Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation/Archive 1

Order Switched
Since the oldest degree-granting institution is a Near Eastern University, I switched the order of the sections, putting the Islamic Universities before the Western Universities. --98.209.237.136 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The oldest university in the world is el quarawine in fes morrocco so i dont understand why you put bologne in first place

Inconsistent Premise
For a list of universities supposedly in continuous operation to contain entries with annotations such as "Closed in 1435–51, 1451–65, 1474–78, 1480–87, 1496–1507, 1527–29, 1531, 1547, 1562, 1585," surely defeats the purpose of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.105.23 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The university of Cologne was established in 1388 as the fourth university in the Holy Roman Empire. Over 400 years later, it was closed by French invaders because the staff refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the French. While other universities with non-continuous history are included, Cologne is not. -- Matthead Discuß   13:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies
There are discrepancies under Universities in the Islamic world.

I am pretty sure that the Nalanda University is not an Islamic University since it is mentioned that the Buddha has visited the University as Buddha is pre-Islam. You might also want to check Vikramaśīla University too.

60.50.179.154 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Nalanda and Vikramshila both are pre islamic universities. They were patronized by Buddhist kings and in fact a major reason for their abrupt decline and demise was the Islamic invasion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.187.167 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Old University of Louvain: non-continuous
This University is abolished in 1797. The two other Universities etablished in Louvain don't have historical links with it. The State University of Louvain, founded in 1817 (and abolished in 1835) was a new, liberal, neutral, non-confessional and official University that had never pretended to be the "reoppening" of the old University of Louvain ("Studium Generale Lovaniense") officialy abolished in 1797. The Catholic University of Leuven was a new Gregorian University founded in 1834 by the Roman Catholic bisshops of Belgium in Mechlin without any links with the old University of Louvain, this University is still existing.--Bruxellensis (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Madrasah?
Is madrasah a university? Madrasah jami'ah translates as university (Islam)? --Rochelimit (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Madrasahs, Islamic mosque schools which teach the Quran and Islamic law, are historically unrelated to universities (and vice versa) which evolve from Christian cathedral schools and monastic school, and consecutively broaden their curriculum through the Middle Ages and beyond. In the 19th/20th century, madrasahs were expanded/transformed into Western universities, but before that they were a separate - religious - institution. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

University of Angers
The article states "in continuous operation," whereas the University of Angers has NOT been in continuous operation. It should be removed.128.86.179.63 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitive list (as of July 2008)
This list has been definitive since about 2005. Please remove any surplus entries from the main page list, especially a bunch of French universities discontinued during the Revolution and restored decades later, since all of them have not been in continuous operation!

Didn't Uppsala University, founded in 1477 in Sweden, qualify? --217.76.87.120 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, check the page source. It is added often enough that is has a commented out entry in the source. It doesn't count as continuous. 217.30.32.17 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

-- The above list is quite better than the actual one. A clear DOCUMENTED date has to be chosen, like a Papal or king letter or similar. The rest is just pseudohistory. --Joseja2010 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Azhar University
I always thought that Al Azhar university is one of the oldest university in the world, why is it not in the list? --Rochelimit (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it has for the most time of its existence not been a university. The oldest one in Africa is the University of Cape Town, founded in 1829. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ooh thank you --Rochelimit (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question about Al-Azhar is very pertinent and invalidates the author's claim. Bologna is not the oldest university but simply one which changed the form of the university which has continued to change and evolve after Bologna. The operational definition above would refer only to an "invented" category known as "extant universities" this definition is not synonimous with "oldest" and is too narrow as it fails to include existing universities, such as Al Azhar of Cairo, which began operations as a religious school in 975. The author of the above definition cannot contest that Bologna did not start as a religious school and evolved into something else, so he excludes places like Al Azhar in so far as it was not organized in the same model as Bologna, which under the author's very narrow definition, must apply only to those who "came after Bologna", otherwise that would make Bologna “not the oldest”. Using the same form of historical analysis, one could go back to Neanderthal and say that is the Homo Sapiens "extant" beginning and be equally wrong. Neanderthal was not our earliest descendant, just the one who we think first walked upright, ie. Whose system we followed. If Wikepadia chooses to publish this piece, it should note the title the "extant" definition, i.e. "oldest university after Bologna". Since Bologna, so many of the organizational factors ascribed to Bologna and made part of the author’s operational definition, have gone by the wayside that today not even Bologna today can be seen as following its own model. But assuming it is, Western Europe has radically moved away from it and in the United States, the new corporate university, which enrolls over 2,000,000 students also follow some of the Bologna principles in its organization. So this is a case where the tail is waging the dog...the word "university" which the author correctly credits to Bologna is just a word; the thing "university" appeared in this earth many centuries before in Egypt where it still is. And as Kosinski reminded us "The word is not the thing."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrllanes (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

oldest daxue, oldest universities, ... oldest higher learning institutions
As several revertings has taken place between me and User:Gun Powder Ma, I'd like to discuss here as I talked on Talk: University. The content I wanted to add is "Nanjing University (National Central University), originated in 258 as Imperial Nanking Daxue and supposed to be the oldest existing higher learning institution in the world." and "To be noted, traditional Chinese daxue (大學, higher learning institutions) in Ming Dynasty and other periods were called universities by Europeans of the time who visited China" (just like Ashikaga Gakko in Japan was called university ), and also by many people nowadays, see Talk:Nanjing University. Should the content to be added here? Or should List of higher learning institutions in continuous operation or List of oldest existing higher learning institutions be created? - Peducte (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For those interested in the row, please see my comments at Talk:Nanjing University and the informed comment by user Pericles of Athens at User talk:Gun Powder Ma. The bold claim of being the oldest university is factually wrong, see medieval university for the origins of the university as we know it. Even the lesser claim of being the oldest higher learning institution far overstates the evidence, since a continuity of this bureaucratic school through the centuries down to our days cannot be proven. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: A List of higher learning institutions in continuous operation would be not more than the sum of the List of oldest universities in continuous operation (plus its forerunner institutions, the cathedral school and the monastic school) and the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation, both of which can look back on the longest proven continuous history. For the Nanjing claim, I'd like to see a scholarly, English-language source which at some length explicitly explores the question whether this school was active for each of the 18 centuries you claim it had been. Since it is common knowledge that the Chinese civil service was abolished altogether in the Mongol era (13-14th c.), and that the imperial bureaucracy ceased to exist for many centuries when China was fragmented (3rd-7th c, 9, c.), you won't find, however, such a credible reference beyond the self-advertisement of the Nanjing University homepage. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to close your mouth if you know nothing. Are you alleging that Chinese records and materials are ineffective? Ludicrous. - Peducte (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nanjing University authority has not admit ancient history of Nanjing universtiy since it's controlled by Communist Party of China in 1949. It's due to political ideology, not about credible. Nanjing University before (such as National Central University during Republic of China in mainland) admit ancient history. What's not credible, is actually CPC's claim. For instance, CPC says that China from Qin to Qing Dynasty was 封建社會 (feudal society), and before Qin Dynasty was 奴隸社會 (slavery society). But all materials before CPC controlled China including ancient materials say that before Qin Dynasty China was 封建的 (feudal) and feudal system was ended in Qin Dynasty. More, please see Talk: Nanjing University. -Peducte (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "it is common knowledge that the Chinese civil service was abolished altogether in the Mongol era (13-14th c.), and that the imperial bureaucracy ceased to exist for many centuries when China was fragmented (3rd-7th c, 9, c.)"? What do you based to think that ancient Chinese imperial school was imperial bureaucracy? In Yuan dynasty under Mongol rule, Nanjing Academy was also active. Nanjing was occupied by Mongol Yuan army in 1275, and Nanjing Academy was destroyed in war (according to Zhizheng Nanjing New Records (volume 9th, Schools)(《至正金陵新志》 卷九 學校, and the author was a teacher in Nanjing Academy in Yuan dynasty), books and book carvings of Nanjing Academy were all lost in war (書籍版刻“兵火散失殆盡”)). But immediately after Yuan occupied Nanjing, Emperor Shizu of Yuan (元世祖) ordered to reestablish Nanjing Academy (at the time the name of Nanjing was Jiankang, and then renamed Jiqing in Yuan dynasty, and the name of the school was Jiankang Luxue, and then renamed Jiqing Luxue). And in the early of Ming Dynasty, Nanjing Academy was changed to be Nanjing Imperial University (國子學) in 1365. Some materials is online, e.g., see Records of important matters in history of education in Jiangsu province. More discussions, see Talk:University. - Peducte (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chinese schools for higher learning were traditionally schools for educating bureaucrats for the Imperial civil service, but the problem is that the empire of China has been several times invaded, destroyed, occupied and abolished since Han times, so how can you maintain a continuous existence of Nanjing University for 1800 years? How can there have been an imperial school when there was no emperor and imperial bureaucracy? There were private schools, but these were small and ephemeral in historical terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Higher learning institution for educating future officials and statesmen are also higher learning institution. In this area, I think the quality of the students educated by traditional Chinese higher learning institutions may be much better in many aspects than those trained in today's universities. And those schools were not ecucating students soly for governmental offcial carees, and my graduates later became scholars, scientists, writers, litterateurs, thinkers, teachers, doctors...... In addition, there were also many higher learning institutions not for training future governmental officials. China was twice conquered by nomadic people. Nanjing University in Mongol Yuan dynasty was talked above. In Manchu Qing Dynasty, 4 years after Qing troop seized Nanjing in 1645, the Nanjing Imperial University was changed to be Nanjing Academy. Nanjing University is existing. I never say it's always continuous. See Talk:Nanjing University, and I have explained that the "discontinuities of Nanjing University were generally caused by wars, changes of dynasties". I do not know whether the listed European universities called "List of oldest universities in continuous operation" have been always continuous or not. But I really doubt that they could keep in operation in all wars. - Peducte (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read the article First university in the United States and its talk page. As someone says in U.S.A, "Most of the colonial colleges seem not to have operated during parts of the Revolution". The continuities of ancient European universities maybe also need to be examined, especially during the special times like periods of wars. - Peducte (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments used against Nanjing University above can be used for University of Bologna as well. See the separate questions bellow discussing this. Should we remove University of Bologna from the list as well? Touseefliaqat (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but we should start reading books which may help to enlarge your knowledge such as the standard four volume A history of the university in Europe: Universities in early modern Europe, ISBN 0-521-36106-0 which is written by a group of international experts and will answer all your questions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuity period
How long a university has to be in discontinues operation to exclude from this list? Touseefliaqat (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Change of Title
What about changing the title of the page from "List of oldest universities in continuous operation" to either "List of oldest universities with english word 'University' in their name" or "List of oldest universities which were either Christian cathedral or monastic schools in the start" or "List of oldest universities in Europe" Touseefliaqat (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The first option is a possibility, the others would unnecessarily narrow down the institution of the university which is anyway a European creation par excellence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I hope you are aware that if continuity is dropped as criterion from the article, the article would need a major rewrite. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Which Definition of University?
I think there are un-said definitions of the word "university" used in this article. Can someone confirm which definition is used here from the following? Touseefliaqat (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * community of teachers and scholars.
 * community of teachers and scholars who used the word University or some other European language translation of this word in their institution from start.
 * community of teachers and scholars where 4 year Bachelors, 2 year masters and PhD degrees were awarded.
 * community of teachers and scholars, if it is from Europe.
 * community of teachers and scholars, which were Christian cathedral or monastic schools in the start.
 * Cf. A history of the university in Europe: Universities in early modern Europe, ISBN 0-521-36106-0, for definition and history both of which are closely intertwined. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You just use one version definition according to a book. I think a wikipedia article should be an open article. It seems that the spirit of Wikipedia is open, not close. It's not a place to advertise the content regarded as standard by certain people. An article should contain all reasonable contents which meet the Wikipedian criterion. The model like the "First university in the United States" is very good, it's informed, containing and objectively describing all views. -Peducte (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Open spirit is one thing, which I am very much in favour, but your constant attempts at designating an obscure 3rd century Chinese daxue as the "oldest continuous university in the world" are very much another one, which rather runs as classical WP:OR and REDFLAG, so please sail under your true colours. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article never say it's the "oldest continuous", it only says it's supposed to be the "oldest existing" (現存). It exists today, but it's with many discontinuities during special periods. And it use the term "supposed to be", it's left for revision if an elder one is found. And also it use the term "higher learning institution", which is opposite to lower learning institution" (primary level or middle level). It does not use university, although 大學 in Chinese is used. If university means higher learning institution, then substitute term university can be used, if not then can not. - Peducte (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading helps. The lead explicitly formulates the criteria for inclusion that is To be included in this table, an educational institution must satisfy the definition of a university at the time of its founding. Was your dubious school a university in the 3rd century? No. So, why do you want to include it nonetheless? Because you seem to have a fixed idea. Why can't you let go of this fixed idea of yours? I don't know but you tell me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's a kind of fixed close definition. And suppose, if an article "最古老大學榜單" (List of oldest Daxue) is created in Chinese version, and 大學 is strictly defined as traditional Chinese 大學, then no European universities can be listed. The same is this article. If you want to use the close definition, "List of oldest traditional European universities in continuous operation" may be a more proper choice as the name of article, and the modern universities that were not traditional European universities listed here should be moved off. - Peducte (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

University of Bologna?

 * In 1348, during the Black Plague, about 30,000 inhabitants died in Bologna. How can anyone prove that University of Bologna was still continues in that period.
 * (1347–1360), Bologna fell to the Visconti of Milan in era it would have been impossible to think of University working continually.
 * Giovanni's reign ended in 1506 when the Papal troops of Julius II besieged Bologna showing the the working of university is improbable.
 * A plague at the end of the sixteenth century reduced the population from 72,000 to 59,000, and another in 1630 to 47,000.
 * During World War II, Bologna was a key transportation hub for the Germans. Its capture by the Polish 3rd Carpathian Infantry Division[4] on April 21, 1945 led to the liberation of the Po Valley and the collapse of German defenses in northern Italy.

The above point show that it is quite impossible that University of Bologna is in continuous operation since its creation.Touseefliaqat (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That depends on your definition of "continuous". If you count semester by semester, probably no university has been operating continuously since its founding; but if you allow for minor disruptions in education which had no bearing on the continued existence of the institution as such, then you can refer indeed to a number of medieval universities as continuous. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, are the universities listed in continuous operation or not? Where in the article says that "continuous" here doesn’t mean "strict continuous"? And where is the definition of "continuous" or "not strict continuous"? -Peducte (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See below. After having read widely on the topic, I feel that the definition of institutional continuity is rather OR and SYN: we don't have the necessary data for all universities, and the scholarly discussion does not provide a consistent and accepted definition of "continuous" which we, however, would need. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons
What are these adding to the article at present? Why the Union Jack rather than the saltire for the Scottish ones? --John (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azhar and "Madrassah"
I know this has come up before, but I really think Al-Azhar should be in this list. I know it has been called a "Maddrassah", but it was not a Madrassah in the sense that this word is used in modern-day English. In Arabic this world simply means a place of learning, and therefore Al-Azhar has been reffered to as a maddrassah. It is only in the late-twentieth century that this word was introduced in English, and in English this word tends to refer to a school of Islamic Theology (generally with the connotation of hard-line Islamic theology). By looking at Wikipedia's own article on Al-Azhar, you will see that it had faculties in astronomy, philosphy, logic, and medicine since the tenth century, and so it was NOT just a school of theology. It also granted an "Ijazah" certificate which indicated a high degree of specialization in one subject (roughly the same concept as a modern day doctorate). Any thoughts? If we don't include Al-Azhar, then at least there should be a note on how precisely the word "university" is defined for this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.88.223 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in this article, university has to be created after the creation of the term universitas magistrorum et scholarium by Bologna University, which automatically makes Bologna the first (and thus oldest) university in the world (because they created the term!). Other higher institution that exists before this term cannot be called a 'university' and so excluded from the list, including those of Greek, Hindu, Indian, Islamic higher learning institution, etc; very specific indeed. --Rochelimit (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, specifics is ok, but this article is wrong! I mean even the author cannot explain "continuouity" in the article. suggestions and critics are futile, no third person opinion whatsoever. I don't know why the author or the user Gun Powder Ma defend this article so much despite its controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.138.74 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"List of oldest higher learning institutions based on their time of foundation"
After reading the article, checking the inconsistencies, the restriction, and the controversies in the talk page; I think a new article that included all "higher learning institutions" around the world should be started, probably under the title "List of oldest higher learning institutions based on their time of foundation". This will remove the restriction of being a European university par excellence that follow a classical system of learning, Thus offering a possibility for other higher learning institutions to be included in the table, and to be compared with each other.

There will probably be thousands of entries, but even List of minor planets has 200,000 entries in Wikipedia alone. The more (verified) informations we have, the better the article will be as a source.

It will be interesting to see how the table will come up, and how the Hindu monastic institution Nalanda, the Islamic Al-Qarawiyyin madrasah, the medieval Salernitan medical school, and the Nanking imperial Da Xue are listed in the table and compared with each other. It will be also interesting to sort these "universities" in a category of country, form of institution, year of foundation, year of dissolution, etc. Is it possible to start such article? Or is there already an article like this? --Rochelimit (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have gradually come to the opposite conclusion, namely that the qualification "continuous" is beset with interpretation problems: how long can a university be not operationable through war, political crisis, religious schism, plague and other reasons to become "non-continuous"? The article gives no answer on this, any limit would be arbitrarily and so OR and SYN.


 * The term "university", in contrast, is of comparative clarity, since the status of medieval and early modern universities was historically granted in an official document and act by the pope, Holy Roman emperor, European kings, in some cases also cities. If you can produce a medieval Islamic, Korean or Indian institution of higher education which was granted this status by, say, the pope, we include it. If not, then not, because it was no university then. There is an elaborate corpus on the history of university which we can make use of to establish a complete list of universities. I have started work on it but I may take some more time to complete it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * YES, that's what I was saying; university is a very clearly defined term, and this article is good and well-verified. But many sources also mention other form of higher learning institutions outside the circle of medieval European hierarchy, with official documents not from European papal acts but from Chinese Book of Rites, etc. I won't use the term university from now. Don't you think it'll be interesting to compare 'universities' with other higher learning establishments around the world, in a new wiki article?


 * I'm not suggesting to change the title of this article, or to edit this article, because this article is already a good article; I'm suggesting of creating a new wiki article with a title of "List of oldest higher learning institutions based on their time of foundation", free of the term 'university', and free of the term 'continuous'. I placed this suggestion in this talk page because there might be some more experienced wiki users that already researched on this subject, to give some suggestions. --Rochelimit (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on my research, I don't see much value in a "List of oldest higher learning institutions based on their time of foundation" due to the inconsistent data. Take the two oldest contenders: according to tradition the Buddhist schools of Nalanda was found around 500 BC and Plato's Academy in the 4th century BC, but the oldest literary sources claiming that date for Nalanda date only from a thousand years later, from ca. 500 AD, while there is contemporay evidence of supposedly younger Greek academy in Plato's and other Greek authors' writing. So, in a hierachical list, which of the two higher learning institution would you place on top...?


 * And there are many further examples where either the date or the status of the institution is unclear. These problems can be adequately dealt with in an article, which does not offer an order and gives enough room for explanations, but not in a list sorted by date where you have to make a - ultimately subjective and originally researched - choice as to the order. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Before issuing a list, maybe enhancing article Higher education would help? As for the present list, would it make sense to have a chronological list of universities created before a certain point in time? --Anneyh (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is true about the unclear foundation time of certain education establishment; and I'm not even an expert on this subject. But still I read many sources outside Wikipedia with these establishments outside Europe mentioned as some of the oldest form of higher education in the world. I think a little note will help the inconsistency. In List_of_cities_by_time_of_continuous_habitation; some cities have limited sources for their history, so they place a little note for the approximation of the dates. In Historical urban community sizes, different sources are placed next to each other, for comparison of different authors. Plus, these articles are just lists, which is basically smaller in importance than the article of each of the city itself, from which the information on the list can be verified. Still, if my suggestion is still a no no for you, then maybe I should just step back?
 * I already read that article, Higher Education. The definition of "higher education" in that article doesn't really support the list I suggested. Articles that will support the list I suggested is Ancient higher-learning institutions and History of education. The later especially, mention different system of education since the history of man: the formal education in classical time, formal education in the Middle Ages (where the madrasa, Gurukul system, etc. appeared), and the post-15th century formal education, where the "normal" universities appeared. It is a hard task to classify the other education system into one single list, but I think there bound to be somebody already published a research paper about this?
 * Anneyh, I think the present list already have a certain point in time? 1500s? is that what you mean? --Rochelimit (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you should transfer the discussion to Ancient higher-learning institutions, since this has nothing to do anymore with the history of the university. As I said, I am working on such a list up to at least 1800, but it will take some more time, since there several hundred entries to be dealt with. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think so, thank you for all the input. --Rochelimit (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Continuous operation?"
There are universities on that list with ten year gaps. There are ones on that list with THIRTY year gaps. There are ones with hundred year gaps. There are ones that have no direct connection with the current institutions at all. Why hasn't it been pruned, and seriously?  Ravenswing  14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. If these are really universities in "continuous operation" then those with significant time gaps should not be included. Either correct the list to show institutions in actual continous operation, or call the article "List of oldest universities in current operation". 80.30.151.36 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And ... pruning done. It shouldn't be so very difficult to make a list that conforms to what the list is about as all of that.  If it isn't the same university at all, it doesn't belong in this article. If there are two hundred years gaps, it doesn't belong in this article. If it's just a school claiming the same name as a medieval university, it doesn't belong in this article. Period.   Ravenswing  01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should have reliable sources for this list, because sometimes history is more complex. But my own search for "universities in continuous operation" in scholarly sources was not successful, so I cannot add much. --Anneyh (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources:
 * Wrongly was deleted Charles University in Prague, because this University is continuous from 1347 onwards, without gap.
 * OF CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
 * History of CU--Yopie (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * History of CU--Yopie (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite from the Scratch
As the whole list presented here is highly disputed, and the term 'University' itself is unclear, I guess it would be better to rewrite this article from scratch. At first let us come to a common definition of what could be listed as university. My personal opinion is to include any institute of higher study which run independently (i.e. under supervision of no other educational institute). Any institute evolves from its establishment, so if any institute evolve into a modern day university then evolution should be considered cautiously. In question of continuity, a wartime discontinuity of functioning, or discontinuity due to disaster could be omitted; but if any institute is disestablished/removed from being in execution/ annihilated then it should definitely be considered to be discontinued.--nafSadh নাফী ম. সাধ 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Against. University is institute of higher education, modelled and based on grounds of mediaeval European universities. Definition must include academic freedom and autonomy. Of course, this disqualifies madrasahs and other institutions of primary religious learning. --Yopie (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The definition of a university is very clear. I am working on a comprehensive list which runs for many hundred entries, but it will take some more time, probably until the end of the year. Be patient. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Granada, Cordoba
Cordoba is the oldest universal-university in the world. Was founded by the islamic people in Al-landalus, (Spain). Oxford, Cambrigde? Is this a joke? Lima university is oldest than these. what's happen with wikipedia-english-usa? always the same lies way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.55 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oxbridge dates of founding
The Oxford and Cambridge founding dates seem rather dubious, neither the Brief History of Oxford University or the Brief History of Cambridge University give the dates in the article as anything more than when scholars first arrived. This seems rather early - I'm sure Beijing has had groups of scholars continuously gathering for longer. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've done some further research and it seems I'm being overly strong. I've been WP:BOLD and changed both to have 1231 in brackets as that appears to be when they got legal status from the King, though I don't have an explicit source for this I've added citation needed to both. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Title: European Christian Universities?
It seems that this page should be titled "List of oldest Christian European universities" or "List of oldest European Christian universities". The definition has been made to restrict the list to 1. Christian and 2. European universities thereby excluding the oldest institutions of higher education like Al-Karaouine, Al Azhar and Sankore (Timbuktu) that are hundreds of years older than Bologna. Al-Karaouine is recognized by Guinness Book as the oldest continuously operating degree awarding institution of higher education. The page titled "List of oldest universities.." seems to misrepresent Bologna (1088) as the oldest institution of higher studies.User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such need. Rather, it needs to address Al-Karaouine etc. as what they have been for the longest time of their existence: madrasahs. Please see Talk:University for the main discussion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to be more like a play of word, a priori bias against islamic instituition, rather than factual. Both Al-Karaouine and Al-Azhar predates Bolgna. If the intention is to stick to the explicit christian defintion of the word Univesity then it should be made clear at the start of article. 193.120.236.35 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to change the title. I am not certain about the exact status of these particular institutions, and it would require further analysis of the topic, but I would question whether Islam (and Chinese) schools of higher learning really fulfill the definition of the Medieval University, i.e., whether they are independently self-governed institutions of students and masters (independent institutionally both from the state and religious authorities) and whether they always covered general sciences (and they are not only the religious training schools, which have existed in Europe even before the University of Bologna). I have no clue whether Al Azhar, Nanjing et al. fit into this definition, but if they do they should go in. If not, rather than skewing the definition of university, I would suggest creating a List of the institutions of higher learning in continuous operation or something of that kind. I have high doubts about Nanjing, which was if I am not mistaken more a governmental training facility for high level bureaucrats for most of its operations, wasn't it? --Ceplm (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually looking now at Al_Azhar wiki page I found: “In 1961 non-religious subjects were added to its curriculum.” If it is a correct assessment of the situation there, then it is really not an university in the sense the word is generally used. Mind you, Cathedral Schools (as an institution of training of religious servants attached to a large church, which looks very similarly to what Al Azhar seems to be) existed in Europe long before universities (the wiki page suggests the 6th century cathedral school in Toledo, Spain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely every need to change the title as Wagas suggests. The operational definition the author gives "extant university" would refer only to an "invented" category the author changes with each challenge made. His definition is too narrow and fails to include existing universities, such as Al Azhar of Cairo, which began operations as a religious school in 975. The author of the definition cannot contest that Bologna did not start as a religious school, nor that ir has operated continuously, so he excludes places like Al Azhar in so far as it was not organized in the same "degree granting model" model as Bologna. This means that under the author's very narrow definition it must apply only to those who "came after Bologna". Using the same form of historical analysis, one could go back to Neanderthal and say that it is the Homo Sapiens origin's and be equally wrong. Neanderthal was not our earliest descendant, just the one who we think first walked upright, ie. whose system others in Europe followed. If Wikepadia chooses to publish this piece, it should note the in the title the "extant" definition, i.e. "oldest university after Bologna".

Since Bologna, so many of the organizational factors ascribed to Bologna and made part of the author’s operational definition, have gone by the wayside that today not even Bologna can be seen as following its own model. But assuming it is, Western Europe has radically moved away from it and in the United States, the new corporate university, which enrolls over 2,000,000 students also follow some of the Bologna principles in its organization. So this is a case where the tail is waging the dog...the word "university" which the author correctly credits to Bologna is just a word; the thing "university" appeared in this earth many centuries before in Egypt where it still is. And as Kosinski reminded us "The word is not the thing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrllanes (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

General problem with dates
Universities are founded many years before they receive a Papal Bull. The list seems inconsistent, as some Universities are ranked by the date of foundation (e.g., Oxford), while other times by the year they receive a Papal Bull. I suggest we use the date of foundation in all cases, as the Papal Bull is issued only once the institution is accredited by the Pope to confer the degree of Doctor of Theology. The decision is some times postpone for centuries due to political or economic reasons. (PaulTheOctopus (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

Et les autres ?
Pas une université française, dans votre liste ? Même pas une petite ? 78.250.246.233 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BurtAlert (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the University of Leuven founded in 1425, I don't see it in your list ? Isn't a Studium Generale considered as a university ?

Other centres of higher learning
Why can't Madrassas be included in the article, until the Renaissance the Islamic world was significantly more advanced than Europe. Additionally saying that Universities were Christian until the 19th century seems rather bizarre and close minded. Equivalent centres of higher learning should be included here as well, regardless of where they are in the world. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Equivalent" centres would be POV, the university was unique. See List of oldest universities in continuous operation and Madrasah. What you seem to have in mind are rather Ancient higher-learning institutions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the university "unique"? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You read the linked text in one minute? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I've now read the sections through and I don't think your argument is backed up by what is said, while this article may talk about Christian centres, given other institutions of higher learning around the world were at least as serious (if not more so) it seems rather odd to exclude them here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but expert scholars disagree with you:

George Makdisi: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", in: Studia Islamica, Vol. 32 (1970), S. 255-264 (264): "Thus the university, as a form of social organization, was peculiar to medieval Europe. Later, it was exported to all parts of the world, including the Muslim East; and it has remained with us down to the present day. But back in the Middle Ages, outside of Europe, there was nothing anything quite like it anywhere."

Rüegg, Walter: "Foreword. The University as a European Institution", in: A History of the University in Europe. Vol. 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX: "'No other European institution has spread over the entire world in the way in which the traditional form of the European university has done. The degrees awarded by European universities – the bachelor's degree, the licentiate, the master's degree, and the doctorate – have been adopted in the most diverse societies throughout the world.'" Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 18th century and later, thanks to the age of enlightenment, I'm sure that is true. However in the 11th/12th century, when the oldest of these Universities were founded, the world's most serious places of higher learning weren't in Europe, and were in the Middle East and China (and maybe India). Europe hadn't even had the renaissance at that point.
 * Especially when the Chinese had printing in the 9th century, and the Europeans didn't even manage it until the 15th century. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this article is not about "most serious places of higher learning" (whatever that means), but as the title indicates, universities which is a defined term by scholars. --Anneyh (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote University

"A university is an institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees in a variety of subjects. A university is a corporation that provides both undergraduate education and postgraduate education. The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars."

I'm sure the Chinese imperial schools and Middle Eastern Madrasah's met those criteria. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Any proof, that "Chinese imperial schools and Middle Eastern Madrasah's met those criteria"? Any proof, that madrasah was called university ("community of teachers and scholars")? And of course, any proof about Academic freedom in madrasah? The burden of evidence is on your side..--Yopie (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Has any proof been found the other way either? Is there any evidence that European academic institutions were more serious than those in the rest of the world in the 11th century?
 * If no evidence can be found either way the only neutral thing to do is if someone adds a current University anywhere in the world that claims to have an appropriately long history then we should include it here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BURDEN.--Yopie (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP editor who added the original content did in fact provide evidence to backup their claims - . So that isn't relevant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So, according to "university." in Encyclopædia Britannica. (Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010) "The modern university evolved from the medieval schools known as studia generalia; they were generally recognized places of study open to students from all parts of Europe." and "The first true university was founded at Bologna late in the 11th century." As EB is considered as very reliable source, if you want challenge EB, you must have in mind, that (WP:REDFLAG) exceptional claims require high-quality sources. --Yopie (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume you'll been adding the EB source to the article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't this been added to the article yet? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval universities needed to be recognized by the pope or a Christian king. I am most sure that none of the Chinese and Muslim schools ever met this criteria....Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment is absurd. This is the historical reality. Every university from the time has a royal or papal charter deposited in its strongest safe and each papal bull which granted university status has a specific, unique name. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, if reliable sources say that another institution that isn't Christian in nature is also a university then to not post it for that reason would be ridiculous. They are academic institutions not religious ones and their academic prowess should stand on its own two feet without religion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an unhistoric view which has nothing to do what universities were and how they developed. The curriculum of medieval universities, theology, philosophy, medicine and law (the four faculties), was absolutely Christian in nature. Even when these disciplines slowly began to emancipate themselves, the basis until the 19th or rather 20th century remained firmly Christian. A third of all universities, and many of the very best, up to 1800 were directly founded by Christian orders such as the Jesuits. It may be a bitter pill for some but fact is that the university, the only global institution of higher education of note today, was carried forward for many centuries by the strong Christian belief of its tutors and students alike. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO Says Karaouine Is The Oldest University in The World
From the World Heritage Site citation for the Medina of Fez (see World Heritage Site official website): "Founded in the 9th century and home to the oldest university in the world, Fez reached its height in the 13th–14th centuries under the Marinids, when it replaced Marrakesh as the capital of the kingdom. The urban fabric and the principal monuments in the medina – madrasas, fondouks, palaces, residences, mosques and fountains - date from this period. Although the political capital of Morocco was transferred to Rabat in 1912, Fez has retained its status as the country's cultural and spiritual centre."

I really get the feeling someone is holding out desparately against an obvious and almost universally agreed conclusion. Time to go with the majority view, me thinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.181.144 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. While I happen to personally believe that Al Karaouian is the oldest continuously operating institution of higher education in the world, we need to ask whether or not it is truly a university (I certainly could be wrong in absolute terms, including the Chinese Daxue mentioned below). In the modern sense of the word, yes, it is, and always has been. A vast array of subjects has always been taught there, and postgraduate degrees always offered. However, according to some scholarship (i.e. that which has been used for citation in this article) a university has to be a corporation between scholars and students with a certain degree of independence from the polity in determination of subject material taught at the "university".

It appears to me very simple: why hide the controversy and try to present some kind of singular view point? Why not include the controversy, and the alternate definitions of university (the more relaxed definition as an institution of higher education which offers postgraduate degrees or whatever the consensus comes to, as well as the stricter, "European" definition.) Why not include two lists, or perhaps, have two articles?

It seems to me that when making a claim, one should provide evidence to back up that claim. No evidence for the academic freedom of any of these universities was ever, provided to in the article. It is assumed a priori that the universities maintained academic integrity, and indeed that after breaks of sometimes dozens of years, they are the "same" institution. I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think that we need to allow such a loosely defined list to persist as the authoritative one, when there are certainly other claims that are verifiable to the same degree.

In fact, as I write this, I think that its also possible that the whole article deserves to be deleted. As has been stated before, the claims of continuity are almost impossible for us to verify, so why even have an article that presents a list? We can certainly say that the University of Bologna is older than most, and possibly all other universities, but why the need to take it further? Equilshift (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the difference in academic freedom, you can consult, for example, Huff 2003. But it does not even need such criteria to establish the difference, however important it is. Fact of the matter is that a university is no more a madrasa (or vice versa) than a church is a mosque. And UNESCO as a source is no better than any other. In fact, it is often worse. They don't research themselves, they are a bureaucratic and political organisation which tend to write what the country of the world heritage monument likes best. Writing on Band-e Kaisar, I found they maintained that the complex dates back to the great Persian king Darius I, when every single of the scholarly sources I used categorically stated that the dam bridge was Roman.


 * Madrasas such as Karaouine, with their close association to the mosque, are rather equivalent to Christian Monastic school and Cathedral school. The oldest monastic schools and cathedral schools predate the oldest madrasas. In fact, many of the early universities were run as monastic schools and cathedral schools for centuries before they were recognized as universities by papal and royal bulls. So, one could argue, these universities are also older than the oldest madrasas.


 * But this all is not necessary because universities are universities, mosque schools are mosque schools, monastic schools are monastic schools and cathedral schools are cathedral schools. Show me the papal bull for the establishment of the mosque school of Karaouine. Show me that the mosque school of Karaouine taught the quadrivium and was divided into the four faculties of Christian theology, philosophy, law and medicine. Show me that it taught in Latin. Show me that it granted doctorates and bachelors, and I'll support its inclusion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You bring up arguments that I am questioning without responding to my questions. Why should we limit the term 'University' to institutions that received papal bulls or that taught the quadrivium (especially since one of your other arguments was that a University must have academic freedom). Why would we limit the term University to schools that taught in Latin? Why? Because the first time the word Universitas was used, it was used by a school that did all these things? Additionally, according to the standard you listed above, the University of Bologna is not a University at all, since it didn't grant bachelors degrees until recently. My point is not that Karaouine is the oldest university in the world. My point is that it doesn't make sense to limit the scope of the word university to institutions in the western world without providing some sort of solid, defensible reasoning.


 * The book by Huff is a book about culture, not about why 'a madrasa' isn't a university. I don't think we need to limit this to university vs. madrasa, either. Other users have pointed out Daxue as well. (I honestly have no info on the topic of Daxue whatsoever). But truly, the question is, if we accept that the academic freedom of the university is unimpeachable, and that 'continuous operation' can include gaps of decades, why the supreme need to eliminate all learning institutions that were established in all non-occidental areas? I think you are getting too hung up on words here, madrasa simply means school. Undoubtedly, many madrasas could not be called universities, as there are madrasas for all age levels. But at the highest level, what is the fundamental difference between a madrasa and a university? A Papal Bull? A charter from a European King? That smacks of cultural favoritism, and it really doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. But truly, I am not arguing that Karaouine is a university, or was at the time of its founding. I am arguing that limiting the definition of university to European institutions is unnecessary, but especially having a page like this that presents some list as definitive, without including any of the other possibilities or arguments is not only unnecessary, but also disingenuous. Who is going to be crying if we say that the University of Bologna is definitely the first place to be called universitas, but that depending on one's definition, its certainly might not be considered the oldest 'university' (in the modern sense of the word). I think it will inform the readers of Wikipedia a little bit better, and that is the entire point, isn't it? Equilshift (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, lets go to sources:
 * Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge by Kemal Gürüz:Bologna, the site of oldest university in the world
 * The economies of the Arab world: development since 1945 by Yusif Sayigh, Yūsuf ʻAbd Allāh Ṣāʼigh American University in Beirut is oldest in Arab world
 * "university." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010: "The first true university was founded at Bologna late in the 11th century. It became a widely respected school of canon and civil law."
 * We rely on facts, not on feelings. I choose randomly two books, both written by non-European writers and EB, and point is clear. --Yopie (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)--Yopie (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If UNESCO think Fez is the oldest University in the world I think this needs taking to an RfC or to further dispute resolution at least. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And on the latter source its written by someone at the University of Beirut... Additionally Morocco isn't really in the Arab world so he might not have thought of it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the best way forward would be to include both claims as both are backed up by reliable sources. That's the usual Wiki approach. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Medina of Fez is written by anonymous webmaster and is not of scholar value. According to our rules, where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history. Above are cited reliable academic publications, thus I dont understand your point. This question was discussed on this page ad nauseam.--Yopie (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles in the Economist are anonymous too. UNESCO is a WP:RS, and I think its claims are worth including. Academic sources aren't always perfect either. I'm more than happy to prefix the claim with who made them, so say something like UNESCO say Fez has the world's oldest University, whereas academic sources generally say that Bologna is. Additionally that would stop these discussions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but UNESCO is pure political organ, and thus typical false authority. --Yopie (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So is the Voice of America, Xinhua etc. etc. All of which are regularly used for sourcing content on Wikipedia. In fact as a mutli-governmental agency I'd expect them to be especially unbias as they have to take the views of all their members into account with what they write about specific sites. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been said many times: due to the exceptional success of the European university, the term "university" has become today a household name, a generic term for every kind of centre of higher learning. Even ancient Greek centres of higher learning are sometimes called in the academia universities, a 1.000 years before the Madrasa came to exist: The Ancient University of Alexandria. Despite this, the museion was no university, nor was the Moslem mosque school, only the medieval university was. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * UNESCO and the Oxford Dictionary of Islam (for example) disagree with you. Thus both claims are appropriate to be included, as they are with the new text. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of content in this article - such as the founding dates for Oxford and Cambridge - which doesn't have any sources at all. Why not focus your attention on fixing those issues rather than removing content sourced to multiple reliable sources such as that on Fez. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also its not WP:UNDUE as its only a single sentence and Bologna is still mentioned. Its not WP:OR as its backed up by two reliable sources - UNESCO and the Oxford dictionary of Islam, and its not WP:SYN as the sources explicitly state that Fez is the oldest University in the world. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh, could you now address my point above? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those probably haven't operated continuously and/or offered degrees, however if you wish to remove the claim about the University of Nanjing go ahead - that's the only one that's equivalent to the Ancient Greeks, and its something they don't claim to have done on their own website. Fez is backed up by sources which clearly meet the reliable source criteria. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way if you wish to include the Greek/Egyptian centres of higher learning I'm not fussed, as long as they've operated continuously. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am most certain that you wouldn't mind because you fail to grasp the difference between university as a modern generic term for all kinds of centers of higher learning and university as the medieval Christian institution which developed in and was unique to Europe (or the West) until the turn to the 20th century. All these centres, Greek, Islamic and Chinese alike, are only called retrospectively universities –exactly because the global success of the European university made it a generic name. As for the University of Nanjing, it was founded in 1915, so what's your point? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This definition stuff is very exciting. But it is quite clear that multiple reliable sources think that Fez is the oldest University in the world. What matters is that our content is verifiable and neutral which including the cases presented by the reliable sources I added does. I think including both claims is by far the best approach here - its a good compromise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretations are even more exciting. WP has already formulated long ago a clear stance on what a university is at university and medieval university. I propose you go with your theories first there. And I haven't read one word of a madrasah being a university in the madrasah entry in the internationally renowned Encyclopedia of Islam. How come, are they biased? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't "my interpretations" as they are backed up by reliable sources. And consensus can change. And you are more than welcome to add to the article that the Encyclopaedia of Islam doesn't think that Fez is the oldest University in the world. Its quite clear that sources disagree over the matter. Trying to claim that the Oxford dictionary of Islam, or UNESCO aren't reliable sources is ridiculous. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly an edit war between Yopie, Gun Powder Ma, Eraserhead1 & me (I want to go back to last version of E) is going on. »  nafSadh did say 10:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed given the lack of further points that Yopie and Gun Powder Ma had changed their minds/decided it wasn't worth fighting for. If there aren't any further comments in 24 hours I will revert to my version - otherwise I will seek a third opinion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of ultimatum is unacceptable. If you will revert without consensus, you will be reported for edit warring. --Yopie (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't see any further discussion being productive and aren't willing to allow the content on Fez to be included you are welcome to get dispute resolution yourself. If you aren't willing to discuss the matter or get dispute resolution I fail to see why the content cannot be included in the near future. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Already 3 editors are in dispute. Even though, Y & GPM are in one side, E on the other. I do have been watching this page for long and hopelessly seen that, this page contains a specific POV and are almost OR only. Few editors have been owning this page, and other editors contributions could never exist, coz they were always been reverted. I do see that, in past few days, some edit improved the quality of the article - but again they were reverted. Last best version was this by an IP. »  nafSadh did say 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given me and you, and then Gun Powder Ma and Yopie have identical positions, there's a chance the third opinion will be happy to take this one - and I'd rather solve the issue at a lower level as possible. If the third opinion doesn't take the case I'll ask the WP:Mediation Cabal to take a look. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think the claim that madrassas can be considered the oldest universities in the world stands up to scrutiny. This is an exceptional claim, and exception claims need exceptional sources. UNESCO is not such a source. It is not scholarly, but a political body. Yet such a claim would need to be sourced to a top quality scholarly source that focuses on the subject. I don't think anything else will do, and websites certainly won't. Athenean (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So what about the Oxford dictionary of Islam? That isn't a "website". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And how doesn't it stand up to scrutiny? Both are degree granting institutions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oxford Dictionary of Islam is a tertiary source, please see WP:PSTS. We need high quality secondary sources that focus on the subject (important point). If the claim stood up to scrutiny as you say, it's shouldn't be too hard to find a secondary, scholarly source that backs it, wouldn't it? Athenean (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given I'm not in academia I don't have access to vast numbers of academic sources here - you're setting the bar far too high. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is unfortunate, but I am not the one setting the bar - that is just how we do things here. Exceptional claims require high quality sources. The stronger the claim, the stronger the sourcing that is needed. Athenean (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the claim that there were serious centres of higher learning outside of Europe is exceptional, given in 1000 AD the Europeans were probably the least advanced old-world civilisation (certainly they were less advanced than the Chinese and the Arabs), the claim that the Europeans were better at something at that time than the rest of the world is the only one that's exceptional.
 * The claim that there were some Universities outside of Europe at the time isn't a particularly specific claim, and shouldn't require reams of evidence, when multiple sources which meet the criteria have been provided. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim that "X is the oldest example of Y" is always exceptional, whether about universities, ironclads, automobiles, whatnot. Any time you want to prove that something is the first of its kind, that requires the strongest possible sourcing. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I see your point. I don't think that means we cannot include non-Christian institutions in the list as a whole with weaker evidence - unless we change the definition of the list to be more tightly focused. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you see my point, why say we should include them anyway with weaker evidence? The whole point is that we if include Karaouine, that needs strong evidence, not weak evidence. Note the title of the article is "List of oldest universities in continuous operation", not "institutions". To me, this seems perfectly focused and clear. Athenean (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does Oxford dictionary of Islam discuss, not merely uses the word in a casual or careless manner, the possibility that Muslim madrasahs have to be regarded as universities? And why is it, Eraserhead, that the Encyclopedia of Islam, probably the most renowned encyclopedia on Islam, neither has an entry for "university" nor mentions even the term in its entry on the "madrasah"? You'd think that if the equation madrasah = university would enjoy some academic support by experts, they would have took up the subject and referred to it, wouldn't you? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you find it so difficult to understand that I accept that Madrasah and University have different meanings, because Madrasah refers to all levels of education. Its quite possible for something to be a Madrasah and a University. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Since 1947, the year of the foundation of the university of Fez, the madrasah of Karaouine can also be referred to as university. But not in the many centuries when it was a madrasah and only madrasah. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Athenean, can you describe a University in a sentence so we can redirect our readers to other articles as appropriate? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Al Karaouine founded in 859 as a madrasa, converted in 1947 to a university
Madrasa, Islamic mosque schools, and the Christian university are different institutions with a completely different origin.
 * Founded in 859 AD as a mosque: The Qarawiyyin Mosque, founded in 859, is the most famous mosque of Morocco and attracted continuous investment by Muslim rulers.
 * Founded in 859 AD as a madrasah, a mosque school: The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859.
 * Deisgnation as madrasah: As for the nature of its curriculum, it was typical of other major madrasahs such as al-Azhar and al-Qarawiyyin, though many of the texts used at the institution came from Muslim Spain.
 * By contrast, the university in Fez was founded as late as 1947, cf. Kevin Shillington: "Encyclopedia of African history", Vol. 1, New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005, ISBN 1579582451, p. 1025 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find sources on this, but its clear that other reliable sources, including the Oxford dictionary of Islam disagree. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * UNESCO isn't a scholarly source; in that instance, it is rather more of a puff-piece. You should not be leaning on it so heavily to edit-war. It is also notable that University of Al-Karaouine doesn't even make the claim that you are, here, making for it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Only because gun powder Ma changed it to say that on 1st June... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So he did. But the entry their says (the only bit I can read) The first Islamic university, Qarawiyin, was founded in Fez in 859 . After that, universities were established across the Muslim world with classical Islamic.... That seems to suffer from the problem that GPM points out: careless use of the world "university" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is a university?
So, to summarize it again:

Origin and history
The university is, historically speaking, the centre of higher learning of medieval Europe and a genuine European institution. The term "university" already betrays its European origin. It derives from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, meaning "community of teachers and scholars". Many early universities originate from Christian monastic schools and cathedral schools, which can date back as far as the 6th century AD, although at least as many seem to be original creations of the High Middle Ages.

The earliest universities were established in the Latin West in the 11-13th century, in Bologna, Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, Montpellier to name only a few. Universities were Christian institutions through and through. Christian belief and theology pervaded their curriculum, and continued to do so at least until after the French Revolution. Universities were usually very closely aligned to the Catholic Church (after the Reformation also to Protestant churches), which provided protection of the academic freedom from princes and kings. On the other hand, university teachers and students gradually emancipated themselves from the church, slowly leading to a broader and more diverse curriculum. To be recognized as a university until the 1800s, it needed either a papal bull (in Catholic countries) or a royal charter, preferably both.

Universities taught the quadrivium and they were administratively divided into the four faculties of Christian theology, philosophy, law and medicine. To be recognized as a complete or full university, it had to have chairs in all four faculties. Classes were held everywhere, both in Western and Eastern Europe in Latin until at least the 17-18th centuries. Academic degrees were the doctorates and bachelors (both terms deriving from medieval Latin).

Until the late 1800s, universities were invariably founded and run only in Western countries and their (former) colonies, namely in Europe, Latin America, North America and the Spanish Philippines (Manila). It was only in the course of the global expansion of the European powers and the USA that other world regions began to adopt the Western model of the university in their strife for modernization. This process led to the rapid disappearance of all other ancient higher-learning institutions which were completely superseded by the university and its modern organization, structure and science-based curriculum. The only exception of note has been in Muslim countries where the madrasah continues to operate but in theological matters, but has otherwise given completly way to the secular model of the modern university.

These are all basic facts, really. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Key references
The early history of the university is actually pretty well-researched, for example in the recent 4-volume A History of the University in Europe. This was composed by international experts and translated into many languages: List of oldest universities in continuous operation

"'No other European institution has spread over the entire world in the way in which the traditional form of the European university has done. The degrees awarded by European universities – the bachelor's degree, the licentiate, the master's degree, and the doctorate – have been adopted in the most diverse societies throughout the world.'"
 * Here part of the foreword: Rüegg, Walter: "Foreword. The University as a European Institution", in: A History of the University in Europe. Vol. 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX:

"Thus the university, as a form of social organization, was peculiar to medieval Europe. Later, it was exported to all parts of the world, including the Muslim East; and it has remained with us down to the present day. But back in the Middle Ages, outside of Europe, there was nothing anything quite like it anywhere."
 * George Makdisi is also crystal-clear: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", in: Studia Islamica, Vol. 32 (1970), S. 255-264 (264):

One could go on but the gist is clear, the university is a institution of European origin par excellence which was successfully exported all over the world to become the gold standard of education everywhere. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Designation of madrasahs as "universities"
So, with this clear European Christian roots of the university one wonders why regularly users (often coinciding with sometimes pretty rude anonymous IPs) show up pointing with no small clamour to this or that reference which uses the term "university" in connection with ancient Greek, Buddhist Indian, Muslim or Confucian and what not ancient higher-learning institutions. The answer is pretty simple and lies largely in semantics: the university has become in a way a victim of its own success because its has become so thoroughly the global standard of highest education that people cease to be aware of its specific historical trajectory and refer to any centre of higher education as "university", whatever the time period and place. University has become such a household and generic name that its use is today largely unrestricted and unconcerned by historical considerations.

This itself is in everyday language normally unproblematic and only natural given the preeminent global position the university has attained. But in the context of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia this retrospective use becomes a seriously wrong anachronism, and even more so when it comes with claims of priority. The Madrasa of Al-Karaouine, founded in 859, cannot be older than the oldest European medieval universities, because it was established as a a madrasa, not as a university, and it remained a madrasa until 1947. In fact, it was established two centuries even before the first universities arose. So how could it be called a "university" when universities did not even exist then? Being a university in the 20-21th century does not determine its status in the Middle Ages. And this is mutatis mutandis true for all the other non-European centres of higher education which were established before the European universities were but which were totally unconnected to the universitas.

So let's see what WP has to say of this: Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Position of Wikipedia
Wikipedia has separate articles on the university and the madrasah. This means that WP recognizes the distinctiveness of the two institutions; you cannot have two different WP articles if the subject were the same. So, since the two institutions have been established as distinct by the existence of their main articles, it naturally follows that their lists too must not overlap, but be each on its own subject. And this is exactly how consensus has organized matters: we have one List of oldest universities in continuous operation and one List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation, each main article has a list of its own. So all fine and well as it currently is, and we must not export madrasas to the university list (nor the other way round). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a separate article on Madrasah's because it doesn't mean the same thing. To quote the article "Madrasah (Arabic: مدرسة‎, madrasah pl. مدارس, madāris) is the Arabic word (of Semitic origin; viz Hebrew midrash) for any type of educational institution.". And List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation doesn't include any Islamic schools that aren't institutions of higher learning, and its entirely your own work. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with a list of the oldest madrasahs? We have a separate article on madrasahs, so why shouldn't we have a separate list of madrasahs? That makes no sense. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing, but it should include all Madrasah's not just places of higher learning. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

University and ironclad
From my past experience of the tedious nature of the discussion I am certain that some people will still choose to ignore all this and repeat their mantra "but I have a source here which calls it 'university'"...For those who still don't get the point (or, perhaps, don't want to get it), I have an instructive example where exactly the same problem has occurred and has long been successfully solved. It is the ironclad. Just like the "university" the "ironclad" was a specific Western invention and just like the university it became historically so successful that is has become a general name and has been applied by some WP:reliable but careless authors to all kinds of armoured vessels. Now, some of you might argue, 'well, if a reliable source says so, you need to include these vessels in the article too'.

Well, you are wrong. What they rather did, admin The Land and others, was removing all references to Chinese, Korean, Japanese vessels still existent in 2007 and putting the article firnly on the basis of a valid historical definition of ironclad. All the unrelated pre-19th century stuff was moved to pre-industrial armoured ships and that is where it is kept happily to this day. They did this this because they exactly knew that, irrespective of what the odd reliable reference says or claims, ironclad is not like ironclad but that these refs use in reality the term in an anachronistic and incorrect way.

And guess what, the same useful article dualism we have already long established with regard to the university too: what pre-industrial armoured ships is to ironclad is ancient higher-learning institutions to university.

With the topics so correctly and neatly divided, who now still needs a list which ignores the history and definition of the university, widly mixes unrelated centres of higher leanring indiscriminately together, all by claiming them wrongly and anachronistically to be universities? I'd say either users who have not read enough on the history of the university or people with a POV agenda, namely one of establishing a false priority over the Western university, the only university which was there until the modern age. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual thing the Ironclad article does is have a link at the top to "pre-modern" armoured ships. If you can manage to explain this to the common audience then we could go for this approach here.
 * The fundamental difference with the Ironclad, is that if a Song dynasty Ironclad fought with a Western Ironclad the Song dynasty ones would get trashed, as they are clearly inferior, whereas if the Japanese had built an iron ship in the 19th century that was competitive with the European ships noone would be arguing that it couldn't be covered in the Ironclad article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another fundamental difference is the time span: medieval universities, early-modern universities and contemporary universities have things in common but are not exactly the same.
 * Who needs a list that does not contain University of Paris because it is not in continuous operation though it is the model of several? I think that these lists look more like Guiness record book than an encyclopedia, a Timeline of higher education would make more sense. Another idea would be to split the list by periods during which at least the definition of university stays the same. --Anneyh (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, then you could call one article 'Medieval European Universities' and the scope would be clearly defined - that would be OK with me. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a List of medieval universities and I am working on a list of early modern ones. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request
Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed due to the number of editors participating in this dispute. If assistance is still needed, please consider some other form of dispute resolution, a request for comments, or an inquiry at an appropriate noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of different issues
So above I see William Connoly has replied to say the source is confused about what a University is and there is also Gun Powder Ma's multi-paragraph definition. The thing is is that if our sources are getting confused about the definition then the definition is clearly going to be far too complex for our readership to understand.

I think we can either go for a source-based definition, in which case we should accept that our sources are imperfect, or we should go for a simple definition based definition, in which case we need a simple definition that our readership can understand - e.g. that a University should be defined as an institution which grants degrees. That's what Ironclad has done. They have a clear definition - that an Ironclad is an industrialised device to define it - and that older pre-industrial ships are discussed in another article. That makes it easy for our readers and editors to understand what's going on.

The currently presented argument is too complex, if Academic Freedom is key, what about Universities in places where there isn't, or historically wasn't, freedom of speech? Why can a European king grant royal assent, but not a Chinese Emperor, and the answers to those questions just take us round and round in circles.

The other good option in my view is to follow Anneyh's suggestion and to split this article into lots of smaller lists, such as List of important Modern Universities, List of Pre-Modern European Universities, and List of Pre-modern higher learning institutions outside of Europe, which would each have a much clearer scope. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the splitting into more tightly focused lists sounds like the best idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, I agree about the importance of a definition to guide the reader. However, this definition has already been given in the main article, university. Lists usually don't address the subject all over again, but start from the basis of the main article. Now obviously, the university was not born in a day, but academic freedom and the quadrivium curriculum evolved in a slow process, so we have to give the reader a historical perspective. But this has already been done at medieval university. This here is only a list, we cannot discuss these matters, but have to take for granted that users are willing to make a click to inform themselves first about the subject and scope. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if this definition is used elsewhere its still very complicated.
 * I think I finally understand the point that the history is that the European Universities took over the world in the 18th/19th/20th centuries were founded 500 years before, and they may have had some unique properties then but that doesn't mean that at that time there weren't other institutions elsewhere in the world that were academically superior.
 * If you limit the scope to talking about European Medieval Universities in a single article, and then modern Universities in a separate one and then make this a disambiguation page. That the definition changes half way through to follow a modern definition makes it seem pretty arbitrary, and means that unlike Ironclad there doesn't seem to be a way of disambiguating for users who wish to see something else. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What I'm going to do, because its less controversial than making this a disambiguation page, is to add a 'see also' link at the top to the Madrasah's list article (just like Ironclad), and re-write the lead so it makes it much clearer what a University is. I'm also going to reduce the archive timing to 45 days with no minimum sections, so we can reasonably quickly see whether this solves people's issues with the current article and it doesn't significantly change the content. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to recapitulate the history of ancient centres of higher learning here in the lead, however briefly. The reference to Arab and Chinese is POV, as Greek and possibly Indian institutions were older, but again, whatever the case, this article is not the place to discuss or refer to unrelated institutions – instead WP:Lead summarizes the article. Particularly, singling out madrasahs in the top link appears to be SYN and POV. Why should Muslim madrasahs be singled-out when the predecessor of and closest thing to the university were rather the Christian cathedral schools and monastic schools? Besides, a reference to those other centres and a rough outline of the modern spread is already given. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason the Madrasah's list is specifically linked is because people are getting confused about it as people keep adding that content to this list. If people get confused about other things as well, then create a disambiguation page as and when that happens. That's exactly how they've played it on the featured article Ironclad the example you bought up as being good practice. As far as I can see no-one is getting confused about whether cathedral schools are worthy of including here.
 * The reason I've explained what a University is briefly here is because its quite clear that people are getting confused about it and explaining what goes in the list is a good idea.
 * You've won the cultural point, which I respect is reasonable as it follows the academic sources, but doing anything further is confusing the other readers and editors, creates drama and accomplishes very little for your cause beyond owning the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we work for another list naming List of oldest institutes of higher education to serve the purpose of historical timeline of higher learning? »  nafSadh did say 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you work on it, please continue your discussion over there. Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)