering your sources, and going directly to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Bogazicili (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion but I'm not involved in an editing dispute so I'm puzzled why you think that I am and need this advice...? ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This comment of yours [6] Bogazicili (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They are ignoring you and any other editors whose comments make sense and cite reliable sources. They are just a group of editors who got together and, under the guise of a majority, hijacked this article to promote a geopolitical agenda ("Oxford is older than amebas, and while we do not have any supporting sources, you should take our POV for it"). Right now, they are trying to bury the logic (dates of charters as legal permits to start teaching and bestowing degrees) under a pile of Reader's Digest hearsay "sources" - but dates are unquestionable. Yreuq (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm ignoring you because you are continuing to make nonsense personal attacks like this. Cut out the bullshit attacks and assumptions and begin sourcing your claims and perhaps I'll begin taking you seriously. ElKevbo (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No sourcing? Read above, or keep playing your game, all the same to me, but people do read this. Personal attacks? You just used "bullshit" for the first time in this discussion. Yreuq (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Further tracing the references, Verger (p 48) cites Hyde as the source for the statement on Bologna given in the text: "There is no indication, however, that up until around 1180, the Bolognese law schools were anything other than private schools opened and run by each master after his own fashion, gathering together the students that had entered into an agreement with him and paid him fees (collectae) in return for his teaching. The crucial change would seem to have taken place around the years 1180–90." (The article cited is available for borrowing from Archive.org [7]). Hyde is, of course, the source for the definition of a university quoted in the top of this Wikipedia article, and while the citation by Verger is to a different article from the one that definition is given in, he is clearly using the same concept of a "scholastic guild" here, e.g.: "The crux of the matter is whether there was already in being at the time of the habita a society of doctors such as is first reported by Boncompagno in 1200–1215, when its functions included the appointment of doctors and the hearing and approval of new books." (p 35).
It seems to me that we have a number of academics working with cross-compatible definitions that fit with the definition currently given for this article. I propose that we should, therefore, be using the dates given by these academics, or others who are also using similar definitions, in preference to dates of foundation from university websites or other sources (it's not that these dates of foundation are wrong as such, it's that they are often the earliest date on which teaching occurred in the schools that would later form the university rather than the date on which the "guild of scholars" referred to in the definition came into being).
I would also ask that comments be about this proposal, not discussions about whether the current definition is the one we should be using or about whether Oxford exists. There are other threads for those discussions. Robminchin (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In principle I am happy with this approach, though I would like some sort of date range rather than just "end of the 12th century". Obviously there would have to be further changes to the introductory paragraph explaining what definition we are using, and why it is the right one, and I think we should explictly comment on claimed earlier dates as well as signficant later events (people will want to know why Bologna isn't 1088 and Cambridge isn't 1209 just as they will want to know why Paris doesn't appear at all). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No, disagree with above suggestions as they do not contribute in fixing the fundamental problems of the page. So no consensus for these changes. Yreuq, I suggest you the same then. Gather your sources, and go directly to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. I don't have sufficient interest in this topic. Bogazicili (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, Bogazicili, that it would do any good, as they probably would manipulate that too (pose as a majority of independent editors). They are here for a long haul. But would you be in favor of creating two lists, one based on dates of charters (legal permits to start teaching and bestowing degrees) and the other list based on hearsay and POV where these editors could have their little playground to claim Oxford is older than amebas, no one else has brains except them, and whatever helps tuck them in at night? Yreuq (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The point of these suggestions is to try to apply the current definition better, and to follow the academic sources that use this definition. To oppose a change on the grounds that it doesn't contribute to a different problem is illogical. Robminchin (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the point for you is to make us all accept your definitions = POV. But that is not going to happen, of course. Yreuq (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonathan A Jones, that's a good point - I'll try to draft something explaining why there is the discrepancy between the foundation dates often given for the early universities and the dates (proposed to be) used. In terms of ranges, Verger has the range 1180-1190 in the text for Bologna; for Oxford he has "an embryonic university organization was in existence from 1200, even before the first papal statutes (1214), which were complemented by royal charters, had established its first institutions" (pp 52-53), so the range 1200-1214 would appear justified from this source. Brockliss similarly says "its schools became England's first recognized university during the reign of King John", before discussing the legatine bull of 1214, which he says "makes clear that Oxford's schools must have had some rudimentary collective identity before 1209". (Interestingly, Oxford actually gave 1214 as their foundation date to the Office for Students, while Cambridge gave 1209, leading to an amusing blog at WONKHE: Office for Students rewrites sector history) Robminchin (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"I'll try to draft something explaining why..." - you are joking, right? You cannot be serious, announcing to everyone that you will incorporate your POV in the article? Yreuq (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be helpful.

There are many other entries in this article that are completely unsourced and have no notes or explanation; that's a problem. (But not one in which I am sufficiently interested to solve myself; sorry!) ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And so Oxfordians continue with empty praises of each other and other forms of their ostentation act... Meanwhile, no reliable sources are cited in support of the Oxford and University of King's College entries. Yreuq (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'd forgotten to add the reference I dug up re UKC to the actual article; I've now done so. Adding scholarly references for Oxford (and revising the dates to match those references) is, of course, part of the proposal I have put forward here. Robminchin (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you added another "reference" no one can verify on top of other such "references" - you can keep piling them up all you like, but two wrongs do not make a right. I have not seen any proposal for Oxford, as you and your Oxfordian mate keep ignoring the Oxford discussion after I debunked the date range stated in the Oxford entry. Yreuq (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft for a new paragraph (probably to be inserted after the paragraph in the lead talking about Paris and other institutions that closed and re-opened):

Universities are dated from when, according to scholars, they met the definition of a university. For early universities, such as Bologna and Oxford, that trace their history back to teaching in individual schools prior to their formation into a university, this can means the date in the list below for when these institutions became universities is later than the date given by the institutions for their foundation.

Robminchin (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This works up to a typo ("can means" -> "can mean"), but might also mention that similar issues can arise with universities that are early for their local area, even if not early in a wider sense. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This "...are dated from when, according to scholars, they met the definition of a university" - is your POV. Dates should be taken from collegiate charters (legal permits to start teaching and bestowing degrees), as the contradistinction between the college and the university was not clearly made until in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when, for example, the title "Yale University" was adopted in connection with Yale College." Note how serious people talk about titles - meaning capitalized College v. University. That is because this whole subject is about legal statuses as chartered, not anybody's interpretation/definitions of those statuses and charters or dates therein. Yreuq (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Following what scholars say is not POV, it's what we are supposed to do as Wikipedia editors (see WP:Academic bias. Substituting our own interpretation of primary sources such as charters, on the other hand, runs a high risk of being WP:Original research. To quote from WP:PRIMARYCARE, using the hypothetical example of a proclamation, "the proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors." What you are proposing might be correct if you were writing an essay on this topic, where original research is fine and even encouraged, but it is not the correct approach for a Wikipedia article. Robminchin (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I note you say "scholars" indiscriminatorily, which means you rely on reliable and unreliable sources. Wikipedia, on the other hand, insists on using reliable sources only. Secondly, your insinuation that my insisting on dates of legal founding documents instead of interpretation means my OR - is amusing. 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 (=OR) of whether a school was or was not a university/college. Dates are precisely known, and afaik there are no cases of two schools having charters issued on the same date, so the entries should be limited to one per country and given by the charter date. Yreuq (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

As it says in WP:SOURCETYPES, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." And, as it says in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." By "scholars" I mean people publishing in these sources that are defined as not only reliable but "the most reliable sources".

You also appear confused about OR. It is perfectly fine for an article to have original research done by scholars, indeed Wikipedia relies on this for any sort of interpretation. What is referred to as OR is original research by Wikipedia editors, such as your interpretation of that source you keep quoting as meaning that colleges and universities were identical before the 20th century, while even if your interpretation were correct, interpreting the meaning of a charter as to what sort of institution it is founding using that other source would still be WP: SYNTHESIS. Robminchin (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here, of course. You keep telling us that the article is about interpreting charters, but it is about what the title says - oldest something (anything) - meaning dates. Charters are legal documents (permits to start teaching and bestowing degrees) issued to a legal entity. Charters come with the date of issuance and some text. One can dispute even the dates and meanings of (the text of) charters, sure. But to do so, you must quote a legal scholar who had done it, not a historian. In the meantime, we must list the oldest (one) university per country, for listing two or more is nonsense as there can only be one oldest of anything. Besides, why two and not five or twenty? Or, 500 "oldest" ones in the US - as it has the largest number of universities, so that would be only fair... and on to endless rotten compromises. Thank you, but no thanks. The algorithm is simple: Charter? No = Delist. Yes = Check the date. Oldest? No = Delist. Yes = List. Yreuq (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be a "list of the oldest chartered corporations", not a list of universities. By your formula above, the Hudson Bay Company, chartered in 1670, is Canada's oldest university, which is clearly nonsense. So there is obviously a need in your scheme to interpret charters to see if they are actually establishing a university. And the people we rely on for doing that are experts in the field who are used to interpreting historical documents, otherwise we cannot go beyond the very simplest interpretation permitted by WP:PRIMARYCARE. Beyond that, the idea that a university can only be established by a charter is, in itself, an opinion that, unless backed by reliable sources, constitutes original research. So we, as Wikipedia editors, look to experts to tell us when an institution is regarded as a university, rather than doing original research ourselves. If experts tell us that Oxford became a university at the beginning of the 13th century, we do not second-guess them with our own original research. That is a matter of clear Wikipedia policy. Robminchin (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop obfuscating the subject. Charters (permits) are not historical sources but legal documents issued to a specific (one) legal entity. They carry a date and define the type and rights of that legal entity. If you want to dispute the dates or licensure of a legal permit issued to any legal entity (university, or corporation, or whatever) - you must quote a legal scholar, not a historian. Yreuq (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is little point in continuing the discussion here. Wikipedia policy on WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". If you truly think that you have a valid argument that scholarly works published by the Oxford University Press and the Cambridge University Press are not reliable sources for the interpretation of 13th century documents because the academics in question were historians rather than lawyers, please take it to WP:RSN. I'm sure they could do with a laugh. Robminchin (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is where interested parties confront arguments on a subject matter. Your only "argument" is a slur by a nobody of 100 years before the Internet and 100 years after the fact (who cites no sources for his slur, at that). You also offered to make rotten compromises like here. This all means you are not here to discuss but to promote your Oxfordian agenda, but guess what - you ignored that discussion altogether, which speaks volumes ("beating around the bushes" comes to mind). Then, you and your Oxfordian mate tried WP:OR, pushing for interpretations of the differences between school and university. But when I quoted an ultimate source saying that college and university were the same thing in North America and England until the 20th century, you began using ostentation towards each other. When you were warned not to dc that as it is a waste of everyone's time, you now turned to a new trick: quoting rules excessively as another scare tactics. All of this is telling us that you two are not here to discuss, but to promote an agenda of rotten compromises to keep your Oxford listed as "one of oldest" although there can be only one oldest of anything. Your attempts are doomed, just like your "argument". By the way, how is finding that (one; any) legal scholar source going? You do realize that the article is not about a history issue (so quoting historians is worthless), but about a legal issue of the oldest (by the founding date) legal entities in higher education per country, do you not? Bring them charters... lol Yreuq (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I have not contributed to this discussion for a while, but for the avoidance of doubt I agree with Robminchin that there is quite simply nothing to discuss: he has answered all the queries with forensic detail. If Yreuq wishes to continue with his idiosyncratic approach to Wikipedia core policies then he needs to take this matter elsewhere. While editors are of course free to respond to further repetitive tirades if they wish, I for one can see no purpose served by doing so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

All this talk and neither of you has produced a single source by legal scholars on this (legal) subject. Remember: the article is about the oldest (one) university per (one) country, obviously by the date of legal founding, i.e., of the charter/legal permit to start teaching and bestowing degrees. Even the lone "historian" seer you instead quoted contradicts the ultimate reference by historians who say that college and university were the same in North America and England until the 20th century. Remember: one legal scholar will suffice. So? Yreuq (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Delisting Oxford

During the above discussion on delisting the University of King's College as Canada's oldest university due to lack of verifiable references, it turned out that Oxford University does not have verifiable references to support its stated founding date either. All articles must comply with the rules on verifiability, and I could not locate any verifiable sources in support of Oxford's case. So I move to delist Oxford since its legal founding document or "license to practice" (aka the charter) came more than a century after the stated but unsourced date. The article lists the oldest universities per country, meaning this delisting would leave Cambridge University as the UK's oldest. Yreuq (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you start be reading Rashdall, which is where the 1167 date comes from, as clearly indicated in the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That source for 1167 is a conditional that opens with "In that case..." so it is a speculation at best, meaning not a reliable reference. And I do not see any references for 1096. Yreuq (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you failed to provide any sources in the past month to support the claimed dates, we should delist Oxford. Cambridge remains the UK's oldest. Yreuq (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you have demonstrated on other threads that you are clearly not arguing in good faith, we should continue to ignore this ludicrous suggestion. Robminchin (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delisting the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

Created on the basis of the Kaliningrad State Pedagogical Institute, this university claims continuity with the University of Königsberg. This continuity is totally made up. No faculty or scientific programme from the University of Königsberg was inherited by the said Pedagogical institute. Only buildings -- which is insufficient to claim succession.

Looking at the Wikipedia pages for the two institutions, it appears that the approach there, as here, has been to note the claim and not to seek to adjudicate it. However, it's not clear to me where the claim has actually come from. Only one of the articles references it, and that reference is to the (English language) homepage of IKBFU. Under the 'history' section, IKBFU's website says "The University was founded in 1967 expanding on the already existing Kaliningrad State Pedagogical University that had been founded in 1947." There is mention of the University of Königsberg (the Albertina) a bit further down, but I wouldn't say it constitutes a claim of succession: "The University developed as a classic Soviet-era university and thus differentiated a lot from European universities such as Albertina, which kept medieval traditions of universities’ autonomy and creative free-thinking, while Soviet universities lacked both. Though Kaliningrad University has its own history and a unique way of development in the very changeable modern conditions. Nevertheless, Albertina was the factor that formed the University’s mission to be a metaphorical bridge between the Russian and European university systems." On the 'University today' page it says "IKBFU carefully keeps the academic traditions of its predecessor – the «Albertina» University of Königsberg and introduces the newest technologies of Russian classical education." Again, this seems to fall well short of being a claim of succession. There are a few other mentions of the Albertina on the pages, but the closest claim I can see is "IKBFU is the spirit of Albertina, the University where Kant, Bessel and Jacobi delivered lectures and Schiller was a Student." on the 'Why IKBFU' page, and this is only claiming a spiritual succession, not an institutional succession.

On the basis of this, while it seems to me that we shouldn't seek to adjudicate as to whether a claim to be a successor is valid absent any authoritative pronouncement either way (e.g. the decision of the Belgian courts that the Catholic University of Louvain is not the successor of the Old University of Louvain), there does not actually seem to be any evidence that the claim is actually made outside of statements on Wikipedia that are either unreferenced or fail verification. Robminchin (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)