Talk:Third oldest university in England debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Durham name

The University of Durham section states that it's "now Durham University". However, for legal and formal purposes, including the charter and the granting of degrees, it is still the University of Durham. Since these are the criteria under which we're examining universities in this page, I would say it's better leave it at 'University of Durham'. Anyone else wish to comment? -- Strib 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering again, I suspect "Durham University" would be the better section title to use. The alternative raises problems with the names for other institutions.
Broadly we can use one of three naming conventions:
The name when the institution started (by its own claim date). This however would result in UCL being listed as "University of London", whilst amongst the other institutions listed we'd have the "London Mechanics Institute", a name not used for the last 140 years (and which many alumni, myself included, would not recognise at all).
The current "legal and official name". I don't think it's helpful to use these when they diverge from the current brand name. (Using them in a historic context when they were the brand name at the time is different.) My own current institution is probably one of most notable divergences in this area - "Queen Mary and Westfield College" (and the acronym "QMW") is as much the legal and formal title as "University of Durham" is, but it is actively discouraged in favour of Queen Mary, University of London ("QMUL"). (I've been in University of London meetings where references to "Queen Mary and Westfield" or "QMW" are invariably corrected by QMUL people present.) Consistency on legal names would bring up these problems whilst inconsistency could turn into a mess.
Use the institution's current brand name, as used on the relevant Wikipedia article.
Since we're talking about the third oldest current institution (and the first University of Northampton doesn't get a look in) really it should be by current names. Timrollpickering 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great page!

You've done very well here. Thanks for this page. --Duncan 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of England

Although England (meaning England and Wales) is a relevant point, due to the Act mentioned in the article, I don't see the relevance of England (meaning UK), England has never meant UK, and, as mentioned in the article, it instantly nullifies the debate by including St. Andrews, not only that, but it is also nullified by the 4 other Ancient Universities that are or have at some point been in part of the UK outside England. The way I see it, the debate is about who gets to be crowned "first of the new universities", i.e. which establishment first challenged the monopoly of the two public menaces, laying the foundation for following universities. I have never heard of anyone claiming St. Andrews to be the third oldest English University. PRB 15:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who was it who said the past is a foreign country where they do things differently? Insistence on rigid geographic precision was not universally used in the past - see the A. J. P. Taylor quote in the Oxford History of England article. In the preface to his volume he goes on to give examples such as Andrew Bonar Law describing himself as "Prime Minister of England" (1922-1923) despite not being "English" at all by present day considerations. Law's successor, Stanley Baldwin (1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937), famously complained about the way that so often whenever someone said "England" there would be "some fellow at the back of the room shouting 'Britain'".
More tellingly look at the way the UK is frequently called "England" around the world. (See British Isles (terminology) for some of this confusion.) From an international and historical perspective the mixed use of the terminology makes it relevant even if legally it was more precise. Timrollpickering 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but there is no debate over the third oldest university in that kind of England, as it is clearly St. Andrews by about 40 years on its closest rival (Glasgow), and by about 400 years on the oldest university involved in the debate.PRB 13:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
True though as the debate is generally within the confines of the current (domestic) use of "England" it's not a surprise that this comes up. But including the information on St Andrews and the distinction is useful as often there is confusion internationally. Timrollpickering 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and verifiability

Is there really such a debate? Can someone cite some sources to establish that there is one? All I can see is a debate raging between Wikipedia editors. Is the same debate happening in the world outside WP? Or is this article just a piece of self reference? Please, esablish the notability of the debate with verifiable sources. The guidelines and policies do require that much from an article. Aditya Kabir 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the debate per se does need some sourcing. The reason this page existed, though, was that many independent articles asserted, with sources, that their university was the third oldest in England. A few sources: "Durham, the third oldest university in England, after Oxford and Cambridge, is a leading centre for education and research." "because (UCL) was actually founded in 1826 it is generally recognised as the third oldest university in England, after Oxford and Cambridge" "The University of London was granted its first charter in 1836 and is the third oldest university in England." "(Manchester) can claim to be both the newest and the third oldest university in England!"
Perhaps the page would be better titled "claims" rather than "debate", as it is true that little evidence seems to be presented that anyone is debating the topic; but certainly evidence can be presented that competing claims are made. TSP 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that I've removed Template:Verifiability, not because I dispute that there are verifiability issues here, but because I think it's unacceptably large. It doesn't seem to be in common use, and isn't in any of the relevant template categories - I'm not sure if there's a more usually-employed template for this purpose? I don't think that a template that pushes the actual content almost off the front page is acceptable, though. TSP 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it seemed a bit cumbersome. :) But, do we have another banner to replace that one? Verifiability is an issue here, if we continue to call this a debate. Aditya Kabir 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the way the debate is conducted through implicit means by institutions and/or partner institutions (particularly overseas exchange programes) and/or alumni describing their institution as the "third oldest" rather than explicitly challenging one another's credentials (although there is the occassional direct conflict when someone at one challenges another) can make it harder to stand out. Manchester doesn't have "Est 1824" in its current logo for nothing. A quick search on Google suggests a mix between both Durham and UCL, whilst Lexis Nexis articles lean heavily towards Durham but have some significant exceptions - recent Times Higher articles (not an insignificant source) that use the description use it for London whilst one Northern Echo article from a few months ago described how Durham was seemingly thowing in the towel on its claim by celebrating 175 years. Certainly this is an issue that does come up a lot. Timrollpickering 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that sound like a bit of original research? May be we should tag it with either {{Original research}} or {{Synthesis}} banners. Say what? Aditya Kabir 14:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the more pressing issue is how to make this into a useful article, rather than what banners to tag it with while we work that out. Let's move forward.
I think the current situation is certainly better than the previous one, where multiple articles asserted their institutions to be the third oldest university in England, without regard for other articles asserting the same. We just need to make sure we restrict this article to what can actually be sourced, rather than conclusions we may draw from that; which may include altering the name.
Tim - the 175 years refers to 1832, the date of Durham's act of parliament, which predates London's charter and is the basis on which Durham claims the 'third oldest' title. If you could find the Echo article, though, it might be a useful source to the existence of a debate on the topic. TSP 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't appear to be on the web (but is in LexisNexis) but is from the Echo, dated April 11 2007. It's headed "THE THIRD OLDEST UNIVERSITY IN ENGLAND. . . OR IS IT?" by David Simpson and includes the following highlights:
DURHAM University celebrates its 175th anniversary this year and the history of this esteemed institution is worth commemorating. However, it is perhaps a little surprising to discover that the celebration of such an anniversary would also seem to mark an admission of defeat in the university's once widely-held claim to be England's third oldest University.
It runs through the issues - Durham's charter is younger than London's, but Oxford, Cambridge & the post 92s weren't founded by charter; UCL not having any legal status pre 1836; King's not being a university; the 1832 Act of Parliament specifying Durham as a university. Frankly it's not well researched because, as you point out, celebrating 175 years this year is based on the Act not the Charter. (And another article 8 days later uses "third oldest university" to describe Durham...)
Other articles on LexisNexis also cover this (my connection isn't the best at the moment to pull them up right now), including an amusing 1998 piece on a publuc spat between UCL and Durham (who couldn't explain themselves as there wasn't anyone still around from the 1820s & 1830s!). Timrollpickering 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone wanted to have ideas to make this article a useful one. So here's idea one - delete. It appears to be original research, and the claim that "there's a huge debate going on" or something has not been established outside original research. Idea two - remove the word "debate" from the title and replace it with the word "claims". Idea three - shift this article to the university wikiproject or something, may be create a subpage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate championship. Aditya Kabir 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to care about the fact that there is no debate on the third oldest university[citation needed] outside synthesized information that constitutes original research.[citation needed] Do you think this should go for an AfD? So many intelligent people working on the article,a nd so little regard for the policies and guidelines! Please, do something about it. You are here to make an encyclopedia, not to claim your own raging debate encyclopedic. Aditya Kabir 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if my edit to the post above is deemed rude, but I see no basis for the bold comments being there at all, never mind in bold type. Unless publications by Durham University or colleges forming part of the University of London are to be considered original research then there is certainly evidence to suggest this debate exists. The debate itself is admittedly rather trivial, although on this basis established articles such as the Sea of Japan naming dispute should also be deleted. Just because a wikipedia nominee believes a debate to be trivial, even approaching stupid, this doesn't mean to say that the content is not notable. I personally think the notion that some of the oldest institutions in the country are arguing like 12 year olds about how old they are to be incredibly significant.
I agree that this article requires attention, and arguably isn't as neutral as it could be (I think it's reasonably fair, with POV comments inserted but in a consistent manner). However the fact that the neutrality of an article doesn't meet the requirements for GA status isn't sufficient basis for an AfD nomination. If it were then we would have to delete the majority of wikipedia articles. BeL1EveR 11:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BeL1EveR wanted citations, so, I guess, I should be providing some. Please, read the official policy, where it says - "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Clearly, in this article A and B (rhetorically speaking) has been established well within the guidelines. But, what about C? The debate itself? Unless there is a reliable and verifiable third-party reference that is exists, it doesn't, really. Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about verifiable and reliable facts.

Yes, there may be evidence to suggest this debate exists, but has that ever been published as a concrete report anywhere? If yes, why not put it in? If no, then how is this article justifiable under existing policies? Well, the Sea of Japan dispute has more than 10 times the amount of citations this article uses, and still is tagged for neutrality. I am not advocating deletion, but I am not advocating a disregard for the policies either. I don't believe it to be trivial, the policies do. And, oh, editing other's comments is not rude, it's vandalism, as stated by the policies. Please, read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism to find that Modifying users' comments is described as such.

And, finally, please... why can't someone quote a reference that says the debate exists? That would solve the problem instantly. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Roll-Pickering has mentioned some, but not produced definite citations for any of them - Tim, could you redo that LexisNexis trawl and pull out some quotes and references? TSP 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been away a few days and am currently in a catch up position but in a few days' time I'll do the trawl again and add the references. Timrollpickering 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Long live Tim. Finally someone proved that the debate exists, instead of just claiming it, or ignoring the maintenance as if they serve the purpose of decorating an article. Thanks and cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


--- Durham is having its 175 year celebrations this year whereas Kings had it a few years ago, they seem to therefore agree that kings is older.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.202.226 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, King's has an earlier foundation date (though still after UCL's of 1826); however, the institution from 1829 until 1836 (when it became part of the University of London) was deliberately and explicitly not a university (though it had a royal charter as a college). King's only gained its own degree-awarding powers in 2003. As this page examines, raw 'foundation date' doesn't mean all that much; the institution that is now the University of Nottingham can trace a foundation date of 1798, but I don't think that anyone seriously contends that it is an older university than Durham or London. TSP 04:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original name of UCL

According to this article, UCL was originally called "University of London".

According to the [University College London] article, its original name was "London University" (although there is some discussion on the talk page about the accuracy of this).