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.

Book celebrating the 25 anniversary of the founding of the Catholic University of Louvain, November 3, 1859.

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)

(←) 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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Uncontroversial, or so I hope. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Catholic University of Leuven (1834-1968) → Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968) – An en dash, rather than a hyphen, should be part of the page's name (see WP:DASH). Toccata quarta (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Could have been handled boldly by proposer as an uncontroversial move. Deor (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705023027/http://www.kuleuven.be/about/history.html to http://www.kuleuven.be/about/history.html
• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20120905105742/http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/administ/pdf/LOSTMEMO.PDF on http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/administ/pdf/LOSTMEMO.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

1425

Consensus would be needed for any major change to the lead. Undiscussed pointy edits are not helpful, especially when they have poor syntax. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is clear the 1425 university was a distinct and separate institution from the current one founded in 1834. But this article seems to mention this quite correctly. PCC7500 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Any article can be improved and none can be considered definitive. The introduction of the article gives the impression that there is continuity between the old University of Leuven and the new Catholic University. She says : "The Catholic University of Leuven founded in 1425 in Leuven as the University of Leuven" and that the same university was "transferred to Mechelen as the Catholic University of Mechelen in 1834 and returned to the town of Leuven in 1835". This introduction is ambiguous and gives the impression that it is the "Catholic university" that was founded in 1425. In addition the introduction ignores the existence of the State University of Leuven, where many professors from the old university have taught (why this « damnatio memoriae »). The modification of this preface is necessary so as not to mislead the reader. In addition it is a personal point of view to claim that it: "is considered the largest, oldest and most prominent university in Belgium". The two oldest universities in Belgium that exist without interruption are the Universities of Liège and Ghent founded in 1817. The true story of the old University of Leuven is still ignored and taboo. There is no historical work dedicated to it despite the fact that its archives are part of Unesco's heritage, as someone wrote: « Although the archives of the old University of Leuven have been recognized as world heritage by Unesco, it has remained taboo in its history. Until today there is no complete history of the University of Leuven. The history of the old university has so far been described primarily subjectively and fragmentarily. Mainly due to the fact that this history clashes with the official but largely artificial historical story that the Catholic University of Leuven has given of itself to the public, as the continuation of the former University of Leuven (1425-1797)». Another question, why remove the reference to the Treaty of Campo Formio by Jules Delhaize ? Best regards.--Viator (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you skip enough text, you can read it indeed in an ambiguous way. But that is the nice part of the full text: it is clear. The removal of the valid source is also strange. Why was this done? The Banner talk 20:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I mishandled the source. I have reinstated it, but moved it a bit. The sources (or at least the given quote) is only about the treaty and says nothing about the university. In the present form that source is useless for this article. The Banner talk 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

History does not depend on a vote or a consensus, but on the evidence of the facts. The current introduction was introduced recently on (cur | prev) 20:36, 4 January 2019 Huguespotter (talk | contribs). . (24.166 bytes) (+164). . (undo | thank). This text deceives the reader because it makes believe that the Catholic University of Louvain was founded in 1425. This is an example of protochronism and distortion of history. In the name of historical truth it is necessary to put back the old introduction. Example of errors of the preface: It is wrong to write that "The Catholic University of Leuven was founded in 1425", since it was founded in 1834. It was not founded as University of Leuven, closed by the French Republic in 1797. It was not transferred to Mechelen at the Catholic University of Mechelen, but was founded in Mechelen in 1834. It did not "return" to Leuven in 1835 but was established in Leuven in 1835.--Viator (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

True, but consensus is also not based on editwarring and POV-pushing. The Banner talk 08:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I suggest to change is replace "transferred to Mechelen" with "refounded in Mechelen" le something alike. From what I'm aware, not much was physically transferred from Louvain to Mechlin, as both the universities of Louvain (State University) & Mechlin briefly coexisted. The state university closed and the Catholic University of Belgium moved from Mechlin to Louvain. From there on, a lot of continuity is noted between the Old University of Louvain, thé State Uni and the Catholic Uni which directly continued it. Many links can be found between these institutions, from the buildings used and the professors & staff to the welcome by Leuven's city council itself, the city's development around the University, etc. Most notably, the contribution of many, many encyclopedic and historical sources stating continuity between 1425 and the Catholic Uni must not be ignored. "Returned to the town of Leuven" is thus an acceptable way of putting things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCC7500 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree with PCC7500 that "transferred" (in "transferred to Mechelen") should be changed to "refounded" or "reestablished" or some such term as that. Google Books gives plenty of hits for Louvain+University+refounding+1834 (and variations on those terms Leuven/refoundation/etc.) indicating that it is widely accepted in the English-speaking world that the 1834 Catholic University was thought of or intended as an attempt to reestablish the medieval university originally established by papal bull. The 1991 Encyclopaedia Britannica, to pick just one, reads "The forces of the French Revolution suppressed the university in 1797, but in 1834 the Belgian episcopate reestablished it". I notice now that further up this page are remnants of discussions of the past suggesting that bees in bonnets about whether the modern university is "really" or "legally" or "officially" or "justifiably" a refoundation of the medieval university are going to crop up from time to time, but the preponderance of secondary sources in English certainly seems to indicate that this is a fringe view. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

21st-century digital reconstruction of the seal of the old university of Louvain.

Gothic Revival seal of the Catholic University of Louvain, created in 1909. The date 1425, first in roman numerals, was added only in the year 1968.

The private Catholic University of Louvain is not a "refounfing" of the Old University suppressed like all the universities of France by a law. The territory of the current Belgium was part of the French Republic in international law after the Treaty of Campo Formio (just as Ireland was part in international law of the United Kingdom) and so it was French law that made law and not the so-called "revolutionary forces". The city of Louvain was the seat of three different universities: the Old University (university founded by the civil powers of Brabant), which became "the Jansenist Rome" with Jansenius, Stockmans, Van Espen, Febronius etc.), then the State University of Leuven, a liberal and free-thinking university, where many professors from the old university taught, and then the new Catholic University of Mechelen, a private Gregorian university, which has no institutional or personal ties to the previous ones. Not any professor from the Old University wanted to teach in the catholic university, but they taught at the State University. Moreover, the judgments of the Belgian Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal since are clear. Several rulings of the Belgian Courts, Cassation and Appeal, forbid the identification of the Catholic University with the Old University: Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie van 26 november 1846: "De Katholieke Universiteit van Leuven kan niet worden beschouwd als de voortzetting van de oude Universiteit van Leuven" "The Catholic University of Leuven can not be considered as continuing the old University of Louvain (General Alphabetical Table and chronological of the Belgian Pasicrisie containing the jurisprudence of the Kingdom from 1814 to 1850, Brussels, 1855, page 585, column 1, paragraph 2. See also: Bulletin of the Laws and Decrees, 1861, p.166.) See also the ruling of the Court of Appeal of 1844: Belgique Judiciaire, 28 July 1844, No. 69, p. 1: "Brussels Court of Appeal Second Chamber The Free University of Louvain does not legally represent the ancient university of this city". As someone wrote : although the archives of the old University of Leuven have been recognized as world heritage by UNESCO, it has kept its history in the taboo sphere. There is no complete history of Leuven University to date mainly due to the fact that this history clashes with the official but largely artificial history story that the Catholic University of Leuven has given of itself to the public, as the continuation of the former University of Leuven (1425-1797). Therfore, the Catholic University of Leuven is not allowed to use the seal of the old university.The former University of Louvain, founded by the civil power of Louvain, was not a "Catholic University", but, like Oxford, Cambridge, etc., an University in a Catholic country --Viator (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Book celebrating the 25 anniversary of the founding of the Catholic University of Louvain, November 3, 1859.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxellensis (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Viator, you keep repeating the exact same thing with the exact same quotes on every Wikipedia discussion page which has ever included the word Louvain in it. What you may not understand is that we understand the arguments you are bringing forward. Time goes on. The French-speaking Université catholique de Louvain isn't even considered as a private university anymore, controlled under decrees of the French Community. Yet you keep mentioning a sentence that a Belgian court said 175 years ago. The Universities of Louvain have celebrated their 595th birthday in 2000, their 500 years in 1925 and are already busy with the 600 party of 2025. And of course, they celebrated their refounding in 1885. Please, stop pasting the complete quotes everywhere and offer some constructive proposals to reach that consensus. Please stop pasting the entire judgement of 1844 again on this page. By the way, I've only just noticed that this article only starts in 1835, leaving the 1834 university in Mechlin to a seperate page. This is helpful for clarification and I think makes the current introduction (or the one proposed above) relevant and meaningful. _{Please stop quoting that tribunal thing from 1844 everywhere.} PCC7500 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is looking very WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please just stop. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oreo Priest, my reversion (that you reverted) was simply to the status quo before a pointy intervention, not to an ideal version of the lead. I had not intended to edit the article, simply to seek to find a consensus for whatever changes might be made. That was a month ago. The pointy editor simply waited a month and then made the same edit to the lead again, putting some piece of 19th-century polemic in as a supposed source. So I reverted it again. I have now myself edited the lead, but in a way that still gives too much emphasis to the pet project of the pointy editor. Should our lead not do what the Britannica does, and explain the significance and the role of the institution, rather than focusing on the exact legal nature of its relationship to the earlier institution that inspired its founding? (A topic which is already addressed at undue length in the relevant part of the article on the history of the foundation.) Whatever the facts, continual tendentious editing, and ignoring consensus in order to keep hammering on a pet nail, suggest to me that a topic ban would not be out of place. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid your intervention might only have encouraged the monomania. I note that now we are being told that the Belgian bishops had no intention to claim any continuity with the past, simply to found an entirely new university, while a few hours ago we were being treated to angry polemics about how their evil scheme was to usurp the name of the previous institution. There is in this a certain incoherence. It's almost as though any stick will do to beat a dog. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, you comments also sounds rather pointy and POV... The Banner talk 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My only point and POV is that this kind of axe-grinding editing is bad for content and a colossal waste of time for all involved. Yes, it irritates me, but that's why I'm stepping away from this one. ;) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater I must apologize, I was unaware there was a discussion. On the other hand, whether or not anyone has an axe to grind, I think it's important to stay factual. Modern perspectives are certainly pertinent, but we should ensure none of the language is false. Language along the lines of "In 1834, the Catholic church opened a university as a "refounding" of the older institution, though secular society protested what they viewed as an unjustified usurpation of the older institution's legacy." would be ok with me. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)