Talk:Tulane University/Archives/2014

Real History
Tulane University was founded in 1884, not 1834. It simply claims the history of the schools before it. There was no university when the Medical College of Louisiana formed, and therefore no university had been founded.
 * The practice of dating the history of an institution to its forbears is common. The institution itself is more continuous than the name applied to it. --Dystopos 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that, even if it were not common practice, 1834 is the year used by historians and the university for the year of its founding. --Bobster687 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The institution of 1834 was not a university. It was a "medical college" that bore no resemblance to the university of 1884. Not to mention that, the university wants to use an earlier date; of course they use 1834. Also: "historians" is general and uncited. You might as well say "they."


 * The article itself says that Tulane University of Louisiana was "created" in 1834 in the "History" section. Self-consistency is necessary in an encyclopedia. You can claim that the university "dates" from 1834 all you want, but it was created - that is, founded - in 1884. I would also like to note that both of the users opposing the 1884 date attend or attended Tulane and are therefore likely to be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.236.59 (talk • contribs)
 * Feel free to make clear the historical process that gave rise to what is now called Tulane University. I'm not sure why a graduate of Tulane would have a bias about its date of foundation. What matters to me is what I explained above... that it is standard practice to date the history of an institution to its forbears. Looking around I see that Duke University dates to 1838 (when it was a subscription school). Its infobox details the various iterations. Auburn University dates itself to 1856 (when it was a private religious school). Oxford University dates itself to the 12th century, when various lecturers began addressing scholars somewhat informally in the town. If you find this practice problematic, I suggest that the solution is to better describe the historical process rather than to counter accepted sources with your personal views. --Dystopos 03:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply put, it is more prestigious for a university to have been founded earlier, which is one reason a Tulane graduate could want to claim an earlier date of founding. Also: the Duke University article lists the schools leading up to the founding of Duke, but does not claim that Duke itself was founded in 1838. Furthermore, Duke itself admits that it was founded in 1924 (see the Duke web site), directly contradicting your theory concerning standard practice. Oxford University does not claim to know its date of founding, and lectures were being delivered before the 12th century (look at the article). Auburn University is, then, the only one of your three examples that supports your argument. Do not attempt to mislead readers who do not do thorough checks of your claims. I do agree that it is better to describe the historical process (as the Duke University article does inside its date of establishment section, not just its history section). However, I also believe that until a more complete history is described, the true date of founding of the university that is the subject of the article should be displayed. This belief is based on logic, not on personal views; in fact, your misrepresentation of the founding date of the university the article concerns seems to be much more personally motivated. Wikipedia should contain facts concerning these universities, not arbitrarily support claims the universities make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.236.59 (talk • contribs)
 * Look, I fully support accurate coverage of the history of the university. The institution that was founded in 1834 is now a University, therefore it is rather straightforward, consistent with typical institutional historiography, and fully accurate to say that Tulane University was founded [as the Medical College of Louisiana] in 1834. So go ahead and word it how you think is best, but your comment regarding how much the current institution "resembles" its forbears is not relevant, as I illustrated above, and you can keep your uninformed theories about my motivations to yourself. --Dystopos 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I modified the infobox to show the historical progression of the University. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone and prevent an edit war.  VerruckteDan 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we not discussing, "The donation by Paul Tulane in 1882, for the higher education of the white youth of Louisiana, is an epoch of the history of the state." as quoted from the Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education, By United States. Office of Education, pg 177, 1898. Or the fact that Tulane University had to be sued in 1962 for desegregation to happen in 1963. "Desegregating Private Higher Education in the South: Duke, Emory, Rice, Tulane, and Vanderbilt" Melissa Kean pg 216. Or are we only telling the white-washed version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.119.61 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Segregation / Desegregation
It seems like Tulane's history of segregation and the circumstances of its desegregation in the 1960s would be a very important aspect of the history of the institution. The only hint currently seems to be a passing reference to the first black basketball player. Has this already been discussed and rejected? Dansan99 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)