Talk:Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968)

Proposal to split into three articles
Right now, we have two pages Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Université catholique de Louvain writing about a common history, the split, common 'notable alumni', etc... Perhaps it is a good idea to split the entire subject into three pages: Then, as is common on wikipedia, these articles can have first lines such as:
 * 1) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, about the post-1968 university in Leuven
 * 2) Université catholique de Louvain, about the post-1968 university in Louvain-la-Neuve
 * 3) The Catholic University of Leuven until 1968 (does somebody know a better title?), containing the history of the university (including a section about 1968) and the pre-1968 famous alumni. This would also avoid having two treatments of the 1968 events, one from a Flemish POV and one from a French POV.
 * This page is about the modern Dutch language university in Leuven, Belgium. For its French language counter part in Louvain-la-Neuve, see Université catholique de Louvain, for their common history, see The Catholic University of Leuven until 1968

--Lenthe 09:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just use the English name for the common article (no "until 1968"), and either the French and Dutch names for the successor universities, or the English name for all three, with something disambiguating for the successor universities. As this is an old university, most of what is interesting to write about it (them) is probably part of the common history of both contemporary institutions. Cf. University of Paris (which is far too short, but where the "simple" title is that of the historic university (the difference being, of course, that its successor institutions have longer names which retain their difference even in translated form).


 * I have no personal affiliation with either university of Leuven, but may be biased in that I think the history of a university is what is of most interest to an encyclopedia article. The longer, mostly American, university articles on Wikipedia are usually dominated by recruitment-brochurecruft of less interest to outsiders. --Uppland 10:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Uppland--Teal6 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I strongly oppose the merge as suggested a few days ago (without even an edit summary!). Per the above reasoning, this article is about the unified University. Linking it to the French one (or to the Flemish one) would exclude half of its descendants, and duplicating the info would be overkill. What's wrong with the current situation? Fram 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I equally stringly oppose the second merge proposal, and you can hardly merge the same article into two other ones (since you can only redirect it to one of them). Anyway, if you want either merge, please explain here why. Fram 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki Examples
Hi everyone. When I stumbled upon this merge proposal, I checked out what was the situation on the french Wikipedia.

Even though some articles are still stubs in other languages, I think Lenthe's suggestion should be adapted in this fashion:


 * Catholic University of Leuven: Becomes disambiguation page
 * Interwiki: fr:Université catholique de Louvain


 * Catholic University of Leuven (Leuven): Page with the common history, alumni, etc.
 * Current: Catholic University of Leuven
 * Interwiki: fr:Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain)


 * Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain-la-Neuve): Modern French University
 * Current: Université catholique de Louvain
 * Interwiki: fr:Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve)


 * Catholic University of Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven): Modern Dutch University
 * Current: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
 * Interwiki: fr:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

I believe the Dutch Wikipedia currently has only two pages:
 * nl:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
 * nl:Université catholique de Louvain

Following this example, I believe the four pages suggestion should provide the best interwiki template to preserve neutrality.

So this is my take on the question. Hope it helps : )

Stéphane Thibault 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Talk


 * I agree. Because of that, I think the main article should be Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Université catholique de Louvain should mention the common history in a stub section, with a label.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, it seems this has not been implemented yet? It is actually very difficult to find this page, because there are no links from Louvain, the present Flemish or the present Walloon university.--Pan Gerwazy 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct Title?
Shouldn't this article be called the Pontifical University of Leuven?

Alumni list
I added Antoni Baranowski to the alumni list, and beacuse of the initials noticed that Aster Berkhof was second in the list, although the list was supposed to be chronological. Whoever added that one without a birth date (I think Aster is still alive) has made us face the problem that people have been adding additional alumni without specifying dates of birth and death. I do not really feel like solving all this mess on my own, but anyone adding his pet author or scientist should specify these dates, and put him or her in the chronological order according to birth. Undated alumni should just remain at the end of the list.

I will delete any alumnus/a added without these dates. Since this University no longer exists de facto if not de jure, any non-Belgian alumnus/a added should be notable already, and have a Wikipedia article on them. I will delete any alumnus/a who is not notable.--Pan Gerwazy 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kots, KAPs, Cercles, AGL etc.
This article needs sections about student life, like in TCD and Harvard

Bogger 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Separation / Clean-up / Disambiguation
I've cleaned up and slightly extended this as the pre-1968 article and edited Université catholique de Louvain and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven as post-1968 (hiving off the pre-1968 history and the alumni they claim, for instance, with a reference to here as the article on the historical university).

Help sorting out the links would be nice :) I've done most of them already, but there are still 100+ linking to University of Leuven (which has become a disambiguation page instead of a misleading redirect to Katholieke Universiteit Leuven).

"University of Louvain" now redirects to the disambiguation page (there are still about a dozen links to there that need sorting out)

Leuven University and Louvain University have also become redirects to the disambiguation page; they each still have one link (both alumni I can't place).

I've rewritten the 1968 split and I'd appreciate a check for NPOV: I work at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven but can't stand the place (I do have happy memories of being a guest lecturer in the Université catholique). I don't know if that cancels out of not ... --Paularblaster 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC) --Paularblaster (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Catholic University of Louvain?
Since this is supposed to be the historic English name, shouldn't it be the Catholic University of Louvain? I've always seen the French name of the town in historical sources. Accounts of the burning of the library in WWI, for example, use "Louvain". The Dutch name doesn't seem to have become common until after WWII. kwami (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Current English usage is to prefer the language spoken in the place in question; pre-WWII English usage for Belgian placenames was to use the French version, regardless. So we have a situation where present-day historians (such as Craig Harline, for instance), are using placenames that their not-so-distant predecessors would not have used. Because the Dutch name is current usage, I think we should use it (we are, after all, writing now, not 50 years ago); but because the French name was common until relatively recently, we should certainly keep "Louvain" as a redirect and an alternative in the lead (where I'm glad to see you've added it). Back in the day that there was a notable English presence in Leuven, in the 16th/17th centuries, it was often called "Loven" in English, but I hardly think that this being a "historic English name" is an argument for moving the page to "Loven", or even (it being so very historic) for introducing "Loven" as a redirect. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Walen buiten?
Why is that phrase annotated as being French, when it's not... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried clicking the link? --Paularblaster (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The three different Universities in Louvain
It is very important not to make a confusion between the three different Universities who are founded at Louvain and who dont have any historical connexion one with the other. This article making a confusion between those three institutions is historicaly without ground. There ware at Louvain:
 * 1) the Old University of Louvain, supprimed first by Emperor Joseph the II and than by the Directoire, so as much other universities in France, who was making a modernisation of the scholar system, and not four an "anticlericaly" motive!
 * 2)The State University of Louvain suppressed in the year 1835.
 * 3) The new Catholic University of Malines founded in 1834 by the bisshops of Belgium without any historical connexion with the old University. That is the historical reality.--Bruxellensis (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit annoying, because we already had this discussion on the French speaking wikipedia and you continue to spread your (more than controversial) opinion. You should really start to understand now: No original research on wikipedia! Here is the official webpage of the KUL: http://www.kuleuven.be/english/ the first thing written there is: "The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven was founded in 1425". That's the official version, you understand? If you don't like the official version, contact the university or some historians or the press or write a book about it, but don't change the wikipedia article! That's just not the good place. The official version should be presented here! Nicodème (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is never a vandalisme never an "original research", you have to read the historians as R. Mathes, Löwen und Rom. Zur Gründung der Katholischen Universität Löwen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kirchen-und Bildungspolitik Papst Gregors XVI, Essen, 1975.


 * What you are writing is historicaly fault: "The Old University was founded in 1425 by Pope Martin V. After the disruptions of the French Revolutionary Wars, it was refounded in 1816 as State university of Louvain and converted into the Catholic University of Leuven in 1835." The State University of Louvain, neutral and non-confessional is indeed not a refoundation of the Old University, and this Public University declared to be founded in the year 1817. Also the Catholic University is founded at Malines in 1834 without any links with the old and prestigious medieval University of Louvain. You have to read the good historians. You are the propagandist of an historical fiction. There are enough critical historians in England and I hope that an other person that I will make the correction of this article.--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic University of Leuven founded in 1834
This article is concerning the Catholic University of Leuven founded in 1834, but it makes a confusion with the two others Universities established in Louvain: the Old University of Louvain (1425-abolished in 1797) and the State University of Louvain (founded in 1817 and abolished in 1835). The list of notable alumni makes also a confusion between the students of those three universities! This article should be amended in accordance with the historical reality. --Bruxellensis (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So now we have four articles?
Someone recently went over the existing three articles and added a fourth "Old University" one, arguing (in broken English) that the existing universities were founded in 1834 as imposter successors to the 1425 institution. This hardly seems like an NPOV reading of history, and is at best gives the wrong impression about how KULeuven and UCL understand themserves, as the big "1425" on the university seal makes clear. Besides grammar fixing I think that the articles should present the universities as they are generally viewed first and then confine any criticism of this common understanding to a "criticism" section.

As it stands now it looks a bit like it would if someone went over all the pages on British monarchs and re-wrote the intros from a Jacobite viewpoint.

--194.98.58.121 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This seal with the date 1425 is not an old medieval seal, it is created in the year 1909! The seal of the Old University of Louvain, abolished in the year 1797, was a Saint Peter with a book. And what are you doing with the State University of Louvain, a laïcal, neutral and non-confessional University, and with it's 8000 students who are the founders of Belgium? Nobody can say that they are alumni of the "Catholic University of Leuven". The historical reality is complicated and it is bether to describe this reality than to create an historical fiction.--Bruxellensis (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved this section to the bottom of the page to restore the chronological order. I fully agree with IP 194.98.58.121. This discussion has since long been going on in the French Wikipedia and even for some time in the German Wikipedia. User:Bruxellensis seems to be on some kind of mission to rewrite all articles related to the Catholic University of Leuven from his own viewpoint. This opinion is however only supported by a minority of historians and certainly not conform with the self-conception of KULeuven and UCL. Such views should only be presented in a "criticism" chapter, as IP 194.98.58.121 pointed out. I will therefore revert the changes made by User:Bruxellensis. -- Athenchen (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. But I hope that an other person than I will remake this article in concordance with the historical facts that everibody can read in the historical articles. They ware three different Universities at Louvain. The Old University of Louvain, the champion of the Jansenismus in Europa, than the State University of Louvain and than the Catholic University of Louvain founded at Malines in 1834 without any links with the Old University, all the historians know that. Your version is nothing other than an historical fiction. Four a German the history of the State University of Louvain is very interesting, because that was the only exemple of a pacifical expension of the German culture in Europe... and it is a pity that you will erase the memory of this university, according with the faultif "official history". The catholic university founded in 1834 (that had provocate severe riots in Belgium) is founded in Malines without any links with the Old Alma Mater. All what I have writen in this article is historicaly exact and accurate. I considere this article as an historical hoax.--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples of historical errors
This sentence is incorrect:
 * "After the disruptions of the French Revolutionary Wars, it was refounded in 1816 as State university of Louvain
 * and converted into the Catholic University of Leuven in 1835."

Indeed the founders of the State University have never claimed to be the successors or refounder of the Old University, you dont have the right to accuse him to have make this untruthfulness, they have declared that this new university was founded in 1817.

The old University was not an episcopal University but as Oxford and the other medieval Universities, not a "catholic university" but an "university in a Catholic world". It was abolished in 1797 and nobody hat the right to say that it was converted into the Catholic University of Leuven in 1835": that's an exemple of an historical construction... The introduction has to be modified so:

The Catholic University of Mechlin, which then becomes the Catholic University of Louvain (in Latin, la:Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis, in Dutch, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven ) is a Belgian university, founded in Mechlin November 8, 1834 by the bisshops of Belgium and formally installed on 1 December 1835 in Leuven. By the way, I've only just noticed that this article only starts in 1835, leaving the 1834 university in Mechlin to a seperate page. This is helpful for clarification and I think makes the current introduction (or the one proposed above) relevant and meaningful. Please stop quoting that tribunal thing from 1844 everywhere. PCC7500 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is looking very WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please just stop. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , my reversion (that you reverted) was simply to the status quo before a pointy intervention, not to an ideal version of the lead. I had not intended to edit the article, simply to seek to find a consensus for whatever changes might be made. That was a month ago. The pointy editor simply waited a month and then made the same edit to the lead again, putting some piece of 19th-century polemic in as a supposed source. So I reverted it again. I have now myself edited the lead, but in a way that still gives too much emphasis to the pet project of the pointy editor. Should our lead not do what the Britannica does, and explain the significance and the role of the institution, rather than focusing on the exact legal nature of its relationship to the earlier institution that inspired its founding? (A topic which is already addressed at undue length in the relevant part of the article on the history of the foundation.) Whatever the facts, continual tendentious editing, and ignoring consensus in order to keep hammering on a pet nail, suggest to me that a topic ban would not be out of place. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your intervention might only have encouraged the monomania. I note that now we are being told that the Belgian bishops had no intention to claim any continuity with the past, simply to found an entirely new university, while a few hours ago we were being treated to angry polemics about how their evil scheme was to usurp the name of the previous institution. There is in this a certain incoherence. It's almost as though any stick will do to beat a dog. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you comments also sounds rather pointy and POV... The Banner  talk 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My only point and POV is that this kind of axe-grinding editing is bad for content and a colossal waste of time for all involved. Yes, it irritates me, but that's why I'm stepping away from this one. ;) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Andreas Philopater I must apologize, I was unaware there was a discussion. On the other hand, whether or not anyone has an axe to grind, I think it's important to stay factual. Modern perspectives are certainly pertinent, but we should ensure none of the language is false. Language along the lines of "In 1834, the Catholic church opened a university as a "refounding" of the older institution, though secular society protested what they viewed as an unjustified usurpation of the older institution's legacy." would be ok with me. - Oreo Priest  talk 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)