Talk:Catholic University of Leuven (1834-1968)

Proposal to split into three articles

Right now, we have two pages Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Université catholique de Louvain writing about a common history, the split, common 'notable alumni', etc... Perhaps it is a good idea to split the entire subject into three pages:

1. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, about the post-1968 university in Leuven
2. Université catholique de Louvain, about the post-1968 university in Louvain-la-Neuve
3. The Catholic University of Leuven until 1968 (does somebody know a better title?), containing the history of the university (including a section about 1968) and the pre-1968 famous alumni. This would also avoid having two treatments of the 1968 events, one from a Flemish POV and one from a French POV.

Then, as is common on wikipedia, these articles can have first lines such as:

This page is about the modern Dutch language university in Leuven, Belgium. For its French language counter part in Louvain-la-Neuve, see Université catholique de Louvain, for their common history, see The Catholic University of Leuven until 1968

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal

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

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

Interwiki Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the Dutch Wikipedia currently has only two pages:

• nl:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
• nl:Université catholique de Louvain

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

So this is my take on the question. Hope it helps : )
Stéphane Thibault 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ^Talk

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

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

Correct Title?

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

Alumni list

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

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

Kots, KAPs, Cercles, AGL etc.

This article needs sections about student life, like in TCD and Harvard

Bogger 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Separation / Clean-up / Disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic University of Louvain?

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

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

Walen buiten?

Why is that phrase annotated as being French, when it's not... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking the link? --Paularblaster (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The three different Universities in Louvain

It is very important not to make a confusion between the three different Universities who are founded at Louvain and who dont have any historical connexion one with the other. This article making a confusion between those three institutions is historicaly without ground. There ware at Louvain:

• 1) the Old University of Louvain, supprimed first by Emperor Joseph the II and than by the Directoire, so as much other universities in France, who was making a modernisation of the scholar system, and not four an "anticlericaly" motive!
• 2)The State University of Louvain suppressed in the year 1835.
• 3) The new Catholic University of Malines founded in 1834 by the bisshops of Belgium without any historical connexion with the old University. That is the historical reality.--Bruxellensis (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit annoying, because we already had this discussion on the French speaking wikipedia and you continue to spread your (more than controversial) opinion. You should really start to understand now: No original research on wikipedia! Here is the official webpage of the KUL: http://www.kuleuven.be/english/ the first thing written there is: "The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven was founded in 1425". That's the official version, you understand? If you don't like the official version, contact the university or some historians or the press or write a book about it, but don't change the wikipedia article! That's just not the good place. The official version should be presented here! Nicodème (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Catholic University of Leuven founded in 1834

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

So now we have four articles?

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

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

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

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

I moved this section to the bottom of the page to restore the chronological order. I fully agree with IP 194.98.58.121. This discussion has since long been going on in the French Wikipedia and even for some time in the German Wikipedia. User:Bruxellensis seems to be on some kind of mission to rewrite all articles related to the Catholic University of Leuven from his own viewpoint. This opinion is however only supported by a minority of historians and certainly not conform with the self-conception of KULeuven and UCL. Such views should only be presented in a "criticism" chapter, as IP 194.98.58.121 pointed out. I will therefore revert the changes made by User:Bruxellensis. -- Athenchen (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But I hope that an other person than I will remake this article in concordance with the historical facts that everibody can read in the historical articles. They ware three different Universities at Louvain. The Old University of Louvain, the champion of the Jansenismus in Europa, than the State University of Louvain and than the Catholic University of Louvain founded at Malines in 1834 without any links with the Old University, all the historians know that. Your version is nothing other than an historical fiction. Four a German the history of the State University of Louvain is very interesting, because that was the only exemple of a pacifical expension of the German culture in Europe... and it is a pity that you will erase the memory of this university, according with the faultif "official history". The catholic university founded in 1834 (that had provocate severe riots in Belgium) is founded in Malines without any links with the Old Alma Mater. All what I have writen in this article is historicaly exact and accurate. I considere this article as an historical hoax.--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples of historical errors

This sentence is incorrect:

• "After the disruptions of the French Revolutionary Wars, it was refounded in 1816 as State university of Louvain
• and converted into the Catholic University of Leuven in 1835."

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

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

The Catholic University of Mechlin, which then becomes the Catholic University of Louvain (in Latin, la:Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis, in Dutch, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven ) is a Belgian university, founded in Mechlin November 8, 1834 by the bisshops of Belgium and formally installed on 1 December 1835 in Leuven.

Thank you four our attention .--Bruxellensis (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Catholic University of Louvain

Good morning, you write that it is a majority (a consensus) against the modifications of the historicals errors of this article! But history is not a lottery! You have to read the French, Dutch and Latin articles and you wil see that this version of the english Wikipedia is an "historical hoax". You make a confusion between the three Universities who have had her seat at Louvain. The public hat the right to now the true history of the tree differents Universities of Louvain. It is also absurd to see the names of old students of the State University of Louvain with names of students of the Catholic University.--Bruxellensis (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your position is clearly a minority viewpoint. The Catholic Encyclopedia [1], KUL [2], UCL [3] and Britannica [4] all give 1425 as the founding date and identify them as the same institution. In the top 30 Google hits, there's nothing that says otherwise. At most, there should be a short paragraph in the article explaining that some historians believe they should not be identified as the same institution. This is in accordance with WP:UNDUE. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am also sory but what I wrhite is not an opinion it is only the description of the historical facts. All the historical sources and serious historians now this facts. You have mentionned an article of the Catholical Encyclopedy of 1910, but this article don't speak of the "Catholic University of Louvain" but of the "University of Louvain" and make a difference between those two differents Institutions, the lecturer can see that it is no continuation between those two different institutions. The other sources are only publicitarian sources. I am also supprised that you have censured the decision of the Supreme Court of Belgium Court of Cassation (Belgium) of 26 November 1846: "The Catholic University of Leuven can not be regarded as continuing the old University of Louvain", in, Table générale alphabétique et chronologique de la Pasicrisie Belge contenant la jurisprudence du Royaume de 1814 à 1850, Brussels, 1855, p. 585, column 1, alinea 2. See also: Bulletin Usuel des Lois et Arrêtés‎, 1861, p.166. The Englispeaking public hat the right to now the very history of the three Universities of Louvain and nobody had the right to offense not only the ruling of the Supreme Court of Belgium but above all the verity of the facts. With regards (sorry for my pitty English).--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"No continuation between those two different institutions"? The Catholic Encyclopedia uses the word "restored", while Britannica uses the word "reestablished". And these, I'm afraid, are mainstream sources. Let me be clear, the article should mention your points, but they should not dominate it. Also, it looks like you're right about the State University not being part of it. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is an amelioration! but the words "restored" and "reetablished" are utilised only "motu proprio" for the first time in 1909 and don't correspond with the reality of the facts! The Catholic University of Mechlin was founded by the bishops without any material link with the Old University. None of the professors of the Old University have tought in the Catholic University, but in contrary several of him have tought in the State University! The Old University was not closed in the "troubles of the Revolution" (1789) but had continued in the time of the Revolution! It is officialy supprimed by the Directoire after the Traity of campo Formio when Belgium was officialy a part of the French Republic (the Emperor had given the Souvereinity of Belgium to France). The French, Latin and Netherlands Wikipedia give a correct historical vision, and I think that the English reader have also the right to have similaries articles. Thank you four your (little) modifications, it is a good beginning.--Bruxellensis (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommand you the lecture of this book: *R. Mathes, Löwen und Rom. Zur Gründung der Katholischen Universität Löwen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kirchen-und Bildungspolitik Papst Gregors XVI, Essen, 1975. --Bruxellensis (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume for the moment that everything you claim is strictly correct, despite the mainstream sources saying otherwise (as may very well be the case). If it is conventional to identify them with each other, then that's what we should do. So here's what I propose: you add a section in the article saying that they were strictly speaking different legal entities, and that some dispute this identification. Cite appropriately. But we're not breaking apart the article because mainstream sources certainly don't. What do you think? Oreo Priest ^talk 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm sorry but I'm really quite fed up with this discussion. Bruxellensis, you have made a mess of this topic in the French, Dutch, Latin and now the English wikipedia. You have created endless kilobytes defending your minority point of view and bloated the histories of all the articles concerned by endless reverting and editing. While in the beginning I blamed your assumed inexperience for your annoying behaviour, this can no longer serve as an excuse. Your edits clearly don't contribute to the quality of this encyclopedia and I would kindly ask you to refrain from further deteriorating these pages. Even so it will take a lot of time to clean up the chaos you have created. There is no need to repeat your theories once again and to cite historians that support your view. It has been explained to you by several users on several projects that these views are not "banned" from the article, but that they have to be presented in the proper place, such as a "criticism" chapter. I hope that this puts an end to a discussion that has already since too long been going on. -- Athenchen (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) First of all Bruxellensis, while we welcome contributors to the English Wikipedia where English is not their first language, it is important to understand exactly what is being said before you object to it. The phrase "A is identified with B" does not mean the same thing as "A is identical to B". The former means something like "A is seen to be connected with B", and the latter "A and B are the same thing." That at least two of the "universities" are identified with each other is true, shown by the very existence of reliable sources that do so.

Second, you really need to understand that what the Court of Cassation ruled was that the institutions are not legally the same (which is all a court can do), which is not what is at issue here. Modern Greece is not legally the successor state of Ancient Greece, but they are universally identified with one another, and you'll notice that the history section of the Greece article doesn't start in 1821. While we can state the technical legal status in one line in the article, it is demonstrably conventional to identify these institutions with one another, and that is why this article will not be broken up. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you now very good the aristotelican logic! (Asserit A negat E verum generaliter ambo: A people as the Greeks have an historical continuation, secundum leges naturae, we are here speaking of an institution created by the men not by the nature, secundum leges hominum.). I think that the principal here is that the public can have a complete historical dossier, with all the parameters so that he can self have a good vision of the succesive universitarian life in Louvain. I think that now the article can remain so, because he don'nt give the impression that from 1425 to 2010 the same University is remained without interruption. The reality is respected. The reality is always abundant and varied. Thank you four your ameliorations, the public can now have a good informed opinion. I give here my historical opinion: for me the Catholic University of Louvain is a new gregorian university and not a medieval university. The biginning of an institution is very important, because it is it's "genetical code", Pythagoras said that "the beginning is the half of the all", and ideed the beginning remains determinant. An institution of the XIX century don't have the same genetical code that an institution of the middel age.--Bruxellensis (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)