Talk:Square academic cap

Chinese mortarboard-style cap worn by emperors

What about the Chinese mortarboard-style cap worn by emperors (see Huang Di or Qin Shi Huang)? --Dpr 04:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to the Chinese emperor's mian (冕) which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Western mortarboard or academia. The ancient Chinese version of the mortarboard is the si-fang pingding jin (四方平定巾). --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation?

I just made a new page called Mortar Board (honor society). I think there should be a disambiguation page, but I do not know how to make one yet.

~

Mortarboard is a solecism. This is an academic cap, as in cap and gown. Charles Matthews 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How long do the majority of speakers have to use a word before it becomes legitimate? We borrowed the mortier from French magistrates what—300 years ago?[1] And how quickly did it become "mortarboard"? 20 years later maybe? --Tysto (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

We have two claims I am not sure are compatible:

The term "mortarboard" derives "from the French mortier, a type of toque";

"Its colloquial name derives from its resemblance to the board upon which mortar is placed by a bricklayer."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mortar has mortier in the etymology, so it's just possible that both are right, but I am unsure. Does anyone know? —Vivacissamamente 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

~

I looked around the internet and found that the statement "from the French mortier, a type of toque" is irrelevant because "mortier" in french means mortar (the bricklaying kind.) I think It should be changed to something about mortar and not a french word (but im not skilled enough to modify it :P)

The hat and the word came over together. Here is the chronology—more or less. Sometime in the late Middle Ages, French magistrates added a board on top of their skull caps. Other Frenchmen noticed the resemblance to a bricklayer's mortarboard and called it a "mortier," the French word for the board a bricklayer carries mortar on. Later, English scholars adopted the hat and the word "mortier" to describe it and soon began calling it a "mortarboard," the English translation of "mortier." Much later, very stuffy university types began calling it a "square academic cap" because "mortarboard" didn't seem dignified. Of course, they could have just adopted a different cap, since it looks positively ridiculous compared even to other Medieval caps,[2] but the Royal Societies of arts and science have a centuries-old bet going with the British Law Society about who will change their ridiculous headgear first [3] and it looks like a stalemate. --Tysto (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tassel traditions?

Details regarding the tassel ought to be mentioned here; where they came from, symbolism, and traditions (such as moving the tassel from one side to the other upon receiving one's diploma). ProhibitOnions 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a general rule on which side the tassel is to be worn? --212.144.136.86 11:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question regarding this phrase and the tassel: "In some ceremonies, the student wears the tassel on the right up until reception of the diploma, at which point it is switched to the left." During both my high school and bachelor's degree ceremonies, we wore them on the left until the reception of the diploma, and then it was switched to the right. Do you think this should be edited to simply say "In some ceremonies, the student wears the tassel on one side up until reception of the diploma, at which point it is switched to the other." ? Or are my schools just among the minority? Pike 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the section on tassels based on minimal research. It has been changed. -Beard0 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Masonic Symbol

Is there no connection with Freemasonry, this is where I understood it came from, the gown also having occult overtones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There actually IS a connection with freemasonry, and with the priestly robes of the period of Solomon's temple, which I shall document in future, but for now, I've simply removed the errant and misleading assertion that the word mortarboard comes "from the French mortier, a type of toque."

In fact, the etymology is just the opposite. The O.French "Mortier" is the source of the English word Mortar, which is the goop masons place on top of a mortarboard. The academic cap is called a mortarboard because it resembles one. It may resemble one by design -- which is the possible free-mason connection, and which bears documentation. In any event, the briefly fashionable toque-like "mortier" post-dates the academic cap by centuries. Possibly millenia, as I shall document when I find the time. It's all fun stuff, but requires better documentation than I have without pulling out some books and journals. -- TheEditrix2 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Masonry and "occult overtones" sound good in a Dan Brown novel, but don't belong in the same sentence in an encyclopedia. All traditionally religious and all new-age beliefs are "occultic" -- since they all rely on the supernatural -- but Masonry is no more occultic than any other faith tradition. As you'd have eventually discovered on your own, but I'm saving you the bunny trails. -- TheEditrix2 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Madrassas?

The article states that the mortaboards may have been influenced by practices in Islamic madrassas. Apart from the fact that at a guess I would say this is highly unlikely - as far as I know it is more an 18th/19th century phenomenon to adopt oriental-style clothing - the source in the footnote leads to a NEWSPAPER article in the NEW YORK TIMES (not the Herald Tribune), which doesn't mention mortaboards at all. Could anybody plz correct this? (I am not a native speaker of English and didn't want to do it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.254.63 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for a month now: implementing. Sorry for the delay!--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the removal of this content highly questionable. It was tagged "failed verification" when the source clearly supports the statement. Now the content has been removed multiple times - despite being sourced to a NYT editorial - without removing all the unsourced and questionable content in this article. That strongly suggests bias. I will be restoring this material unless a clear and convincing reason not to is provided soon. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented out this sentence and the accompanying NYT reference, pending further discussion here. The link to Islamic madrassas sounds highly unlikely to me, and none of the main historical sources on academic dress (eg A History of Academical Dress in Europe by William Hargreaves-Mawdsley) contain any evidence for such a link. On its own, I'm really not convinced that a single sentence in a newspaper opinion piece is sufficient justification. The article says "Our mortarboards, tassels, academic robes and rituals of the oral defense of a written thesis can all be traced back to them". But this is all wrong: as far as I can see nobody has traced any of this back to Islamic madrassas. In fact, there's a wealth of historical evidence (see Hargreaves-Mawdsley or one of the other books on the subject) to demonstrate that academic dress instead derives from mediaeval European monastic robes (in particular the supertunica, habit and hood). The oral examination also dates back to mediaeval European universities - in order to attain a particular status (or "degree") within the university, the candidate would have to submit to a public examination in which they argued in support of their thesis. I know it's in a reputable newspaper (it's not the Daily Mail, after all) but in this case I think the writer has got it wrong, and I'd prefer it if this assertion could be supported by at least one additional, independent source - preferably one that backs up their assertion with some sort of evidence. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And the text says it's a possible influence. And it's supported b y a source, unlike nearly all the other text in this article. Please explain your selective removal. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Nicholas. It's obiter dictum with only a passing connection to the subject of the article, which was government interference in religious schooling in Pakistan. I re-checked both sources I deleted; the other one asserting the link to a tradition of tying a Koran on top of the head is here. I listened to the whole thing again, so that you don't need to; start at 5’40” or thereabouts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The youtube is junk. I'm concerned with the NYT/IHT editorial. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The concern I have with the NYT editorial is that on its own I just don't think it's good enough. Yes the NYT is a reputable newspaper, but in this particular article (which, as Old Moonraker says, is about a subject which is at best only tangentially related to academic dress) the statement is made in passing with no justification, and it really does feel to me as if the writer has just thrown in something he's heard in passing somewhere (possibly here). On the other hand, a Google search for the terms "madrassa" and "mortarboard" turns up a number of links, many of which are cut-and-pasted copies of this article, and several others are quoting the equally unsupported comments by Dr Afifi Al-Akiti (the person in the Youtube video).

This article, however, repeats the claim (with almost suspiciously similar wording), but goes on to reference The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West by George Makdisi. This book, a properly researched historical monograph on academic history, would be a far better source if it indeed supported the claim. But I've done a full-text search on this book just now (my university library happens to have access to a searchable electronic copy) and although I can find what Makdisi says about professorial inaugural lectures, and "bestowal of robes of honour" (which he seems to be saying is the origin of modern graduation ceremonies), I can't find any mention of mortarboards or (square or otherwise) academic caps.

What I suspect has happened is that the NYT writer remembered reading of the mortarboard-madrassa connection somewhere, possibly even in the Asia Times article (which is dated almost exactly a month before the NYT article) and threw it in as a bit of extra support for his main argument. Meanwhile, the writer of the Asia Times article seems to have read at least part of Makdisi's book, been convinced by his arguments that inaugural lectures, oral examinations and some sort of academic robes might have originated in Islamic madrassas, and then extended this to include mortarboards and tassels as well. Either way, I don't think the NYT article is sufficient on its own, and although the Asia Times article does cite its source, that source doesn't actually seem to mention square caps or tassels anywhere.

So, as I see it, we have a number of questionable sources: an NYT article which mentions it in passing but doesn't provide any justification; an Asia Times article which provides more justification but seems to have gone beyond what its cited source actually says; and a Youtube video interview and couple of random blog posts referring to apparently unsupported statements by Dr Al-Akiti. The only really reputable source I've found, namely the carefully-researched book by George Makdisi, doesn't appear to mention mortarboards at all - which is a pity, because otherwise it would be an eminently suitable source to cite in this article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just found this at WP:RS, while looking for something else: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (emphasis added). We would be relying on "editorial commentary" here in accepting this as a source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dalrymple's article also appeared in Interreligious Insight (2006). It says "even mortar boards, tassels, and academic robes, can all be traced back to the practices of madrasas". The author appears to be William Dalrymple (historian), so the idea could simply be attributed to him. The sourcing seems more than enough to support what the article here said: "may have been influenced by". Gimmetoo (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The article by Dalrymple that you link to unequivocally attributes that statement to Makdisi's book. The full sentence, rather than the fragment you just quoted, says:

In The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West, George Makdisi has demonstrated how terms such as having “fellows” holding a “chair,” or students “reading” a subject and obtaining “degrees,” as well as prac­tices such as inaugural lectures, the oral defense, even mortar boards, tassels, and academic robes, can all be traced back to the practices of madrasas.

If you can find where in Makdisi's book he actually traces the origin of mortar boards to the madrassas, then let's keep that bit in the article, and use Makdisi's book as the source rather than tangentially-related opinion articles by other people. But as I said before, I've had a good look through the book in question and I really can't find any mention of mortarboards or tassels anywhere in there. Which leaves us still with a load of unsupported statements by Dr Al-Akiti, a few opinion articles (which as Old Moonraker notes, aren't sufficient by WP:RS) which mention it in passing, and an otherwise reputable source which seems not to make the claim that other people are attributing to it. I think we have to delete the contentious note, at least pending the discovery of more concrete and definite sources. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dalrymple appears to be a historian of some sort. The opinion of a historian is insufficient? This content was removed for "failed verification" - do you agree that reason was false? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

But Dalrymple isn't stating it as his own opinion, he's saying that Makdisi claims it in his book on the subject. But as far as we can tell, Makdisi doesn't actually claim that mortarboards originate in mediaeval Islamic madrassas - I've looked through his book and checked. So, yes, this source has "failed verification". Makdisi does claim that inaugural lectures and oral examinations originate in the madrassas, but doesn't appear to mention mortarboards or tassels. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The NYT said it without further qualification. That was clear. If that's your standard, then we put in a direct quote from Dalrymple and the NYT - two verified references. Or are you actually saying that the opinion of this historian is unfit to include on the Wiki? Yet you have yet to object to all the unsourced stuff on this page? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have problems with a lot of the other unsourced material on the page too, but let's leave that until we've sorted out this issue. We have three sources under discussion, and I don't consider any of them to adequately support the thesis that mortarboards and/or tassels have their origin in the madrassas. Taking each of them in turn:

1. The NYT article by Jonathan Power. This is an editorial opinion piece on a tangentially related matter (that madrassas are, by and large, a positive thing) which mentions in passing, but with no supporting evidence, that mortarboards and tassels originate in mediaeval madrassas. This is not an appropriate supporting reference because the policy WP:RS says such sources are not to be considered reliable for statements of fact.
2. The Asian Times article by William Dalrymple. This appears to be a reprint of an article by the same author, which appeared in the New York Review of Books on 1 December 2005, and which was again reprinted in two parts in the July 2006 and October 2006 editions of the journal Interreligious Insight. This article makes the same statement as the NYT article, that mortarboards and tassels (as well as other elements of modern Western academic practice) can be traced back to the madrassas, but additionally (and helpfully) provides the reference for this statement: the book The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West by George Makdisi. This, unfortunately, also isn't a suitable supporting reference, because as far as we can see, Makdisi doesn't mention mortarboards or tassels anywhere in his book. If Dalrymple were stating this as his considered historical opinion, then that would be different, but it's clear from reading that paragraph that he isn't - he's stating that it's something Makdisi claimed. And since Makdisi doesn't actually claim this, Dalrymple is (in this tiny but germane instance) demonstrably incorrect. So we can't use Dalrymple's article as a source either.
3. The scholarly monograph The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West by George Makdisi, Edinburgh University Press (1981). This is a seriously researched historical text on the influence of Islam in the development of Western educational institutions, and if we could find anything in there that actually said that mortarboards and tassels can be traced back to the madrassas, then that would completely settle this matter, and I'd happily agree to the inclusion of the contentious statement in the article. The problem is, though, that there doesn't appear to be any mention of either mortarboards or tassels anywhere in there. So, unfortunately, this one's out too.

It's clear to me, from the publication dates and the choice of words, that the author of the NYT article most likely read Dalrymple's article, either in the Asian Times or the New York Review of Books, during the research for his own editorial. Dalrymple, meanwhile, has read Makdisi's book, but unfortunately has been a little enthusiastic in paraphrasing the findings therein, in the process including a couple of extra things (namely mortarboards and tassels) in the list of things that Makdisi traces back to the madrassas. If Dalrymple, a professional historian, were actually stating this as his own research findings, or considered professional opinion, then that would be ok. But this isn't what he's doing - he's presenting it as a paraphrase of Makdisi's work, and unfortunately he's not been completely accurate in doing so. Which leaves us with no valid sources. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid speculating about source relationships, OK? You have a point about the attribution in Dalrymple, but doesn't it seem odd to say that had the statement not been attributed in Dalrymple, it would have been more worthy of inclusion here? I don't have Makdisi's book available except through library loan, but I don't think it's necessary to track it down. Youtube is not a source, but Emel says Afifi al-Akiti says something similar [4]. The notion seems to be tossed about by significant people. Such statements should be enough to support the (relatively weak) statement that mortarboards may have been influenced by practices in madrasses, or perhaps that "some writers claim it can be traced back to..." Gimmetoo (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, forget my speculations about the relationships between the sources - they were just an aside (although I maintain that they're a plausible theory of where this factoid originated). We could also speculate endlessly about what might have happened if Dalrymple had written something different, but he didn't - and what he did write is not sufficient justification, for the reasons I've outlined above. I'm highly unconvinced by al-Akiti's pronouncements, for the reason that as far as I can see, he gives no evidence for this claim. But my personal views on his opinions aren't relevant. I'd be willing to compromise on something like "The Islamic theologian Afifi al-Akiti has claimed that the shape of the mortarboard can be traced to a ceremony in the mediaeval madrassas, (citation to Emel article) but this theory has not found acceptance among historians of academic dress". That way we include the suggestion in the article, but make it clear that it's a fringe theory with no apparent justification or serious acceptance among experts. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference saying that's a fringe view? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need one - it's sufficient there's an almost total lack of experts professing this view. We've both been discussing this issue for weeks now, and hunting around for reputable sources which back up this assertion that mortarboards originate in mediaeval madrassas, and the absolute best we've found are a few copies of the same article which incorrectly cites a well-researched historical monograph (which itself doesn't apparently refer to mortarboards at all), and an article (and inadmissible YouTube video) by an otherwise apparently eminent Islamic theologian who provides no actual evidence to support his somewhat tenuous claims. The standard works on academic dress (in particular the books by Hargreaves-Mawdsley, Franklyn, Shaw, Smith and Sheard, Haycraft, etc, all of whom devoted a lot of time and effort to researching the subject) make absolutely no mention whatsoever of this hypothesis, nor do they contain any information which might support it. I propose we say the following:

The Islamic theologian Afifi al-Akiti has claimed that the shape of the mortarboard can be traced to a ceremony in mediaeval Islamic madrassas, (citation to Emel article) but this suggestion has not found acceptance among historians of academic dress, and al-Akiti himself has provided no concrete evidence of a causal connection.

Do you agree that this is an accurate statement? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No I do not. The content was originally phrased here as a speculation ("may have been influenced by"). You argued such a statement was "unsourced". You need to provide sources verifying the assertions that "al-Akiti himself has provided no concrete evidence" and that the suggestion, which is also in Dalrymple, "has not found acceptance among historians of academic dress". Gimmetoo (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all the effort that has gone into finding a compromise acceptable to all, but surely this still gives undue prominence to a non-subject; it gives coverage to something that doesn't actually exist. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you would have a difficult time demonstrating that the notion "doesn't actually exist". Gimmetoo (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But I don't have to: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The sources discussed above all seem to fail, for one reason or another, when called in support of the supposed historical connection. I do appreciate that your contention is that "some people think this" (crude paraphrase only), but is that in itself encyclopaedic? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden has been more than met. You, however, have asserted that the notion "doesn't actually exist". Go ahead, cite that. It's curious that your supporter has proposed adding blatantly biased material without a source, and you said nothing. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What "blatantly biased material" have I (if I'm the "supporter" you're referring to) proposed adding? My suggested statement is objectively correct: al-Akiti has claimed what I said he claimed; this theory hasn't been accepted by other historians of academic dress (if you disagree, then find me one who has); and al-Akiti hasn't provided (either in that YouTube video, in the Emel article, or in anything else I've been able to find on the web or elsewhere) any justification for his claim (again, if you disagree, find me a source that demonstrates otherwise). I'd far rather we just omitted this topic entirely from the article, because the available evidence and sources are at best tenuous. But if you absolutely insist that we must mention it in the article, then we have to put it in its correct context: a hypothesis that as yet has no evidence to support it, and no support among other researchers on the topic. This is an encyclopaedia, remember - we can't just put in things like "some people think this" because if you look hard enough, you can find some people who think pretty much anything, no matter how crazy or unfounded. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that "al-Akita himself has provided no concrete evidence" is a claim about him, and needs a source. Likewise, the claim that "has not found acceptance among historians" is a claim about reception, and as such, it needs a source or it is dismissive. We've already talked about two people with relevant credentials who appear to do more than accept it. Why are you trying to suppress this? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am not trying to "suppress" this. What I'm doing is pointing out that the evidence for this claim is at best circumstantial - the nearest you or anyone else have found to a citeable source is (a) a sentence in a biographical article about (not by) al-Akiti, in which he doesn't give any actual evidence for his assertion, (b) the article by Dalrymple, in which he attributes the statement to a source which is readily verified to not contain any such statement, and (c) the book by Makdisi, which would otherwise be an eminently suitable reference, but which doesn't actually mention mortarboards at all. Let me state for the record that if you can find a valid, scholarly source which provides some evidence for this theory then I'd be delighted and fascinated to read it, and I know several other people who would be similarly intrigued. I'm only trying to stop this going in the article because I've not seen any valid evidence that it stands up to an appropriate level of scrutiny.

Let's take your other objections in order. The claim that "al-Akiti has provided no concrete evidence" is trivially verified by checking the Emel article: at no point in there does he provide any evidence to back up his claim, it's just presented as a fact. I've expended a fair amount of effort hunting around for any further information on this, and there just isn't any: there's the Emel article (plus lots of copies of it on various blogs and other sites), and there's the YouTube video (where he doesn't give any supporting evidence either). At that point I think the burden of proof has shifted onto the other side of the argument, don't you?

Similarly with the question of acceptance from other historians. There are two main books on the history of academic dress: Hargreaves-Mawdsley and Franklyn, neither of which even mention this theory but instead trace the origin firmly to mediaeval European clerical and monastic dress. In addition to this, there are a range of other books and articles which cover the subject (a comprehensive bibliography can be found here). None of them explicitly rule out the madrassa hypothesis, but that's not at all the same as accepting it. This is certainly sufficient for "has not found acceptance among historians of academic dress".

Also, you say we have "two people with relevant credentials" who accept it. But one of those is al-Akiti himself, who can't be used as corroboration for his own theory, and the other is Dalrymple, who's demonstrably incorrect on this point. Anyway, I don't think it's helpful to go down the "credentials" route, because that's getting too close to argument from authority for my liking - I prefer to consider the available sources on their own merits. (Actually, since you bring it up, I've got at least as good a claim to authority as Dalrymple and al-Akiti here, because I've written a peer-refereed, published journal article on the history of academic dress, and have helped edit a book on the subject. But that's not relevant, because we're not doing arguments from authority.) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On the key points: a) "The claim that "al-Akiti has provided no concrete evidence" is trivially verified by checking the Emel article". The Email article can be used to verify that the Emel article doesn't mention evidence. But it's not a transcript - it's quite short, practically a blurb. It doesn't mean al-Akiti has not discussed the point elsewhere. He's apparently known to have this view (as indicated by the various blogs you refer to). b) I think most people would understand "has not found acceptance" to mean "has been rejected". That's not the same thing as "not mentioned". The idea is generally associated with Islamic studies, where it seems to be mentioned quite a bit, and the IHT/NYT column [5] shows the idea in journalism. The ICRD repeats it too [6] (also attributed to Makdisi). Whether or not the idea is incorrect or unlikely, it's part of the discourse about mortarboards, the subject of this article. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The ICRD repeats the claim because they've copied it verbatim from Dalrymple's article (they cite it as the source for that segment), which we've already established is incorrect in citing Makdisi's book, so that's irrelevant. You say "the IHT/NYT column shows the idea in journalism", but that doesn't matter - lots of ideas turn up in journalism but have no place in a factual encyclopaedia, and the policy WP:RS supports this.

I'm not disputing that al-Akiti is known to have this view, I just haven't seen even the slightest indication that he's ever provided any proper historical evidence for his claim - the only thing any of us have been able to find is that brief segment on Youtube where he draws somewhat clumsy parallels between a ceremony of placing the Koran on a student's head, and the shape of the mortarboard. A Google Scholar search turns up no publications by al-Akiti which appear to relate to this matter. What would you accept as proof of this lack of evidence? I also disagree that "has not found acceptance" is synonymous with "has been actively rejected", but what would be your preferred phrasing?

I'd rather this hypothesis were just excised from the article entirely, to be honest - it's a fringe idea with, as far as we can tell, one proponent who's provided no supporting evidence that anyone can find, and one who only mentions it tangentially (and is demonstrably mistaken in doing so). Earlier on, you asked me why I was so desperate to suppress this idea, so let me ask you the dual question: why are you so adamant that it be included? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the original removal was for "failed verification", when it was in that source, and the article here was already phrased in a weak way so as not to present it as fact. The WP:RS guideline includes a guideline about including even non-expert editorial pieces, so it's not like they're ruled out. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Has all this come about because of my deployment of the {{failed verification}} tag, when I should have used {{dubious}}? Is this whole argument about Wikipedia procedure, rather than real-world fact? If so I apologise (I mean it!). --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I certainly consider this hypothesis to be {{dubious}} in the extreme, but I'm also unconvinced by the validity of any of the sources that have been presented so far - certainly Dalrymple's article (and the various other articles deriving from it) has failed verification as far as I'm concerned. I personally think the hypothesis is highly suspect, and until we can find a concrete reference to a valid source, it should be left out of the article. It's clearly true that al-Akiti has proposed this idea, but nobody has so far managed to find any reference where he provides any actual evidence for it, so until then it's just one person's apparently unfounded opinion. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You may consider the idea dubious, but that Powers said it in the IHT/NYT editorial is not dubious, and it's not like it's only in one source from one person. This was a sentence in this article; it's a minor mention, not over-weighting the article. If someone didn't like the already very weak phrasing, the solution is to rephrase it, not remove it. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Powers article isn't acceptable - it's an opinion piece which only mentions this issue very tangentially, and it's clear he got the idea from the Dalrymple article (the phrasing of that segment is almost identical) and we know Dalrymple was incorrect. All we have left is the Emel article which very briefly paraphrases al-Akiti. What I want to avoid is the possibility of someone reading this article and coming away with the idea that "mortarboards originated in mediaeval Islamic madrassas" is either a well-sourced historical fact or a respected mainstream theory - when in fact it's neither. I'd far rather it were excised from the article completely, but in the interests of compromise I proposed a wording that made the standing of this hypothesis clear, and you vetoed it. So let's hear your suggestion. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nicholas Jackson: (Feel free to ping others involved in the discussion who are still active in Wikipedia.) The issue of the possibly Islamic origin of the academic cap + tassle has come up on social media, apparently sourced to baytalfann, which mentions Islam in Europe by Jack Goody, a Cambridge social anthropologist who, per Wikipedia, died in 2015 and wrote that book in 2004. So he can't be emailed to ask about his source, but in principle he might have given sources in his book. In the discussion over at Academic dress, a one-edit-only user referred to Goody with a quote, but no source. If you have access to Islam in Europe, it's probably worth checking: was it a throwaway comment that he thought was already well established and didn't need a source, or did he find evidence himself? Boud (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Square, Trencher, Corner-cap???

"It is also often termed a square, trencher, or corner-cap in the UK and Australia..."

Hmm. In Australia, possibly. However, I'm English and middle-aged (therefore not too young to have come across archaic idiom), and I've never, ever heard any of these alternatives to 'mortarboard' before. Please could someone add a citation for this odd assertion? Blitterbug (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've Lived in Britain all my life and I've only ever heard it refered to as a mortarboard or cap (as in cap and gown).--81.132.169.212 (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Aussie here and never heard these terms (Melbourne) --121.219.58.245 (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd stretch to "often", but those terms certainly have been (and sometimes still are) used at various times. I'll add some references to the article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

High School in Canada

The usual black mortarboard cap, tassel, and gown are part of the high schol grad ceremony in Canada, too, a fact that should be included. You can look at any pix in Canadian high school yearbooks and newspapers. I should know since I'm Canadian. The Stacy DeSousa picture is more obvious proof.--76.69.192.232 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Function?

Most odd dress-items have some earlier 'function' (think: lapels, tricornes). These caps are always worn with hoods, even if the hoods are not nowadays raised. So might a mortier originally have been a (hidden) framework to allow a French magistrate to look around, even though his hood was up to prevent draughts? The hood might slip off, with too much shaking of the head - how about a cord (or ribbons) on top to secure the cap to the hood? Pure speculation, and thus unworthy of this forum. 81.157.12.38 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Faculty Tassels

There should be a section on the color of tassels worn by faculty at the graduation ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.102.172 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Patent

Thanks to all the patient editors for fixing my over-enthusiastic vandalism repairs. Original, vandalised version was here, fixed in this edit, but I hadn't noticed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Personalized doctoral cap

Is any citation at the end of the section really needed? The tradition of self-made caps is spread among academics and well-known. There is, however, no "do it yourself"-manual or any to refer to. Many groups post photos of caps on their webpages, but citing (all of) them - I believe - would not benefit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.91.163.157 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A citation would be preferable, I think, but just one decent reference from an appropriate source should do. In addition to backing up the statement, it would be useful for someone wanting to find out more. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to find something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.91.163.157 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Origins - huh?

Currently there is one paragraph stating some yanks patented the mortar board in the fifties. What they actually patented was a method of manufacture not the design. This section currently gives the impression that the square academic cap dates back only half century. This clearly ignores its origins from the Toque? The current design represents the flattened medieval toque, and one that is similar to those still worn by the judges in France and Germany and other European countries. In that respects, it is a flattened chef's hat, made stiff with a board inside it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.4.172 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This was removed by User:Gimmetoo, because he/she couldn't provide references for his/her own version of the origin of the item. Looks like WP:POINT, to me, but by that time I was too warn down to argue. More here and more, much more, at #Madrassas?, above.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Have things quietened down enough to restore User:Gimmetoo's deletion? I'm giving it a try. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Much is quoted verbatim from https://www.graduationgowns.co.uk/collections/caps-and-mortarboards, raising an NPOV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Diagonal of square academic cap of side 1 is irrational

It is interesting that the academic cap is a square. If we take the side to be of 1 unit length, then the diagonal is irrational, i.e. √2, to the dismay of the Pythagoreans. I like to think of the squareness of the cap as suggesting that rational thinking may lead to the discovery that not everything is rational, or that rational thinking is not always complete:

• Not all points of the continuum are rational (most points of the continuum are irrational) (the rationals numbers are incomplete);
• Not all real numbers are definable (most real numbers are undefinable);
• Not all real numbers are computable (most real numbers are uncomputable);
• Not all truths in number theory are provable (most truths in number theory are undecidable) (incompleteness of the axioms and inference rules of number theory);
• ...

— Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} 00:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No mortarboards at Newcastle University

The story behind no caps at Newcastle, according to the university itself, is due to celebrating graduates chucking their caps into the Tyne when it became an independent uni in 1963 I've never heard it down to the admission of women to the uni, indeed women were admitted way before 1963

Thus, I believe Newcastle should be removed from that small group listed. 82.33.170.54 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Why don't men wear them in Ireland?

In Ireland, when I was at my graduation, they didn't give me one telling me only women wear them if they want. Why is this, please someone tell me and is it just in Ireland? Ireland, having abandoned its culture long ago, normally slavishly copies everything in England, so is this the same in England/the UK? I've looked online and found no explanation and only some forum posts from Irish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.46.72 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect they've got too much common sense, with the additional element of the Church blocking anything that even touches on their privileges! It's also likely that the early Republic would have abjured anything English at the time this appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Burgon Society

Given my peers in the University of London have formed a study group https://www.burgon.org.uk/about-us/history-of-the-burgon-society/ and that the individuals behind change are influential in it, might it not be too much to suggest some liaison with them might be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Military practice

Given the UK military were extremely influential in academia 1914-1968, it might be worth mentioning a standard practice, that Officers remove headgear, weapons, belts and similar harness on entering the Mess, with the sole exception of the Duty Officer, who can be identified by his full uniform: he's ready instantly. This may be a glorious red herring, but it sheds a light on the indoors-outdoors reference. Female officers also respect this need, so an Other Ranks necessarily incurring into the Mess can rapidly extract the right guy to handle any crisis, however, before the days of egalitarianism, the ladies were free to do as they would, on such occasions as they were invited in (and the Colonel's and Adjutant's were in any case unofficially part of the welfare system, so were part of the family). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Antiquity refutes it

Two academic institutions have uniforms dating from Tudor times or earlier, Christ's Hospital School and Cambridge University. Neither incorporate the mortar board. I cite these as they predate speculative freemasonry, as well as the US. The argument that it may have roots in American speculative masonry's possible, given the presence of the other tools, trowel, square and level, in their rituals, but contradicted by the RC Patent, unless it was an attempt at interdiction of the symbolism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

clerics?

The article lacks explanation why the mortarboard appeared in academic environments in the first place. I speculate that it was a mediaeval borrowing from the Catholic clergy and related to academics all being clerics. Theology being a necessary precursory step for graduation. BUT I do not know if this religious-scholarly link is right. Also this would go back how far? To which universities or disciplines? Or even degree? Particular religious tradition - catholic or protestant?

This would also explain the wearing or not in doors as related to practices in religion - Christianity / churches. As there are university ordinances on this matter there should be sources. I think it should be linked with graduation caps as found in Scandinavia and also places that have no dress e.g. Austria - as it is a republic all references to court dress were removed. Ireland - is this due to some religious reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.26 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)