Talk:Sciences Po

Sciences Po: a university?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Former discussion

The mention of Sciences Po as a university is absolutely inaccurate. And comparing SP to Ivy League universities is even more nonsense.

Source: p. 2 : "Sciences Po is not a university."

The article on Grandes Écoles repeats several times: Grandes écoles is a parrallel system from universities.

Some say it’s a university but it’s a confusion with higher education. On the article on universities, you see that academic freedom is the core aspect of universities. And indeed, in France, academic freedom of universty professors is procected by the constitution. However, the professors at Sciences Po don’t have at all the status of "professeur des universités", and thus have no constitutional academic freedom. They don’t even have a legal academic freedom, like university associate professors, they have no legal academic freedom because they are not university professors, because SP is not at all a university.

The web definition given is etheir wrong, or unprecise, or at least not good for France. Let me remind you that SP gives no state bachelor, master or doctorate, but only Sciences Po ones. There is no university giving state diplomas here.

You have here the official list of the higher education institutions : SP is not among the universities.

Moreover, you can look at the official report on SP: it deals several times of its relationships with "the French universities", and states for example "autres établissements d’enseignement supérieur, et notamment les université" ("other higher education institutions, notably the universities"), p. III.

When some people speak of a university, it’s to be simple for people who don’t know the French system, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has to be accurate.

--Launebee (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

A few things:

1. If you don't "like" the dictionary definition which I provided, could you point us to another definition of what a University is which would disqualify Sciences Po in this respect?

2. This is a primary source, and the text is from an undergrad who went in a one-year exchange program with Sciences Po. It should not be given a large weight in this argument.

3. It is true that Sciences Po funds additional professorships through its own budget ("FNSP professors"), and does not only hire through the centralized French system ("PU professors"). Here is the example of the econ dept faculty, which is the one which has the highest proportion of FNSP professors. We can see that they also have many traditional "PU" professors. Either way, full professors enjoy the same level of academic freedom, irrespective of how their salary is funded.

4. Sciences Po does award bachelor, masters and PhD degrees. Those are, of course, all recognized by the French State.

5. If you search for "Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris" in your above list, you'll see that Sciences Po is actually featured there. SalimJah (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1 Here, it’s wikipedia, not wikictionary. You can see the articles on university and on Grandes écoles and they are clear: it’s different.

2 SP has some university professors (PU), but because they were before in universities, and usually have the agrégation, which is a exam in universities. You give actually one more proof that it’s different, because they are "University Professors) and Fondation nationale des sciences politiques professors. And SP gives for example "bachelors" in English in the original text, not "licences". It’s of course officially recognized but has another status, in another part of the Education Code.

3 Yes, in on the webpage, but on the list "Grands établissements", different from the list "Universités". You have the report from an official agency constantly talking about the relationships of SP with other institutions like universities. Just look at the layout of the Education Code:

Livre VII : Les établissements d'enseignement supérieur

Titre Ier : Les établissements publics à caractère scientifique, culturel et professionnel

Chapitre II : Les universités

Chapitre VII : Les grands établissements

It’s simply in different chapters.

You have the whole lists under the name "classification of" higher education institutions. There is the list of universities, without SP, and the list of Grands établissements, with SP.

--Launebee (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

From the above discussion, it appears that your positions do not reflect consensus. When that's the case, I politely and modestly advise that you learn to compromise. The sentence as it stands is accurate: the main feature of Grandes écoles is that, unlike traditional French universities, they are *selective*. This is what matters for our purposes here. If people want to learn about all the complexities of the French higher education / research system, they will follow the link. SalimJah (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point I want to voice my support of SalimJah 's position. For the purpose of this article, it's reasonable and accurate to describe Sciences Po as a "university". In the given context the term "university" should be used in a functional way, not in the strict sense of French administrative law. This method is also used for articles on German "Fachhochschulen", which are also not "universities" under German administrative law. Nonetheless, English articles on Wikipedia describe these institutions as "universities" - and rightfully so! "Fachhochschulen" are functionally "universities" and therefore any other definition in an English article would not bring clarity but reduce it. If readers are interested in highly detailed legal distinctions, they will read the articles on Grands établissements or Fachhochschule. MePhisto (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

SalimJah, wikipedia is a place of knowledge, not of average publicity. The consensus rule does not mean we have to "compromise" between biased opinions but to find together the truth.

Yes, let the reader decide if Grandes Écoles are universities or not. Perhaps the "Fachhochschulen" page needs to be changed then, but I don’t know the matter enough to do it myself.

--Launebee (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Should the mention of Sciences Po as a "university" be removed? Launebee (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, for the following reasons:

1) There are sources stating that they are not universities.

a) "Sciences Po which, as it is not a university"

b) p. 2 : "Sciences Po is not a university."

Some newspapers are dealing with "SP University", but here, it’s an encyclopedia, we have to be accurate, and not simplify for those who don’t know the French system, to the extent of making false statement like these journalists are. This is also because SP presents itself as a university (it’s why it names its diplomas "bachelor", "master" and PhD too), but it’s only advertisement.

2) All official sources are dealings with SP as an entity separated from universities, ie:

a) Report of the official agency rating higher education institutions: it deals several times of its relationships with "the French universities", and states for example "autres établissements d’enseignement supérieur, et notamment les université" ("other higher education institutions, notably the universities"), p. III.

b) The Education Code, creating universities and Grands établissements in different chapters:

Livre VII : Les établissements d'enseignement supérieur

Titre Ier : Les établissements publics à caractère scientifique, culturel et professionnel

Chapitre II : Les universités

Chapitre VII : Les grands établissements

c) The official list under the name "classification of" higher education institutions. There is the list of universities, without SP, and the list of Grands établissements, with SP.

3) SP has no specific thing that only universities have.

a) their professors are not university professors thus have constitutionally protected freedom (Constitutional Council, Decision only concerning university professors) nor even legally p. 2 Official commentary of another decision saying "enseignants-chercheurs, – professeurs d’université et maîtres de conférences", only from universities then.

b) they don’t deliver any state degree. They "bachelor", "master" and PhD are in English in the original version. It’s not for example state bachelor "licence" but SP "bachelor".

A newspaper studying it says clearly "diplôme créant une sortie d'études à bac+3... sans pour autant rechercher le grade de licence" ("degree after 3-years studies, but without the bachelor degree") or that the "bachelor" (original) of SP is "non reconnu en France" (not recognised in France).

SP says itself "diploma of bachelor level" or "of masters level", but not actual bachelor or master.

4) The users against this change only focus on SP. If we really want to say that Grandes écoles are universities, we should let the SP page alone and discuss this on the Grandes Écoles talk page. But personally, I think we should clearly state "Grandes écoles are not universities but parallel institutions".

5) At least, we should consider that there is a doubt, and let the reader decide if "Grandes Écoles" (or "Grands établissements") are universities or not. For now, the dedicate page clearly says that it’s a parallel system, and it’s simply the truth.

Launebee (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• oppose -- This discussion seems like a tempest in a teapot over a naming question. Yes, schools like École Polytechnique and the École Normale supérieure are generally listed as universities in international comparisons (cf. here), despite their parallel status as Grandes Écoles (meaning -- most importantly -- that they have a "concours d'entrée" (and that teachers are detached from Éducation Nationale and pay separate retirement funds). Following the good example at École Polytechnique, it seems to me that first mention should be of an institution of higher learning and subsequent references can use the internationally accepted "approximation" university. SashiRolls (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To me, there is no place for "approximation", as you say, in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia needs true statements, not approximations

Moreover, the École Polytechnique page is an advertisement page, not a encyclopedia page. I just deleted in the lede the POV "A small and very elitist university" --Launebee (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, but institution-of-higher-learning-but-not-an-université is rather unwieldy. "University" is a nice approximation of "université" that abstracts away from the French Education Department's definitions for this particular institution-of-higher-learning-but-not-an-université.SashiRolls (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• oppose, for the 5 reasons stated in response to Launebee's question at the beginning of this thread. SalimJah (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. (pinged by bot) According to this statement, Sciences Po is a member of Sorbonne Paris Cité, which means that it is not a University by itself. So, a correct description would be something like it is a higher-education institution affiliated to the Sorbonne Paris Cité. On the other hand, for international comparison purposes, it is treated as if it is a University, which should also be mentioned. (The situation may not be unlike Imperial College London and others, which were affiliated to the University of London till 2006.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC) It appears equivalent to a "University" in international terms. However, it should be clarified that it belongs to the parallel University system in the French set-up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3. But may I point out that you're misreading the source: Sorbonne Paris Cité is a "community of universities". SalimJah (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

But the USPC web site calls it a "higher education institution". University web sites are "marketing" material. You can't take them at face value.

• Sciences Po became part of the University of Paris after the World War II [1]. But it retained its "independence" [2].
• It started offering degrees in 1999 [3].
• It joined the USPC in 2010 [4].

My guess is that Sciences Po calls itself a "University" in the sense that it decides its own curricula, but it probably has no degree-granting powers. The degrees come from the University it is part of. If we can find an authentic source that tells us that Sciences Po grants its own degrees, there woule be no problem calling it a University on our page. I couldn't find such a source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I would refer you to the above discussion. You're right: in French legal terms, Sciences Po is a Grand Etablissement, not a university. Technically, however, it has all the defining features of a university. It notably awards bachelor, masters and PhD degrees in its own name. Describing it as a university is therefore accurate, just like describing MIT or ETH Zurich as universities is. We do need to refer to the legal French term of Grand Etablissement in the lead too, however, so that people can dive into the complexities of the French higher education system if they so wish. :) SalimJah (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 is right. They don’t deliver actual bachelors, etc. See my point 2 b (and other times I explained it above too). And yes, if the reader wants to know more he can, but the article should not have a false assertion. --Launebee (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: I think we are talking about different things. I concluded, from its former affiliation with the University of Paris, that Sciences Po was like what we call a "College" in the English-speaking countries. But it appears now that they now offer and grant an alternative form of degrees. You are saying that they are not "actual" degrees. I will start a new section below to discuss the issue of degrees. That seems to be the crux of the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sciences Po has never been affiliated to the University of Paris;). --Launebee (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONTERM. As I have always understood it, universities are institutions that create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge. Sciences Po (a) creates knowledge as evidenced by the claim (which I don't have a reason to doubt) by Sciences Po that its faculty authored 300 scholarly journal articles last year. It (b) preserves knowledge as evidenced by a library with close to a million volumes. It (c) disseminates knowledge by virtue of the fact it is an instructional and degree-granting institution. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONTERM doesn't apply. This is for naming articles only and not the yse of language in an article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment' This is a matter for the sources. If the sources say it's a university keep it and if they do not then remove it. Alot of the arguments I'm reading are original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons already stated above. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

First round

SalimJah has stated above that Sciences Po offers an alternative form of degrees. Launebee has stated that they are not "actual" degrees. Can both of you pleease explain your positions, preferably with reliable sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sure! Please have a look here. If we want a source that's unrelated to Sciences Po (so that we can definitely rule out the possibility that they deceive people as to the fact that they grant bachelors, masters and PhDs! :P), we can refer to Campus France, an agency under the aegis of the French Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Higher Education, whose purpose is to promote international students exchanges in France and help them navigate the French system. Here is how they officially describe Sciences Po. Yes, I know what you think. "Forks and fire for that?! Really??" So can we move on eventually? :) SalimJah (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• SP delivers degrees, but these degrees are not actual bachelors, masters and doctorate, but more private schools certificates. They "bachelor", "master" and PhD are in English in the original version. It’s not for example state bachelor "licence" (ie "bachelor in French") but SP "bachelor". SP says itself "diploma of bachelor level" or "of masters level", but not actual bachelor or master.

A newspaper studying it says clearly "diplôme créant une sortie d'études à bac+3... sans pour autant rechercher le grade de licence" ("degree after 3-years studies, but without the bachelor degree") or that the "bachelor" (original) of SP is "non reconnu en France" (not recognised in France).

There are other consequences attached to the fact it is not a university, ie these degrees don't give access to national exams like the aggregation. "Sciences Po which, as it is not a university, cannot offer the aggrégation"

--Launebee (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Second round

Ok, questions for both of you.

SalimJah, Launebee says that the Sciences Po degrees are not recognised in France, citing a newspaper article. Do you agree?

Launebee, you call them "private schools certificates" (without a source). However, Campus France describes them as "degrees", measuring them against the European standard ECTS system. What is your objection to calling them degrees, albeit as degrees that are not recognised in France? Can you explain what the Sciences Po qualifications enable the candidates to do, and what they don't? We can make a list of all the differences between the two forms of degrees. (If these are already listed at some other Wikipedia page, you can point me there, instead of repeating it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I said "more private schools certificates", but yes, you can call it degrees. The general rule is that they allow nothing, unless specifically stated otherwise in the Law for specific things, whereas universities don’t need specific provisions. Sciences Po degrees has a reputation, so peeple are going there to have a job afterwards after having been in a well‑known institution, it is just it is not a university, this is not an insult but just a fact.--Launebee (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I provided an official government source in English which is crystal clear on the issue. But to answer your question: people who study at Sciences Po do get the same ECTS credits each year as they would in any traditional French university. No difference there. In addition, Sciences Po grants its own diploma to people who (i) succeed in the competitive entry examination and (ii) go as far as to complete their Masters degree at Sciences Po. So people who graduate from Sciences Po get (i) a traditional university Masters degree (delivered by Sciences Po itself) and (ii) the Sciences Po diploma. To be very precise: institutionally it is the case that *all* Sciences Po students who succeed in the competitive exam are currently destined to complete a Masters degree. So even if students after 3-years have the ECTS equivalent of a traditional university 'licence', Sciences Po does not deliver licence degrees in the traditional university sense. Still, they've got the same ECTS credits. The whole internal debate right now relates to whether they actually want to grant two different Sciences Po diplomas: one after three years of study (i.e., at the license level), the other after 5 years of study (i.e., at the Masters level). The goal of the operation is precisely to emulate the American Bachelor/Masters system, so as to increase the international visibility and attractivity of the institution. The question of whether they'll seek the right to also grant a traditional university licence after 3 years remains open, but Launebee's newspaper article says they probably won't, since the strategy is mostly aiming at attracting international students who only wish to complete their undergrad at Sciences Po, and at allowing Sciences Po undergrads to pursue graduate studies abroad. Those might be interesting points, but hopefully you can now see that they have *nothing* to do with whether Sciences Po can be called a university or not. Clever strategy to hold everybody back, and exhaust people until they eventually give up arguing... Look above: no editor who has contributed to those talk page discussions since the edit war voiced support for Launebee's positions. Still, by dragging us into those kind of "guerrilla warfare" arguments, he has successfully prevented people from making progress on more substantive issues for several months. After the edit war, we restarted the discussion in late September around 6 preliminary points. This one was the easiest of all, and we're still stuck on it. In the meantime the article sucks, and that's what the world actually sees... SalimJah (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Summarising

It looks like we have converged to some extent. The 5 year Master's degrees seem similar to the "traditional" degrees. Launebee has said that he has no objection to calling them "degrees". The 3-year 'Bachelor' degrees are different from the traditional degrees. He probably prefers to call them "certificates", but we have Campus France calling them "degrees". So that is reliably sourced.

The three-year Bachelor degree holders probably cannot enter a traditional French University for Master's, but they can get jobs or go abroad.

Do you agree with this summary so far? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Three-year Bachelors degree holders from Sciences Po *can* enter traditional French universities for Master's. They have the ECTS credits to do so, which is what ultimately matters. The difference is that traditional universities are specialized even at the Bachelor level. You get a university Bachelor in, e.g., History, or Economics. Sciences Po Bachelors are multidisciplinar, so that students can ask for the recognition of their equivalent level of study from a traditional university in most Social Sciences (e.g., History, Law, Economics, Political Science). SalimJah (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, Kautilya3. --Launebee (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Third round

Thank you both for your participation so far. We have managed to agree on something! Now comes the hard part. In English-speaking countries, any higher education institution that grants its own degrees is essentially a "University". I say "essentially", because there is also an expectation that a University has to teach "all" subjects in some sense. So specialised institutions, e.g., polytechnic universities call themselves "institutes", prominent examples being MIT and Cal Tech in the US. But other countries have them too, Japan, Korea and India. The Indian government has established a special category of "deemed universities" to accommodate them. It seems to me that Sciences Po, an "Institute of Political Science" is a specialised iniversity of this kind. It is a higher education institution that grants its own degrees in a specialised discipline.

Now, from the French point of view, that may not be all there is to it. There might be other requirements that a French University has to satisfy that Sciences Po doesn't. But, from an international point of view, I think it is undeniably a specialised university. I think WP:NPOV requires us to state both the points of view, viz., that it is a university from an international standpoint but it is not officially a university by the French criteria.

Can I have your comments on this position? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems fair to me. But wouldn’t it be better to put this in the Grandes Écoles article then, and to say SP is a Grande École with the link? --Launebee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think that this is precisely what we achieved with this edit, so that as it currently stands, the first sentence of the article is informative to an English-speaking audience, remains precise, and has the links required to learn more about Grandes Ecoles and their status within the French higher education and research system. SalimJah (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Concluding

@SalimJah and Launebee: Sorry that this discussion slipped my mind as I got busy with other stuff. It looks we are all agreed that the description of "University" can stay. Launebee, perhaps you can edit your own vote above to reflect the conclusions reached here. Then one of you can request the closure of the RfC and, following that, request the protecting admin to unlock the page. If there are any other issues that need discussion, please let me know and I can try and help you reach agreements. Alternatively, you can always file WP:DRN cases. The protecting admin will need confidence that the edit-warring won't recur. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, but -Serialjoepsycho- said that WP:COMMONTERM doesn't apply, so this whole discussion is finally on a false premise. You understand I don’t agree any more ? He says only the sources count, and I gave sources.

The page protection was not related to this specific issue, at least not exclusively.

--Launebee (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

Off-topic conduct discussion
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Good to know: SalimJah has worked with or for SP ("us") and perhaps still is, and that both Salim Jah and MePhisto are single-purpose account. --Launebee (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Launabee, since you have been complaining about "personal attacks" against you (Such as pointing out that you have continuously added positive content to the article on Panthéon-Assas, while deleting positive content on other faculties and adding negative content), I find it confusing that you are trying to discredit other authors. As you said: It's about adding accurate and meaningful content, not who contributed the content. Also, I have created this account because you requested me to do so. Since then the article on Sciences Po has been the only one where I have been contributing. However, it is not the first article I am contributing to and not the last one. Please try to adhere to your own standards. MePhisto (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Also, your critique seems especially bizarre, when considering that on the one hand you refuse to accept content on the offered degrees at Sciences Po (you deem this information to be "unencyclopedical"), while you add just this type of information(!) to the article on Panthéon-Assas (Revision as of 13:34, 30 August 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MePhisto (talk • contribs) +1! This talk page has been growing exponentially as people are bringing facts to your attention that you simply refuse to take into consideration. We stick to those facts, assume good faith, and stay away from personal attacks. On the other hand, you've started an edit war with an IP which resulted in this article being protected and in the newbie leaving the site, accused me of attacking you personally on AN when I was merely trying to restore a positive work dynamic, and put my good faith in question on several occasions without any factual evidence. You also refuse to compromise when a consensus emerges against any of your positions, drawing people into endless arguments until they eventually give up. By doing so, you're preventing any progress ever being made. Worse, you're hurting the wider community as you impose a negative atmosphere. I have nothing against you, nor do I have a personal agenda for myself, but I quietly ask you to reconsider your behavior in this light, so that we could eventually move forward altogether. SalimJah (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC) There is no personal attack here, I did not say you are not having positions in good faith, I just wanted the other users to be aware of this. And single‑purpose account does not mean single‑purpose user. --Launebee (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Moreover, MePhisto, what you are saying is false. I am continously adding positive content on French universities webpage, and, as you know but seem to refuse to acknowledge it, I addded a good ranking of Sciences Po too. It is not a question of positive or negative but of accurate information. --Launebee (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Launabee, you "just wanted other users to be aware of this" – why? Naturally your statement suggested that we weren't editing in good faith, which would discredit our submissions to the article. There's no point arguing around this. Moreover, your conflicting and derogatory statements fall into a larger pattern: As I have pointed out, on the one hand you have been pushing positive sounding content for the article on Panthéon-Assas (Just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panth%C3%A9on-Assas_University&diff=708224550&oldid=708219760), while on the other hand you introduced a "scandals" section for Sciences Po, claimed that Pantheon-Sorbonne "has no campus" and deleted vast amounts of information on degrees and admissions at HEC Paris (These are just a few examples). You say information on degree structures is "unencyclopedical", but insert this kind of information to the article on Assas.. The talk page on Pantheon-Assas shows that you have a history of causing protest to your editing. Please reconsider your approach on Wikipedia. I believe that critical voices like yours are very important for encyclopedias, so that we can have checks and balances. However, critical editing should be done universally and reasonably. MePhisto (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC) May I humbly suggest that 1 hour of research on the Haitian elections in the Francophone press might be a more useful endeavor for Wikipedia than bickering about what "some might have said" are "snooty", big skoolz? ^^ (I hope this isn't a BLP violation, but I don't think schools are people yet.) SashiRolls (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, I totally agree – this whole thing has become ridiculous and is getting out of hand. However, where one user starts adding positive sounding content to the article on one institution and a wave of derogatory content on peer institutions, editors should be alert. And when many of this users deletions are unnecessary and the user contradicts his own standards, there should be protest on Wikipedia. This website shapes public perception. If we like it or not, universities are brands with reputations and biased content can have real consequences (notwithstanding the fact that accuracy on Wikipedia should be an end in itself). MePhisto (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC) I won’t answer to false statements on me biased on my choices of editing, I already told you why it’s simply false, but you still repeat the same things. Yes, I deleted a vandalism on Panthéon‑Assas, but I also added the good rankings of other universities, and of SP (not a university). I rebuilt the University of Lorraine page, the Aix-Marseille was already complete, other pages too. On content, you can say this is getting ridiculous, but meanwhile, I bring sources saying that "Sciences Po which, as it is not a university". --Launebee (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC) As for Pantheon-Sorbonne with no campus, it was a mistake I clearly acknowledged right away. [5]. --Launebee (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Article talk pages are meant for discussing the content of the article, typically based on reliable sources. They are not an appropriate place for discussing editor conduct. As an uninvolved editor, I am collapsing the above discussion, so that it may not distract the participants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit War - Requests for Protection

Unfortunately, Launebee has returned to waging an edit war on this page. It looks like the article will again require edit protection. This is a request to lock the article from further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why should it be protected? You need to explain here why you reverted the edits and perhaps a discussion should take place. Launebee this applies to you as well. Your edit summary was quite inadequate for the scale of the edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It will likely require protection because Launebee is always on here making edits that are not supported by the rest of the editors. This already happened at least once before which was why the article was protected for 6 months. This edit protection just finished, and already she has come back to do so. There has been a lot of discussion about this from the previous edit war in the Talk. Unfortunately he deletes anything people add and then adds bias material to make Sciences Po look bad. See his previous edits from just now for yourself. Nothing new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7B94:E700:45BA:5443:FF6B:F509 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Everyone else can waste their time trying to deal with Launebee, but I will not be on here again to do so because I have already spent time going through this which resulted in the first edit protection. If he wants to keep doing this after the edit protection has ended, I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to protect and improve this article. He can do whatever he wants to this site. I no longer care, but editors, consider yourselves on notice again for this. You can read the above comments for a true prophecy on this (Anon Created Section).

Launebee has a history of self-assertive / confrontational editing that runs against consensus, which was documented both here and on ANI. The community has already used a lot of energy and time trying to deal with this situation. Before implementing further significant changes to the lede, I suggest that Launebee discusses his edits on talk first so that we reach consensus. SalimJah (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3I don’t understand how I am edit warring. I made a lot of changes and ALL was deleted just because it is me. And you can see I improved the lede, and I came back on things other users have changed meanwhile because it is not good publicity for SP.

The only non consensual point I see is the denomination, I think it shouldn’ be called university AT ALL, other think it should be ONLY university, so I took the middle way Kautilya3 proposed : "Now, from the French point of view, that may not be all there is to it. There might be other requirements that a French University has to satisfy that Sciences Po doesn't. But, from an international point of view, I think it is undeniably a specialised university. I think WP:NPOV requires us to state both the points of view, viz., that it is a university from an international standpoint but it is not officially a university by the French criteria."

The article should be protected indeed against users who have been working for SP (and perhaps still are), who changed the lede since the protection has left, and now are "oddly" saying I am edit-waring.

--Launebee (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not say that you edit-warred. I only said that your edit involved a lot of changes, and that you need to explain them here. This is just so the discussion can progress.

I would also like to say to all the involved editors that the article talk pages are meant for content discussion only, not for making comments on the conduct of editors. Any conduct discussion should take place on user talk pages or bulletin boards like ANI. Making conduct comments here only vitiates the atmosphere and makes it that much harder to reach consensus.

To get the discussion going, I will copy below the current lead and Launebee's version of the lead in a box. It seems to me that Launebee needs to explain the rationale for hisher changes, and the other editors need to explain what objections they have. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Kautilya3, thanks for re-explaining me :). You can see I put more explanation in the edit summary. There was a clear advertisement and the text did not correspond with the sources. --Launebee (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You are edit-warring. It is not odd. We already went through this with you. I do not work for Sciences Po, nor have I ever. That is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted Launebee's modifications in the lede. The current wording appropriately reflects the above community consensus, and Launebee did not discuss those controversial edits before implementing them. This is POV pushing, together with newbie bullying, again... @CambridgeBayWeather can you explain why the article has been semi-protected from editing? I don't see any reason why IPs should be banned from the conversation at this stage, especially when the user they disagree with has a documented history of non consensus-based editing. SalimJah (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@SalimJah: please provide your input in the discussion below so that we can work towards consensus. The IPs can also provide their input. Nothing will be accomplished by edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Kautilya3, IPs can still edit this talk page, at least at a technical level. But how long to you expect them to remain engaged? It's now the second time that the article is protected as a result of Launebee's confrontational editing practices. Several newbies out here have forcefully expressed their frustration with Launebee's documented aggressive way of editing -- and left. The issue went all the way up to ANI, and we collectively failed to deal with it at the time. No surprise that it is now coming back. I understand folks' severe disillusion as to how Wikipedia works as Launebee can edit war, exhaust the resources of his contradictors in endless but trivial arguments, and still get his version of the page protected while arguing against consensus. If we are to be an open and inclusive community -- one in which "nobody knows you're a dog" -- then we should be concerned about the messages we send. The above consensus has been very costly to reach. I think it's fair to restore it as the default version for the lede until Launebee can demonstrate that there is the support required to overturn it. Of course, if Launebee ends up being the last man standing/voicing, then I guess we're done. ;) SalimJah (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that it serves no purpose whatsoever to raise conduct issues on this page. So I would encourage to stop wasting time. Unless a good faith discussion takes place here from all the parties, and an effort is made to reach consensus, raising things at ANI or wherever else won't accomplish anything either. Please take it from me, this is how Wikipedia works. There is no other way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your spirit and message. Be there no confusion, I am merely asking that we try and live up to our own standards: treat each voice in here equally, based on the arguments and references it brings to the table, and not on how loud it barks, or for how long. So yes, we should discuss facts and substance, and stay away from personal attacks. But we should also enforce the kind of cooperative attitude which is conducive to folks' participation. Without people, there is no consensus to be reached. SalimJah (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

SalimJah, CambridgeBayWeather has protected the page from "Persistent disruptive editing" from IP adresses, but now you are doing exactly the same reverts. Please stop. --Launebee (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My reverts are self-explanatory. The initial version of the article which you edited massively without building consensus is here. It makes sense to refrain from making substantive edits to the version of the article which is being discussed on talk. Otherwise we won't manage to have a peaceful conversation: we can't work towards consensus while unilaterally editing the article. This is an instance of aggressive editing that does not help us move forward. I will refrain from reverting the article to its previous version again, but I quietly ask you to reconsider your position and self-revert, so as to demonstrate your willingness to talk and compromise. SalimJah (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussing the lead

First paragraph

Original version:

Sciences Po (French pronunciation: [sjɑ̃s po]), or Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: Institut d'études politiques de Paris, French pronunciation: [ɛ̃stity detyd pɔlitik dəpaʁi]), is a Grande École in Paris, France.

References

Then "consensus" on the use of the word "university".

Then SalimJah version:

--Launebee (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Original version:

Sciences Po (French pronunciation: [sjɑ̃s po]), or Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: Institut d'études politiques de Paris, French pronunciation: [ɛ̃s.ti.ty de.tyd pɔ.li.tik də pa.ʁi]) is a selective university (known as a Grande Ecole) located in Paris, France, and is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France.

References

Launebee's version:

Sciences Po (French pronunciation: [sjɑ̃s po]), or Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: Institut d'études politiques de Paris, French pronunciation: [ɛ̃s.ti.ty de.tyd pɔ.li.tik də pa.ʁi]) is a third-level education institution (university according to international standards, Grande Ecole according to French standards) located in Paris, France. The institution is a member of several academic consortia (including the APSIA and the College Board).

Changes I see: (1) selective university replaced by third-level education institution and dual terminology introduced. (2) most prestitious in France deleted and replaced by membership in consortia. Can both sides please state their rationale for their version? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Selective not an official definition, middle way since I think we should not be talking of university at all) 2) the sources don’t say that, and not to be in the first sentence anyway --Launebee (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reponse. Re (1) an RfC has decided the consensus among the community saying that it should indeed be called a University. You must accept it and move on. "Selective univeristy" is also a well-established term that means a univeristy that selects its entrants. SalimJah has been using that term for quite a while to describe Grande Ecoles as opposed to université. I think it is an acceptable term in this context. Re (2) I will await the response from the other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If you see the edit summary, the user (admin?) was giving a point of view, not seeing a consensus. The discussion is here with only one topic users and employees from SP: can we really talk about fair consensus in this case? Because I don’t see at all the problem of giving the two points of view, since in France it is clearly not a university. These users are clearly biased, you can easily see it in the fact they put back in the first sentence "one of the most prestigious", and that even if the sources are not saying that. I’m not saying we can’t all talk, but I don’t see how we can say there is consensus when all these people agree among them (and here are clearly saying false things on me, and reversed all my edits just because it’s me, the person who’s not doing advertisement for SP).

For selective, there is a selection in all French universities: baed on the decision of the universities in masters and doctorate, and based on computer calculation and residence of applicants in bachelor. There is a selection in every French university (not counting the bac, which is thought as a selection), this is not special to SP.

And Salim Jah, who has been employed by SP, is not a reference :).

--Launebee (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po (French pronunciation: [sjɑ̃s po]), or Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: Institut d'études politiques de Paris, French pronunciation: [ɛ̃s.ti.ty de.tyd pɔ.li.tik də pa.ʁi]) is a university (only a Grande Ecole according to French standards) located in Paris, France. The institution is a member of several academic consortia (including the APSIA and the College Board).

For "university", I am abiding to it. Note that the consensus was on calling it a university or not (I still think it shouldn’t even in English), not saying or not that according to French standards it is not. --Launebee (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the change: Point 1) has been decided through the RfC. The term "selective" to describe this unniversity is accurate enough to convey the distinction between traditional universities and grandes écoles in France. It appropriately links back to the Grandes Ecoles page for those who wish to explore the difference in greater details. Regarding point 2), there is no question that Sciences Po is among the most prestigious grandes écoles in France. (I mean, the titles of the references speak for themselves.) This is a relevant fact to mention here. SalimJah (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Next step: For the issue (1) I can add a footnote explaining what is meant by "selective" so that the interpetation is clear, taking the content from the Grandes Ecoles page. Will that satisfy your, Launebee? For (2), we need response your response for the argument that the titles of the sources highlight the prestige of Sciences Po. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the change (to SalimJah version): 1) once again, the former discussion was only on the use of the term "university". No, all French universities are "selective", describe the Grande Écoles as selective universities is just false. If you want to say that they can select themselves the students, you can put it in the article, not in the lede, even less in the first sentence. 2) the partially good reputation mustn’t be in the first sentence and the sources are absolutely not saying " widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France." --Launebee (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As Launebee strongly objects to the use of the word "selective", we could also consider deleting it altogether. Something like: "Sciences Po, or Paris Institute of Political Studies, is a university (known as a Grande Ecole in the French university system) located in Paris, France, and is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France." SalimJah (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

1) I see we reached a consensus on not putting "selective". 2) "widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France" in the first sentence is obviously an advertisement and no source is saying that anyway. --Launebee (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sincerely trying to compromise and reach a common ground here. Regarding point 2), could you please tell us in which sense the titles of the sources do not highlight the prestige of Sciences Po within the French university system? I mean, we could dig out many other supporting facts (alumni list, admission rate, proportion of Sciences Po professors regularly featured in the media, university rankings -- one detailed argument by an IP can be found under point 2 here), but since you added those references yourself... Also, no offense, but could you explain why you're fighting the above statement on this article lead while supporting a strikingly similar statement on this one? SalimJah (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You should read WP:NOR. You are saying the sources are proving something. I disagree, but this is not the point. Your sources are only saying SP is prestigious, but like a lot of French universities and Grandes Écoles, and even that it is never mentioned on their Wikipedia page). It is never written "widely considered as". The edit you gave is only a language thing. If you are talking about the text, the source is clearly stating that PA has an "image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France”" (but the word "prestigious" is not in the PA article anyway). The sources are just not saying something like that. The idea of elite reputation should be in the lede, and it is, but with the strong criticism too, and not in the first sentence of course. --Launebee (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Original version:

Sciences Po is a university focused on the social sciences. Its main campus encircles Boulevard Saint Germain in the 7th arrondissement. Undergraduate students can choose to study in one of its six regional campuses in Reims, Dijon, Le Havre, Nancy, Poitiers or Menton, each focusing on a different cultural and economic area. Sciences Po maintains departments in political science, economics, history, sociology and law, as well as seven graduate schools: the school of Public Affairs, the Paris School of International Affairs, the Law School, the School of Management and Innovation, the Urban School, the Journalism School and the Doctoral School.

References

Launebee version:

Its main campus encircles Boulevard Saint Germain in the 7th arrondissement but there are also regional campuses in Reims, Dijon, Le Havre, Nancy, Poitiers or Menton. Sciences Po maintains departments in political science, economics, history, sociology and law.

References

Just too much internal structure info for the lede. --Launebee (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Sciences Po focuses solely on the social sciences is noteworthy and deserves inclusion in the lede. A quick reference to the graduate schools allows the reader to rapidly understand the areas in which it operates. SalimJah (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Questions: I agree with Launebee that the original version focuses too much on the internal structure. I can reword it. But I am not sure of the significance of the graduate schools. Are they all based at the main campus? The Paris School of International Affairs seems notable enough to have a separate page. It should probably be mentioned here. What about the others? What is the relationship between the "departments" and "graduate schools"? Are they included in one another or are they separate? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Answer: Graduate schools are all based at the main Paris campus. They are separate from the departments at a functional level: the departments conduct research and host the professors and PhD students, while the graduate schools focus on "applied" education / professional training. SalimJah (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I notice that the graduate schools are not covered in the body of the article at present. So, only the briefest mention should be made of them. Once they are covered in the body, they can be summarised in the lead. I will propose a compromise version of the paragraph below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Compromise paragraph below: Please provide your comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po is a university focused on social sciences, with departments devoted to political science, economics, history, sociology and law. It has its main campus encircling Boulevard Saint Germain in the 7th arrondissement, and regional campuses in Reims, Dijon, Le Havre, Nancy, Poitiers or Menton, where undergraduate programmes are offered. It has seven graduate schools for applied professional education including the Paris School of International Affairs.

References

I disagree with the Boulevard Saint-Germain, the main campus is Rue Saint Guillaume, it is even a synonym for SP (example [6]), but I am ok with the rest. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, old issue coming back (see point 1)b) here)... The map is crystal clear. Rue Saint Guillaume is the historical location, where Sciences Po first settled. I still assume good faith in all of your arguments -- providing detailed answers and references when asked, compromising when relevant -- and keep your repeated attempts at putting mine in question aside, but there are limits to what I can reasonably do in the face of your refusal to see the facts. SalimJah (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, old issue not resolved. I don’t why once again you are implying my bad faith here. It seems because you don’t know how WP works. You are linking to a map from SP website, and you say it is clear. I disagree, we are talking about the main campus here, not the main campuses. But it does not matter because there is the rule WP:NOR if possible. No source is saying SP is principally around Boulevard SG, but so many are calling SP "la rue SG", and here for example two sources which are explicitely saying "27 rue saint Guillaume, le siège de Sciences Po" [7] [8] You can see in the first link that the antisfascist tags (for those who don’t understand, it’s because SP has traditionally been the center of student right-wing extremism, but now it is finished, there is just some minority groups but like in nearly all French universities so I don’t think it should be in the article) were put on the "façade" of SP, rue Saint-Guillaume. --Launebee (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Finesse: Dear both, please keep off conduct-related comments so that we can hope to reach a consensus. It seems to me that the two of you are talking about different things. The map shows various buildings of the campus surrounding Boulevard SG. The sources cited by Launebee say that one building, albeit the main building, is on Rue Saint Guillaume. Either way, the issue isn't particularly important. We are just trying to tell the reader where the campus is. So, the better known place name should be used. So, I would like to finesse this issue and move on to other more important issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources are mentioning rue SG, it is the better known place. --Launebee (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Third & fourth paragraphs

Original version:

Sciences Po is especially known for the multidisciplinarity of its curriculum and in the field of Politics and International Studies, where it was ranked 4th globally by the QS World University Rankings 2016 and 2017. The institution is a member of several academic consortia (including the APSIA and the College Board).

Sciences Po was created in 1872 to improve the training of public servants and politicians in the aftermath of the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

References

Launebee version:

Sciences Po was created as a private institution by Émile Boutmy in 1872 to promote a new class of French politicians in the aftermath of the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

Nowadays, it has the reputation in France of being an elite institution and was ranked 4th globally in Politics and International Studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017.

References

More coherent, and closer to the source for the creation. Citing only the best rank could be seen as advertisement, but I think it is a notable thing so I’m for letting it there. --Launebee (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Sciences Po curriculum is a defining feature of the institution vis-à-vis traditional French universities, see here. This is worth mentioning here. I don't see any major issue with Launebee's proposal to modify the last sentence of the original text: "Sciences Po was created as a private institution by Émile Boutmy in 1872 to promote a new class of French politicians in the aftermath of the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871." SalimJah (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The source you give is an advertisement text from SP. --Launebee (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comments: Launebee's first sentence is good. But it is unfinished. The transformation of the old private institution into a public institution and a Grandes Ecole also needs to be covered. I am not happy with the "Nowadays" tag, which suggests that the elite nature of the institution is a recent phenomenon. From what I remember in the sources, it has always been an elite institution. So, reworking of this sentence is needed. It would also be better to focus on Sciences Po producing elites (who weren't elites by birth). No quibble about the QS ranking, which is factual. Known for multidisciplinarity is not supported by the source, which is WP:SPS. I am also not sure if the membership in consortia is important to be in the lead. Can we work towards a better version of Launebee's version, taking these comments into account? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The elite reputation is very recent. In the past, it was more well-known for its Vichy past and being the center of far right network (Action Nationaliste of Jean-Gilles Malliarakis etc.). This past is the past, but the good reputation is really recent. It is not producing elites (which does not mean anything), but it has indeed partially (not every time, not everywhere) the reputation of an elite institution :). --Launebee (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's only your opinion, andI can't see any reference to back these claims. Just have a look at List of Sciences Po people, and you will see that the "elite-production" is not a recent trend.

The ""well-known for its Vichy past and being the center of far right network"" is a (very bad) joke, right [9]? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening always in a so respectful way. We were talking about reputation, its good reputation is indeed very recent and dates from Descoing rebranding. You give a SP source about its past (saying it is neither black nor white but grey). I read in research books that indeed, there were some resistants in the ELSP, but there was a huge problem of Collaborationism by a lot of people from Sciences Po. You can see it this independant research that the provisory Goverment at the Liberation called SP "foyer de collaboration hitlérienne" ("center of nazi collaboration") and it is why it was nationalized in 1945. Researchs are pretty clear on that fact. --Launebee (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This "very recent" is only your opinion. You can see it the same "independant research" that you have just provided that this school was perceived as an elitist one as early as the 1890's : "une école privée qui s'est arrogée de fait le monopole sur la préparation aux grands concours administratifs" (P.99) "cette école réservée à la grande bourgeoisie" (P.100). You have read this article, so you know that your claim is wrong.

The article only says that the left had tryed for decade to nationalize this schools, and that after the wax the "thesis" used was to accuse it of being "foyer de collaboration hitlérienne". The author of the article only uses the word "thesis". But he descrided it as "les travers n'échappe cependant pas aux travers de la littérature communiste de l'époque, celui de l'amalgame, de l'extrapolation à partir d'indices douteux, voir de contres-vérités hatives". That's how this thesis is described by the author of this article.

This article can clearly be used to expand the History section, but it describes what happened after the war, not during the ward.

And please, keep your sarcasm for yourself, you are only heating up the discussion. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

To have a monopole, and be reserved to rich people does not mean be part of the intellectual elite.

No, it is not at all a "thesis". It is a direct quote from the text nationalizing SP, written by Coignot, resistant, survivor and escapor of nazi prisons, and member of the provisory assembly at the Liberalization. (And anyway, I was talking about reputation, even if it were true, this reputation has been going on up to Descoings rebranding.)

--Launebee (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat who this thesis is described by the author of the article : "les travers n'échappe cependant pas aux travers de la littérature communiste de l'époque, celui de l'amalgame, de l'extrapolation à partir d'indices douteux, voir de contres-vérités hatives". Not a real work, just some pourly written propaganda.

The article also axplains that most of the members of the Provisional Government of the French Republic were Science-Po alumni : "sur les 13 membres du gouvernement provisoires, 8 sont anciens élèves de la rue Saint-Guillaume(...)" (P.101, Note 11).

Once again, what you say about the article is very different from what the article actually says. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I was talking about reputation. The communist party was very strong and listened until recent years.

I don’t think it is respectful for Coignot, resistant, survivor and escapor of nazi prisons, to say his say on the attitude of Sciences Po during WW2 is propaganda.

The quote you make begins with "to reassure themselves, they calculated that". So it means that they trusted the Goverment not to take hard mesures on them for their past. However, it is true the text written by Coignot, member of the provisory assembly at the Liberalization, was not from the Provisory Government, but a official demand to it by the Provisory Assembly (for making SP national and democratic), if I read again the text (p. 101).

--Launebee (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Coignot was a politician, and he had an agenda. He used the deaths, tortures, and rapes of millions to try to reach his political goals (with were set before the war, as the article explains). Repesct him if you want, but please refrain from mentionning it, his beheaviour is out of the topic of this discussion.

Once again, the author of this article explain that this thesis "n'échappe cependant pas aux travers de la littérature communiste de l'époque, celui de l'amalgame, de l'extrapolation à partir d'indices douteux, voir de contres-vérités hatives". Nothing to trust. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Since it is a French source being discussed and there is no agreement on what it says, I recommend that the issue be taken to the French Wikipedia. Let us end this discussion now, and move on to the next one, which is probably going to be more substantive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, "someone" has already been kicked out of the French Wikipedia because of obvious reference falsification. French admins did their jobs. The issue has already been treated there, so it is better to treat it here now. I strongly advice you to ask anyone who can speak French to check what the reference is really saying. There is no need to drag the discussion for months, if a well earned ban can fix the situation once and for all. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is obviously not saying that. I could give you other sourcces, but it seems this discussion is pointless, you are here to fight, not to talk. --Launebee (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"you are here to fight, not to talk" : more than a basic personnal attack, that's just an insult. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Next step: XIIIfromTOKYO, thanks for joining the discussion. Please refrain from personalised and conduct-related remarks so that we can reach consensus sooner.

There is indeed a "Vichy past", but this source makes it clear that it was short-lived and the school did what it had to do to survive under occupation. I don't think it is appropriate to take pot-shots based on this predicament. In any case, these matters are not covered in the body of the article. So they do not have a place in the lead (yet).

I still don't see a source from Launebee that demonstrates that the reputation of Sciences Po is recent. Let us focus on that issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to make do with the Germans, another to actively collaborate. I am not saying at all the situation was an easy situation, but this source is wrong if it suggests otherwise. Anyway, it does not concern the lead. And it is true, I don’t have a source saying it is new. The nowadays can be removed then. I just don’t understand Kautilya3, I thought you were only arbitrating, but here you add something nobody mentioned, so you are more part of the discussion it seems :). --Launebee (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not "arbitrating". It is called "moderation". Since you are discussing a French source which I can't understand (sorry), I went to look for a source in English and found this. I think it is a good source, published by Oxford University Press. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Don’t get me wrong. I said from the beginning that there were resistants in SP too, but there was also a lot of collaborationist (it is difficult to know the exact number, and their motivation of course), and SP had a very bad reputation for this. But anyway, I have no source saying that it lasted until Descoings, so ok. --Launebee (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Final paragraph

Many notable public figures are among its alumni, including most French presidents. It has also been strongly criticized for creating an oligarchy in French society and being at the centre of several scandals.

References

However, it is also strongly criticized for creating an oligarchy of incompetent people in France and has been at the centre of a number of scandals. Many notable public figures are among its alumni, including a lot of French presidents.

References

The critics are not only about the oligarchy thing, but even more the education provided. And no critic for being the centers of scandals, the news are just saying there are a lot of them. --Launebee (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The original version is balanced and neutral in its tone, while conveying the required information. "Strongly criticized for creating an oligarchy of incompetent people in France" is a strong value judgement. Poor / non balanced write-up is also an issue in the existing "controversies and scandals" section, which currently accounts for 1/4 of the body of the article. This issue also needs to be addressed. SalimJah (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

SalimJah, your version simply does not fit the sources. The sources critisize the content of SP education, and say that there are numbers of scandals. Once again WP:NOR. The scandals section is very long simply because there has been a lot of scandals and judicial sentences, and largely covered by the press. --Launebee (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, this is the most difficult part of the lead. MOS:LEAD tells us to cover "prominent controversies" but not violate WP:NPOV. When there is both positive and negative information to be given, we always give the positive first (unless the negative stuff is overwhelming, which I don't think is the case here). So, I tend toward the original version. I think "creating an oligarchy in French society" is fair criticism, even though I see Peter Gumbell saying this for all Grande Ecoles, not just Sciences Po. In fact, ENA seems to be more the target.

I fail to understand the "incompetent" part. The pharsing in the source is: "a machine for perpetuating a brilliant but blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry. This cannot be reduced to just "incompetent". Moreover, the article also elaborates later on the source of incompetence as being "rigid and narrow, favouring abstraction or deep analysis rather than creativity or imagination". So I think Launebee's version overstates the point. The source is saying that they are good at analysis but lacking in imagination. This is some kind of a mismatch of expectations, not incompetence. In fact, incompetence is hard to imagine because these people are also said to be "brilliant".

Let us discuss this first. We can get to "scandals" later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly critisized of incompetence, or at least no real education. The fact is two third of the ENA students come from SP (Paris). SP is a preparation for the ENA, and a lot of books have been written on the blindness of ENA people. But because it is finally from the ENA that they come out, it is true this criticism focus more on ENA than SP. --Launebee (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Here about the absence of proper education : "cet enseignement constitue une imposture intellectuelle" " le contenu de l'enseignement importe peu, on ne dit pas ce qu'on a fait à Sciences Po, mais plutôt : j'ai fait Sciences Po. L'établissement n'est pas l'outil d'un apprentissage, mais une fin en soi." "recettes nauséabondes qui font la noblesse d'Etat. Alors, commençons par supprimer Sciences Po, c'est-à-dire : le privilège légalisé, l'écrémage social et le hold-up financier dont il est le produit."

Basically: SP gives NO education, just a degree which gets you to go in a cast of priviledges, with no actual expertise learned there. It is elitist, but not in the sense that SP alumni are the best ones, but in the sense that because they come from SP, they have the high ranked jobs and receive in the end a lot of public money, even though they have no proper education.

--Launebee (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The author of this opinion column is Nicolas Jounin. He is not a specialist of French higher education. His only notoriety comes from his notorious fight against cops[10][11]. I don't really understand how his opinion could be relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I missed the point about freemasonry.

So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys.

Yes, all of that is somewhere in the article or in the reference, so it must be in the lead. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, could you tell XIIIfromTOKYO that we should be serious here. Otherwise he should be sanctioned. And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The author of the article is an academic, so to be taken more seriously than a journalist, and he’s an alumni from SP, so he talks from research but from experience too. The personal attack, regarding which has nothing to do with his work as sociologist, is disgusting.

Kautilya3, regarding the reputation of SP, there even is a surname a lot of newspaper and blogs from intellectuals or others are talking about and often agree with: "Sciences Pipo" (or "Sciences Pipeau), which could be explained as "fake school" [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

--Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment about sources: As per WP:NEWSORG, opinion columns in newspapers are not reliable sources. If they are from notable individuals, they can be mentioned with WP:In-text attribution, but they cannot be stated as facts. Please make an attempt to give full citations for sources, including author, publisher etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

All the sources collaborate this critic. Le Monde article is talking about the "old debate on 'Sciences Po, Sciences Pipo'". Ok, I changed the content of the article to neutrally state these critics and removed strongly and incompetent, and added things to be closer to these sources.--Launebee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, a student interviewed is using this expression. With a simple google test, the first websites to come are uncyclopedia.wikia.com, egaliteetreconciliation.fr and 18-25 forum of www.jeuxvideo.com both of them notorious alt-right groups. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave 8 sources. Including a Le Monde article talking about "the old debate 'Sciences Po, Sciences Pipeau'". This assimilation to far right is simply ridiculous and does not stick to sources. I can give you far-right links saying the US are in North America, it does not make it a far right idea. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Are they reliable sources, in this case, scholarly sources written by educationists? If not, they have no place in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article, or the lead, is not saying it is a fake school, but that critics say it is. Le Monde, France Inter and the Huffington Post are indeed reliable sources :). --Launebee (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, some personns interviewed said that. It's not an opinion backed by these newspapers. They are not reliable sources.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with XIIIfromTOKYO. Launebee, if you want to stick to this position, you need to work harder. For example, produce quotations and translations from the sources. As I have already said, the opinions of random individuals don't carry any weight. They should either be from scholars/educationists or the assessments of news reporters summarising a widespread feeling. Otherwise, it would be undue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A Le Monde article is saying that there is " the old debate on 'Sciences Po, Sciences Pipo'", so indeed it is assessment of news reporter summarising a widespread feeling and not an opinion. France Inter is making a whole emission to discuss if Sciences Po is Sciences Pipo. --Launebee (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I put more sources, in particular you can see the "Sciences Po for Dummies" with chapter 18 "Common ideas on Sciences Po" and among them "Sciences Pipeau". Of course, they disagree but they clearly say it is a common idea on Sciences Po. [19] --Launebee (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"Sciences Po for Dummies" describes it as a university, and uses this word in all the book. It says a lot about the 1936-1945 era (attacks against the school that started before WWII), and about its elitism. Are you sure that you want to use this book as a reference ?XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, this book is obviously a praise of Sciences Po, but it very clearly acknowlegdes that being in reality "Sciences Pipeau" is one of the main common ideas on SP. --Launebee (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a precie quote and reference saying that is it "one of the main common ideas on SP" ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The source I give has a chapter called "10 common ideas on Sciences Po" and among these only 10 common ideas, there is Sciences Pipeau (even though the author disagree with this idea).

--Launebee (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, SP for Dummies clearly states that SP is not a university (chapter "Une bestiole à deux têtes").

--Launebee (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference doesn't say that it is "one of the main common ideas on SP". Even if it says so, that would be only the author's opinion (some nobodies, with no qualification or authority on the higher education topic).

Again, no Wikipedia:Consensus about it, so it shall be removed. XIIIfromTOKYO

By the way, it clearly describe it as a university (part III : "la grande université du XXIe siècle"), and chapter 11 calling it a university ("chapter 11 : une université en prise avec son temps"). (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The word "main" is not at all in the article. The book uses "university" as a matter of speaking, but it clearly states "it is not a university". --Launebee (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I am afraid there is still more heat than light in this discussin. Let us focus on the "Sciences Pipeau" label. Who coined it? Why did they coin it? What do people mean by it now? Please check good quality sources such as these and state what they say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess all these questions are answered in the paragraph "Reputation and criticism" of the article. Le Monde, France Inter, SP for Dummies, etc. are good quality sources :). In Google Scholar, this article from Descoing is talking about it, saying this nickname "a la vie dure" (it means "it is used a lot in spite of the elapsing of time"). --Launebee (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is on this version:

In the modern day, Sciences Po has a reputation in France of being an elite institution and was ranked 4th globally in Politics and International Studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017. Many notable public figures are among its alumni, including numerous French presidents. However, it is also criticized for creating an oligarchy of blinkered people in France. Critics often nickname the school "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Sciences Pipo") because they consider it is giving a "fake" education. Sciences Po has been at the centre of a number of political and financial scandals.

References

Launebee (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As already said, no consensus for me for Critics often nickname the school "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Sciences Pipo") because they consider it is giving a "fake" education. Sciences Po has been at the centre of a number of political and financial scandals. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France"

clearly, this part should be removed :

""On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being complicit with the "mediacratie". "Almost every French newspaper is run by an almunus of Sciences Po", and most of the journalists in France are alumni from Science Po, so it would give the school "a mediatic cover without equivalent" and permit it to "cultivate a culture of secrecy" about its internal affairs.""

Launebee added this part[20]. It is presented as a common viewpoint, not even as a point of view point. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not at all presented as a common viewpoint: it is clearly among criticism, and it is with quotation marks. If you are talking about the beginning, if you want I give the precision but it was obviously a point of view. --Launebee (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

46/60 references are about "criticism"

I have started to have a look at the number of references that back "criticism" (let's call it that way).

46 out of 60 references are there only to give exemples of critics. I have also read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight, and came to the conclusion that this article was obviously not neutral.

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)