Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation/Archive 8

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

To recap previous discussions on this:

• The Makers of Canada states:

In 1816 an Act was passed providing for the establishment of grammar schools in several counties of the province. At that period St. John and St. Andrews had already grammar schools which had been established under separate Acts, and Fredericton had an academy or college, which was founded by a provincial charter granted by Lieutenant-Governor Carleton in 1800. The counties of St. John, Charlotte and York were therefore excepted from the operation of the general Act for the establishment of grammar schools. This Act, after being amended in 1823, was finally repealed by the Act of 1829, which endowed King's College at Fredericton and made new provisions for the establishment and support of grammar schools throughout the province. King's College at a later period developed into the University of New Brunswick. It had its beginning in the original charter of 1800, already referred to, which established the College of New Brunswick. In the same year the governor and trustees of the College of New Brunswick received a grant, under the great seal of the province, or a considerable tract of land in and near Fredericton for the support of that institution of learning. Until the year 1829, the New Brunswick College was merely a classical school receiving from the legislature annually two hundred and fifty pounds, which was hte same amount then allowed to the St. John Grammar School.

— James Hannay, The Makers of Canada: Wilmot and Tilley (1909), ed. Duncan Campbell Scott, publ. Toronto: Morang & Co. Ltd., pp 85–86. (emphasis added)

• A History of Higher Education in Canada 1663-1960 states:

Fittingly enough, the prince's introduction to Canadian higher education took place at Windsor, Nova Scotia, the seat of the University of King's College, the first institution outside the British Isles in what was to become the British Commonwealth to be granted a university charter.

— Robin S. Harris, A History of Higher Education in Canada 1663-1960 (1976), publ. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 26–27. Thus the entry for Canada lists the University of King's College as the oldest university in Canada, and the College of New Brunswick is not included as it was not a university at that time. Robminchin (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The Makers of Canada uses "merely" to describe lack of funding, not of degree-awarding powers. You should have highlighted this part from p.86:

King's College at a later period developed into the University of New Brunswick. It had its beginning in the original charter of 1800.

As for your source claiming that only the prince knew what he was doing and that only royal charters were legal: according to the same standards then no founding charter of a US university was legal either since Americans were considered rebels. But can we concentrate on what a university charter is (and that both royal and provincial were legal), and stay away from double standards/unreliable references?

But even if you disagree that this reliable verbatim proof suffices (and that a university is defined by powers to award degrees, not by the level of funding), and think that instead the issue is still disputed, we can always have two Canadian entries the same as we have two US entries (goes for many other countries outside North America as well). No reason for double standards/to remove the entire UNB entry. Tinterest (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Makers of Canada to imply that they are using 'merely' to refer to funding; the natural reading is that it is in contrast to its later development into the University of New Brunswick. There is similarly nothing in the text you highlighted that suggests it had university status, or even degree-awarding powers, at the time of its original charter. Nobody disputes that it "later ... developed into the University of New Brunswick", but that is not the question here.

There is also nothing in A History of Higher Education in Canada to suggest that it only considers royal charters valid - it explicitly says "university charter" not "royal charter". It does, in fact, recognise that the College of New Brunswick had received a charter in 1800 (but without describing it as a university charter), saying later in the same chapter that:

The charter under which the University of New Brunswick was operating in 1860 was the third granted to the institution at Fredricton. The first was granted by the Province of New Brunswick to the College of New Brunswick in 1800, but no instruction was offered past secondary level until the 1820s.

— Ibid., p 34.

And also explicitly states earlier that:

The first university charter was not granted until 1802 and the first degree was not awarded until 1807

— Ibid., p 18.

Leaving very little room for a suggestion that the author considers the charter of 1800 to have been a university charter.

If there is actual doubt then we could have two entries, but you have not provided any reliable sources suggesting that there is actual doubt, while we do have reliable sources stating that 1) UNB did not operate as a university until 1829 or, consistent with that, the 1820s; 2) UKC was named "the mother of a university" (the same formula used for Trinity College Dublin) in a royal charter of 1802 (see refs in the article - this does not appear to be disputed); 3) Historians consider UKC to be the oldest university in Canada. Actual doubt does not mean Wikipedia editors coming up with unsupported interpretations of sources to justify their preferred outcome, it means actual, explicit disagreement between equally reliable sources. If you can find an independent scholarly source that explicitly states that UNB is the oldest university in Canada, or that it was a university under its 1800 charter, then there would be good reason to give two entries here, but the onus is on you to produce this. Robminchin (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Another source states:

As colonial economic matters slowly began to improve, the academy at Fredricton finally received its provincial charter as the College of New Brunswick in 1800. As Warner observes, the granting of this charter was not of much practical significance, for "although thus incorporated as a college in 1800, the institution was continued along much the same lines as before—as a high school rather than a college." It would be another twenty years before a course of studies that would lead to the granting of a bachelor's degree would even be initiated.

– Ross Hebb, The Church of England in Loyalist New Brunswick, 1783-1825 (2004), publ. Bloomsbury Academic.

This seems more open to the idea that the charter allowed for the granting of degrees, but again makes it clear that the institution was not in operation as a university-level college until the 1820s

The 'historical sketch' from the UNB calendar at , while not an independent source, says that:

In 1820, Somerville, was formally named president of the College of New Brunswick and, in April 1822, he held the very first college classes in Fredericton.

It also states that:

Before allowing the new Charter to take effect, the College of New Brunswick performed one final, official act, on 21 February 1828, by awarding degrees to its first and last three graduates.

This also supports the idea that the original charter did include degree-awarding powers, but also that it was not until around 1820 that efforts were made to actually establish university-level education. While a few years delay is normal from a charter to starting teaching, the university is normally 'in operation' in this period getting things set-up, but it seems that this was not the case here, so it is hard to say that this was in continuous operation as a university from 1800. I would still like to see a firm statement from an independent source saying that the college had degree awarding powers. However, this does seem to be moving towards justifying having two entries, so it would be good to hear what other editors think. Robminchin (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

To me, 'merely' in "...was merely a classical school receiving from the legislature annually two hundred and fifty pounds..." was used in the context of low funding. Secondly, the Makers of Canada edition you used is 1909, but note this bold text on p.196-197 of the last/autoritative (1911) edition (https://electriccanadian.com/makers/makersofcanada21.pdf):

King’s College (New Brunswick). WT Charter granted by George IV, 1828, 49; endowed by New Brunswick Legislature, 49; controlled by Church of England, 49-50, 51; proposed amendments to charter, 51-56; amendment bill finally passed, 56; becomes University of New Brunswick, 86; originated in College of New Brunswick and chartered, 1800, 86; proposal to convert into agricultural school, 162; cause of its unpopularity, 163, 190; terms of the Act of 1859, 190-191.

The UNB clearly received two charters - the provincial, of 1800, and the royal, of 1828. But most importantly: both charters are regarded as equal in the Makers of Canada (as it does not say "royal university charter" either). I don't see that the royal charter of King's College (Nova Scotia) should be valid and the older provincial charter of the King's College (New Brunswick) invalid. To me, the above (latest edition of the) Makers of Canada remains the final reliable reference in this case; besides, it is arguably the most autoritative secondary source of dates and legislative facts in early Canadian history. Your other reference on the other hand seems biased towards British imperial stance (implying only royal charters are legit) and therefore unreliable.

But most imporantly (as you noticed yourself): yes, the UNB was a university prior to 1829 because it awarded degrees pursuant to the 1800 provincial charter (of course, as no other charter existed prior to 1828): the class of 1822 was awarded their degrees on February 21, 1828: D.H. Smith, S.D.L. Street, and T.R. Wetmore received their Bachelor of Arts (BA) degrees, while King's College (New Brunswick) began working under that name/taking students under the 1828 royal charter only in January of 1829 according to the UNB's own archives.Tinterest (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The 1911 source you cite is the index, not an updated edition, pointing to the same page 86 in volume WT (Wilmot and Tilley) quoted above. It does not add anything new that wasn't in the text already quoted, merely summarises it.

There is still nothing in A History of Higher Education in Canada to imply it regards only royal charters to be valid; indeed, as previously noted, it does recognise that CNB had received a charter. However, it clearly does not interpret this as being a university charter, but rather a charter of incorporation.

I'm continuing to search. This is certainly an interesting case. Robminchin (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I managed to track down the text of the 1800 charter in the archives and special directions of UNB, and it does indeed say that the corporation of the college may "give grant and confer to any Person or Persons by them thought worthy all and any such degree and degrees, Honors, Privileges and Immunities as are usually granted and conferred by any or either of our Universities or Colleges in that part of our Kingdom of Great Britain called England".

It would be much better to have this in a secondary source rather than a primary source. If a secondary source cannot be found, we have to be careful to avoid WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH – "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

I would now lean towards including UNB on the list as the first institution in Canada to be granted a charter allowing it to award degrees, with the text making clear that UKC was the first to be granted the status of a university and that UNB did not actually act on this until the 1820s, but I want to spend more time looking for supporting secondary sources and would still value the opinion of other editors on this. Robminchin (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I found a secondary source in The Judges of New Brunswick and Their Times, p.266, Joseph William Lawrence (1907).

During the administration of Lieut -Governor Carleton, a Provincial Charter, under seal of the Province, dated February 12th, 1800, was granted in the King's name, establishing and incorporating the "Governor and Trustees of the College of New Brunswick," with power to confer degrees in the liberal arts and sciences in the same manner as they are conferred by the universities in England

In the course of finding this, I also found some others that further confirmed the college did not begin operating at university level until the 1820s:

The institution was finally chartered as King's College, New Brunswick, in 1828, and only then assumed the function of a university.

– Disciplined Intelligence: Critical Inquiry and Canadian Thought in the Victorian Era, p. 10, A. B. McKillop (2001), publ. McGill-Queen's University Press.

University level teaching began only in 1821

– Lord of Point Grey: Larry MacKenzie of UBC, p. 88, P. B. Waite (2011), publ. UBC Press.

Originally chartered as the College of New Brunswick in 1800, it functioned until 1826 exclusively as a secondary school but began to grant degrees in 1828 (the second Canadian university to do so) a year after it was rechartered as King's College, Fredericton.

– Commonwealth Universities Yearbook 1977, p. 777, eds. Hugh W. Springer, T. Craig, publ. Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Robminchin (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The value of my previous post is in that it shows degrees were awarded prior to 1829 (when the UNB started enrolling new students under the royal charter of 1828) and to whom, not when they were awarded - which is irrelevant here since the very act of awarding a degree (and bestowing the title that goes with it) is a legal matter pursuant to some legal basis, here the charter of 1800 whose text you found grants the powers to award degrees (in arts and sciences). So we showed beyond reasonable doubt that the UNB legally began as a university (in modern sense) in 1800. Records from those turbulent years are sparse, so the lack of evidence that they awarded degrees between 1800-1820s does not constitute evidence that degrees were not awarded, and relying on sources that make such logical error should be avoided since they cannot be seen as reliable for this purpose, just as our own investigation into what exact year from 1800-1820s would constitute Original Research. I think the above is sufficient to conclude that the UNB has begun as a university in 1800 and list it in the table. For all it's worth, here's what Google AI returned when asked "Are degree records from colonial universities in Canada from the 18th-19th century considered complete?" (To my shock, it was fashionable back then to attend a university just to gain a social status but without intention to ever graduate!):

"Degree records from colonial universities in Canada from the late 18th and early 19th century are generally incomplete and patchy, similar to many other historical records from that era. While some official records exist, the turbulent times, institutional evolution, and occasional disasters mean information is often fragmented. Key factors contributing to the incompleteness: Early Record Keeping: Universities were smaller and record-keeping standards were less rigorous and standardized than today. Physical Loss: Events like the fire that destroyed the original University of King's College in Windsor, Nova Scotia, in 1920 resulted in some records being lost, though many important ones, like Board of Governors minutes and the Royal Charter, survived. Nature of Attendance: Many young men in that era attended some classes or "matriculated" to gain social standing and make connections without necessarily completing a full degree program, which was a less defined concept than it is now. The modern concept of a "drop-out" did not exist, and full four-year degrees were not universal. Focus on Classical Education: The curriculum was primarily focused on classical education (e.g., religion and law), and the number of students was small. The number of graduates was a tiny fraction of the overall population. Record Type: While formal graduation records and enrollment data of "enduring value" were generally kept in perpetuity by the university archives, more ephemeral records like daily attendance might not have been retained. Researchers often rely on a combination of official archives, personal papers, and local historical society records to piece together information about individuals from this period. The records that do exist are often held in university archives and are sometimes available in digital formats. For example, statements and documentation from university archives, such as those at the University of Toronto (King's College) and McGill University, allude to the nature of early records. The University of Toronto archives, for instance, detail existing records like "Letter book, memoranda," and "Minutes," from the 1830s-1850s, implying that the focus of record-keeping was primarily administrative and official, rather than detailed, complete individual student tracking by modern standards."

Tinterest (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don't cite or repeat text from LLMs. They are not at all convincing and lack any authority and credibility. ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

That rule is on AI use in articles, not Talk. But I still vetted it as if for an article, and all claims are correct and easily verifiable.Tinterest (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It was legally a college with degree-awarding powers; there is no indication that it held university title until the 1827 charter made it a "College, with the style and privileges of an University". There is also no indication that it awarded any degrees until 1828 - the university's record that you cite makes it clear that these were the "First and last three graduates of the College of New Brunswick".

There are also multiple sources stating that it did not operate as a university-level institution until the 1820s, so the idea that it awarded degrees but no records have survived does not seem credible in the absence of any evidence that this actually happened.

So we have:

• Legal status as a degree-awarding college (without university title) from 1800
• Operation as a secondary school from 1800 to the 1820s
• Operation as a higher education institution from some point in the 1820s (different authors draw the line in different places, but it is clear that it was in this period)

So, from 1800 to some point in the 1820s, the college was a secondary school that, by its charter, had the power to award degrees but was not actually engaged in any university-level work.

I would also note (in passing, this doesn't change any of the conclusions above) that royal charters normally take effect from the date of sealing, so when the degrees were awarded on 21 February 1828 the charter of 15 December 1827 was probably already in effect. Robminchin (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It usually took months for it to arrive at the destination, but that is besides the point. What matters is that those people for whom record survives were the class of six years prior, when no royal charter was in sight. The point being - the school operated normally as a university for at least six years before 1828 (meaning the operation as a university commenced much earlier than the royal charter - and we have no way of knowing when exactly other than trust the text of the provincial charter of 1800 that you dug out which places it in 1800 sharp). Unless you are suggesting all three were geniuses who squeezed the six years of university carricula into a few months between December 1827-February 1828? So in conclusion: unless your secondary references that place the start of operation as a university in or around 1828 refer explicitly to primary sources for such a bold claim, they are just handwaving/unreliable. On the other hand, we do have the text of the 1800 charter that you found yourself and which defines the school's type as "Universities or Colleges in that part of our Kingdom of Great Britain called England" - but no one knows for sure if it was a university or a college from 1800-1828 unless they can produce a primary source to that effect. The burden of proof is not on those who read the 1800 charter to the letter but on those who seek exceptions from its provisions. Tinterest (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources saying it didn't start running higher education classes until the 1820s. Trying to evaluate their use of primary sources would be WP:OR. There is no conflict between the sources to describe – they all agree that university-level teaching started in the 1820s. Thus, unless other sources are found, the article can not say anything about this other than that university-level teaching started in the 1820s.

There is nothing in the 1800 charter that clearly states in a manner "that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" that it was made a university, and we have a reliable secondary source stating that the first university charter was UKC in 1802. Thus, the article cannot state that it was a university in 1800. There is, again, no dispute between sources on this.

We can state that it had degree-awarding powers under the 1800 charter. This has been verified by a secondary source.

There is no evidence that it awarded degrees prior to 1828. There is a source (not independent, but this does not seem an overly self-serving claim so I think it's okay under WP:ABOUTSELF) saying that these were the first graduates. This we can say that it did not award degrees prior to 1828.

Going further than this would be moving beyond what the sources say and would be WP:OR. Robminchin (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

"A secondary source" is way below Wikipedia standards, which mandate utilizing "reliable secondary sources" = unbiased + founded in facts (primary sources). So far we have only established that your secondary sources (or rather "a source") are/is not founded in facts (instead obfuscating the main primary source: 1800 provincial charter that defined that the College of New Brunswick be of "university or college" type without specifying either of the two). Lack of evidence that degrees were awarded 1800-1828 (which lack is very common for the era for a plethora of reasons - just google it) is not evidence of absence. Therefore, burden of proof is not on those who believe their own eyes (the 1800 charter text), but on those who claim the 1800 charter's authors meant something different from what they wrote in it (or as you would put it: sealed).Tinterest (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). The sources stating that CNB did not operate at a university level prior to the 1820s are the well-regarded (if somewhat old) Makers of Canada, books published by University of Toronto Press, McGill-Queen's University Press, and Bloomsbury Academic, the Commonwealth Universities Association yearbook, and UNB's own calendar. While modern scholarship can sometimes overturn older works, there is no evidence that that has happened here. With the exception of the calendar, these are all independent reliable sources.

The charter did not define CNB as a "university or college". That is your interpretation of a primary source, and is thus WP:OR that cannot be used on Wikipedia.

There is a positive statement from the university itself, in a source you identified, that the degrees awarded in 1828 were the first degrees awarded.

Please also note, the WP:ONUS is always on those seeking to include disputed material. Robminchin (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I never referred to the UNB's self-reference on the three graduates as the "first ones" as reliable (never heard of reliable self-references, as I'm sure you haven't either yet you claim that it is reliable only because it suits your agenda) - its authors also fell for the same logical fallacy as authors of your source(s): that lack of evidence means evidence of absence (cautioned against by your colleague Carl Sagan, so I'm sure you're familiar with that too). To explain why I think you have an agenda here: if you were fair and balanced, you would not have removed the entire UNB entry while leaving the University of Pennsylvania and other "duplicate" entries. This is much more an issue of your double standards than onus.Tinterest (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

As it says in the text above the tables:

In some countries (particularly the US and those influenced by its culture), degree-granting higher education institutions that would normally be called universities are instead called colleges. In this case, both the oldest institution that would normally be regarded as a university and the oldest institution (if different) to actually be called a university are given.

Thus, both Harvard (oldest degree-granting higher education institution) and Penn (oldest institution to be officially called a university) are given. There is a whole Wikipedia article on the First university in the United States.

The complication here, as I said above, is that CNB, according to multiple reliable sources, did not operate as a degree-granting higher education institution (or even a non-degree-granting higher education institution) until the 1820s, so UKC would appear to be both the oldest institution formally named a university and the oldest institution in continuous operation as a degree-granting higher education institution.

That lack of evidence is not evidence of absence is immaterial. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states that "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

Self-published sources can be used as sources about themselves, per WP:ABOUTSELF. And if you didn't think it was a reliable source, why did you cite it above as if it was? Robminchin (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

How does the 1800 charter's text not fall under this criterion from the article page: "To be included in the list, the university must have been founded prior to 1500 in Europe or be the oldest university derived from the medieval European model in a country or region. It must also still be in operation, with institutional continuity retained throughout its history."? The 1800 charter explicitly granted powers to award degrees after the European model two years before the 1802 charter did. Who cares to what extent the right was excercized?! We know from the UNB self-reference that it was, and that's the only thing that matters here per the above criterion for inclusion (as evidence of continuity - but since 1800, not since some arbitrary/nonchartered date like 1828 that you are advocating for as part of your own OR). Tinterest (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The text of the charter is a primary source, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. It also does not say that CNB was a university. We also know from reliable secondary sources that it has only maintained continuity as a higher education institution since the 1820s.

I suggested above that it could possibly be included "as the first institution in Canada to be granted a charter allowing it to award degrees, with the text making clear that UKC was the first to be granted the status of a university and that UNB did not actually act on this until the 1820s". However, you opposed this and no other editor supported it, so we're back to not included it at all as there is no consensus to include anything. Robminchin (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Several cited sources state that the earliest surviving documentation of university-level instruction at Fredericton dates to the 1820s. However, none explicitly state that no such instruction occurred earlier; they rely on incomplete early 19th-century colonial records. Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, editors should not upgrade “earliest documentation” into a categorical claim about absolute beginnings where the sources themselves do not do so. As noted above by Robminchin, a possible compromise is to include UNB "as the first institution in Canada to be granted a charter allowing it to award degrees, with the text making clear that UKC was the first to be granted the status of a university and that UNB did not actually act on this until the 1820s." This accurately reflects the sources and seems neutral to me. This table entry implements this compromise:Tinterest (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources don't say that there is no surviving documentation of earlier university-level instruction, they say that there was no earlier instruction. There is no support in the sources for your idea that there might have been earlier instruction but records have been lost. The idea that it was a "college or university" in 1800 is also entirely unsupported by the sources; it only gained the status of a university with the 1827 charter. Your proposed entry does not implement the compromise proposed, it ignores it. Robminchin (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, it was not renamed the University of New Brunswick until 1859, it was King's College, Fredericton, under the 1827 charter. Robminchin (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

You will be pleased to know that the minute book for the CNB Board of Governors and Trustees survives in the UNB archive, so we don't need to worry about records having gone missing. If there had been any previous degrees or if university-level teaching had been started earlier it would have had to have been recorded here, so the documentation would exist and it would have been mentioned in the sources already cited. As previously noted, they do not say that there is no record of any teaching or earlier degrees, they make positive statements about teaching not starting until the 1820s and the first degrees being awarded in 1828. Robminchin (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an important distinction here between what the cited secondary sources explicitly state and what is being inferred from them: the sources state that university-level instruction and degree conferral are first *documented* in the 1820s and 1828 respectively. They do not state that it is historiographically impossible for earlier instructional activity to have occurred, nor do they assert that the survival of particular administrative records exhaustively captures all instructional activity in the period. The claim that “if it existed it would necessarily have been recorded and cited” is itself an inference not attributed to any secondary source, and therefore cannot be treated as established fact per WP:V.

With respect to institutional status, the proposed wording does not assert that the College of New Brunswick was a university in 1800, only that its 1800 provincial charter empowered it to award degrees under European models. This is distinct from university status conferred by the 1827 royal charter and is consistent with the previously suggested compromise distinguishing degree-granting authority from formal university designation.

Accordingly, the proposed table entry implements the compromise by:

• identifying UNB as the first institution in Canada chartered to award degrees;
• making clear that UKC was the first granted formal university status;
• and stating, without speculation, that surviving documentation places instruction and degrees in the 1820s.

This reflects what the sources say, avoids upgrading inference to fact, and aligns with the article’s stated inclusion criteria.

To move the discussion forward constructively, it would be helpful if editors opposing the below wording proposed an alternative table entry that reflects their interpretation of the sources. At present, objections have focused on rejecting specific formulations, but no concrete alternative entry implementing the suggested compromise has been presented. Wikipedia consensus is built by improving text, not by abstract disagreement. Tinterest (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose including anything at all until you properly address the cogent points made by Robminchin. There's no need to discuss the form of the entry unless and until we agree that one should exist, and so far we don't. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Robminchin’s points are addressed in the proposed wording by distinguishing degree-granting authority from later university operation; if you believe it misrepresents the sources, please suggest alternative text so it can be evaluated.Tinterest (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

If the concern is the length or narrative style of the proposed Note, I’m happy to simplify it to match the terse phrasing used elsewhere in the table. The intent is only to reflect the charter history and the limits of surviving documentation, not to add interpretation. So here is an updated proposal: "Provincially chartered in 1800 as the College of New Brunswick with authority to confer degrees under European models; granted a royal charter in 1827. Earliest surviving documentation of university-level instruction dates to the 1820s."Tinterest (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources do not say "earliest documented", that is your addition, unsupported by any evidence. The sources say things like "University level teaching began only in 1821", "In 1820, Somerville, was formally named president of the College of New Brunswick and, in April 1822, he held the very first college classes in Fredericton", "it functioned until 1826 exclusively as a secondary school but began to grant degrees in 1828", "The institution was finally chartered as King's College, New Brunswick, in 1828, and only then assumed the function of a university", "Until the year 1829, the New Brunswick College was merely a classical school". Different authors draw the line in different places, but nobody suggests that there might have been earlier teaching that had been lost from the documentation. And we also know that documentation from that period isn't lost but is still there in the UNB archive. Your suggestion is contrary to the sources and to common sense. There is no point proceeding with this unless you can show that you willing to accept what the sources say and stop trying to insert your own ideas, which I wouldn't even dignify with the term "original research". Otherwise, you're just wasting our time. Robminchin (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Robminchin, UNB sources, including the Board minutes, document university-level teaching beginning in the 1820s; they do not state that no instruction could have occurred earlier in some form, nor that the minutes are so complete that earlier activity is impossible. Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, absence of evidence cannot be presented as categorical fact. Besides, the Harvard entry already treats founding versus charter versus formal university status separately, so including UNB with its 1800 charter, documented 1820s instruction, and a clarifying Note is fully consistent with Wikipedia precedent and policy. To clarify: Harvard is listed as the oldest degree-granting institution in the U.S. even though it was not formally called a university until later: founded 1636, chartered 1650, university status 1780. By the same logic, UNB’s 1800 provincial charter legally empowered it to grant degrees, though formal university operation appears to have begun in the 1820s. Updating proposed UNB’s Year column from 1800 → 1785 to ensure its predecessor’s founding mirrors Harvard’s treatment, and including a Harvard-entry-styled Note clarifying documented instruction and charter continuity accurately distinguishes first degree-granting authority from formal university status without inserting unsupported claims or original research. The precedent exists; please acknowledge it so we can finalize the UNB table entry collaboratively.Tinterest (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

No, the board minutes go back to 1800 and cover the entire period of CNB's existence, as you would know if you ever looked at any of the evidence. I am tired of your constant, deliberate misrepresention of sources. It is clear we are not converging on a consensus, so it looks like this discussion has no consensus to include anything on UNB. Goodbye. Robminchin (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted. For the record, I have not claimed that the Board minutes are missing; rather, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:V, I am relying on what the cited secondary sources state. Those sources (1) describe the earliest documented university-level instruction in the 1820s and (2) do not explicitly state that earlier instruction is impossible. That distinction is central to WP:V and WP:BURDEN. There remains a substantive disagreement about interpretation of the criteria for inclusion and table contents—specifically, the Harvard precedent regarding founding versus charter versus formal university status, which justifies inclusion of UNB but remains unaddressed. Tinterest (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

There have been repeated selective removals of certain WikiProject banners from this Talk page (most recently WikiProject Canada) during active discussions, on the basis that the article lists universities from many countries. At the same time, broad-scope banners such as WikiProject Europe have been retained, even though the list includes many European universities.

The article is an international list that includes Canadian universities, and there are ongoing discussions above that concern oldest Canadian universities. WikiProject Canada’s Article Alert system—which requires tags to be placed on articles related to that project—is the standard mechanism by which that project is notified of articles and discussions within its scope.

The tag’s removal—particularly when other geographically broad projects are retained—would benefit from explanation here rather than repeated unilateral action. Additional project tagging had previously been encouraged, so clarification on how scope is being assessed would help avoid ongoing reversions and misunderstandings.Tinterest (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Muktiple projects were recently added, some of which were clearly not relevant and so removed. Canada has been re-added, despite the fact that this article is not about Canada and so is not within the scope of that Wikiproject. The second part of this article has universities from every country on the Earth; the idea that this brings it under the scope of every national Wikiproject is absurd. The only geographical tag is for Wikiproject:Europe, which makes sense as the main part of the article is concerned solely with institutions in Europe.

That there is an ongoing discussion relevant to a project does not mean that a page is generally within the scope of that project. As the ongoing RfC has been discussed on the Wikiproject:Canada talk page, the idea that this page needs to be added to that project to ensure notification is false. Robminchin (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:PROJ and WP:ALERTS, articles may be tagged per WP:TAG to alert WikiProject members even if only partially relevant. Policies aren’t absurd—ignoring them is. Tinterest (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

None of those are policies, guidelines, or even explanatory essays. And, as far as I can see, none of them say what you claim they say.

What is an official guideline is: "All editors should avoid tagging an article with a disruptive number of WikiProject banners. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article." (WP:OVERBANNER). Robminchin (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidelines and processes are binding unless overridden by policy; WP:OVERBANNER cautions against excessive tagging and does not prohibit relevant WikiProject alerts during active discussions. No policy or guideline supports interpreting cautions as prohibitions. Tinterest (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You have yet to quote anything that says it is acceptable to add articles that are outside of the scope of a Wikiproject to a Wikiproject. So far, you have only cited information pages that don't say what you claim they say (including some, like WP:TAG, that are on completely different topics). That WP:OVERBANNER only says it is best practice not to add tangentially related projects and doesn't completely forbid it (which is something guidelines don't do) does not mean doing so is acceptable.

The alert system exists to notify projects when RfCs (or other events) happen to pages that are part of the project. This means they should be within the scope of that project; there is no exception given at WP:ALERT for adding an out-of-scope page to a project just to get an alert.

The method recommended at WP:RFC is posting a notice on the talk page of the project, not adding a page to a project that it is not within the scope of. You have already discussed this RfC on the talk page of Wikiproject Canada at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Request for clarification: RfC alert process for University of New Brunswick. Robminchin (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Robminchin is entirely right, and Tinterest might benefit from reading WP:DEADHORSE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The above comment is just a one-time procedural clarification under WP:ONCE. Tinterest (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

First, let me say that this is a rather interesting page. Secondly, I am not going to start a major edit, for obvious reasons. But I would like to make a suggestion. Please permit me to tell you a story, which motivates my suggestion.

A few years ago I read a news brief about some university (which shall remain unnamed) celebrating the fact that it had been founded let us say 250 years ago, but that is not the exact number. Then I happened to be driving past a top university which had a celebration poster about its medical school being founded 50 years ago. I said "we should ask the older univ what they were doing the other 200 years".

I would like to suggest that a column about the current rank of the universities be added. There are a few ranking systems (admittedly at times controversial) and the Wiki pages usually include them. As a reader that would have been of high interest to me here.

Please let the debates begin. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure how that would add to the page. It doesn’t seem relevant to the topic and, given that at least three columns would be needed for a neutral presentation of the important international rankings, would add substantially to the table. Robminchin (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

So, do I take it that you don't like the idea? Just kidding... Anyway, a triple of numbers or links could be added below the univ name, so additional columns could be avoided. But let us keep listening. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Rankings are included at List of medieval universities but that is a much simpler page. They are not "live", and basically come down to an editor's judgment in all the marginal cases. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry I probably did not clarify what I meant by ranking. I searched the page you mentioned and there is only one mention of Times Higher Education in a ref. Times Higher Education World University Rankings is one of the 3. And as you said it would not easily become dynamic. But.... let us see. Thanks for that link but the long notes column makes those pages hard to read. By the way, I just realized who you are. Good to have knowledgeable people like you on Wiki. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want academic rankings then you can find them country by country at pages like Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom. Doing this internationally would be tricky, but College and university rankings gives some pointers. Trying to combine them with age would be a step too far. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

So it looks like you do not like the idea either. And yes, I was thinking of academic ranks. I guess I am so used to multidimensional criteria based data views that I was hoping for something similar. Anyway I just realized that I can not understand these ranks anyway. In the link you provided Bath is higher than UCL! Since when? I have never seen a research paper from Bath and did not even know it had a university. I looked at their computer sceince dept and did not see any hot shots. John McCarthy where are you? So these ranks may not mean much after all. I have always considered the Times ranks accurate but now I wonder if the others mean anything. So maybe we should move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue here is that the UK domestic rankings are heavily teaching/student-oriented - only a small proportion of two of the three (Times, Complete) is attributable to research impact, and none of the third (Guardian). The main international ones are more heavily driven by research. That said, I agree we shouldn't include rankings here, it would get quite confusing to the reader. Andrew Gray (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. And it seems that we are all going to get into a heated agreement soon that we should move on. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)