Talk:Sciences Po

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sciences Po/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Hi, I modified the article today after reading the document quoted in the footnote. I am a French speaker and what this document says is not that the epithet "Sciences Po" is the monopoly of the IEP of Paris and the FNSP. It says: " L'appellation « Sciences Po Paris » recouvre l'ensemble F.N.S.P. et I.E.P. de Paris.", which means in English "the name "Sciences Po Paris" covers both the FNSP and the IEP of Paris". There are IEPs in different parts of France. When someone uses the words "Sciences Po" without mentioning a city people in Paris will first think of Sciences Po Paris, people in Lyon will first think of Sciences Po Lyon, etc... The publications of the FNSP are made under the name "Presses de Sciences Po". But one should bear in mind that although it is based in Paris the FNSP has a national outreach and often publishes books written by professors of various IEPs or universities, not just Parisian ones. "Sciences Po" therefore does not only refer to Paris. Now even students at the university studying political science are starting to say that they study "sciences po" at this or that university.

Substituted at 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a very good point. I'm surprised that this was moved on English Wikipedia given the example set on French Wikipedia. Oh well, at least it didn't get spelt Sciences Peaux. ^^SashiRolls (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

This article has been fully protected so that it can oly be edited by administrators. Contributors wishing to edit its content please follow the instructions at WP:Edit request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 September 2016

In the lede:

1) a) Remove "Collège universitaire" mentionned twice in the lede. Sciences Po is not a university but tries to add "university" everywhere to have people think it is. This is only a misleading advertisement name with no informative value (on the contrary, it is misleading), so it has not its place in an encyclopedia.

b) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain". It’s not at all in this street, not encircles it. Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with "great" things.

The previous paragraph was better: "Its main campus is located rue Saint-Guillaume in the 7th arrondissement. It maintains departments in political science, economics, history, sociology, law, finance, business, communication, social and urban policy, management, and journalism.

2) a) "Sciences Po is ranked 4th in Politics and International Studies by QS 2016 World University Rankings." is more objective than "Sciences Po is ranked 4th in the world for Politics and International Studies in 2016", it’s not a absolute rank but one ranking.

b) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe.", argumentative, the source does not states that.

3) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France."NOTRE HISTOIRE". Sciences Po.". Self‑praising from the School, not neutral and no independant source.

4) Isn’t the gallery too big?

5) Deletion of the first paragraph in History section, already explained in the relevant subsection.

Launebee (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:3. The grammar in this sentence is wrong. I fixed it on 9 September but was reverted with no explanation and now the article is blocked to non-admin users. On the other hand I disagree that there is a neutrality issue as these are the stated goals of the school rather than a claim that they were fulfilled. Mezigue (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Launabees' request Nr. 1) b): Sciences Po does have lecture halls directly on Boulevard Saint-Germain. Also, there are lecture halls on Rue de l'Université and on Rue Saint-Guillaume. Therefore, "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain" is highly accurate and mustn't be changed. 85.179.49.244 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Launabees' request Nr. 1) a): Why is Sciences Po not a university? It has several very distinct faculties. It is a specialist institution and a grande établissement, but how does this disqualify Sciences Po for being a university? 85.179.49.244 (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

1) a) Sciences Po is clearly not a university, sorry.

b) The main adress is on rue Saint-Guillaume, the others are secondary. --Launebee (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am going to respond to Launabee's 5 points, the order she gave them, point-by-point:

1. Launabee is correct, Sciences Po is not a university. French universities must accept anyone with a Bac (high school diploma). Sciences Po is a grand école, which lets it select the students it wants, unlike a "university" in the French system. However, Sciences Po's undergraduate college is called the "Collège universitaire". So, "Collège universitaire" in this article refers to the undergraduate college. (Sciences Po has different schools - the professional schools (for master's programs) and the "Collège universitaire" for bachelors programs. Not very complicated.)

1b. Boulevard Saint-Germain: Here is a link to the campus map (Sciences Po buildings are in red): http://blogs.cie.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SciencesPo-map.jpg

So, the campus does in fact encircle the Boulevard Saint-Germain. Not sure how anyone could argue against that interpretation of the geography of Sciences Po's buildings when viewing the actual map.

Sciences Po used to be located only at 27 Rue Saint Guillaume. However, nowadays, less than half of any students' classes are taught there (it's different for different students - some have all of their classes there, some have none, but for most of us, the majority of our classes are somewhere else). Also, the administrative offices are at another building. Similarly, the law school, international affairs school, journalism school, communications school, and Doctoral School are all in other buildings. I would disagree the building on Saint Guillaume it is the "main" building. There really isn't a main building at Sciences Po, but this is the biggest building and many years ago was the only building.

I wrote the sentence that the "campus encircles Boulevard Saint Germain", not to be associated with something, but because it's the most accurate way of describing the campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.227 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Launabee deleted the phrase its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe because this is "argumentative, the source does not states that."

I am going to address this comment in 2 parts:

(1) "The source does not say that": The Source is: http://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/2016. From this Source, one can view all of the rankings for each of those fields (law, economics, and sociology) with one click. So the Source does provide rankings for these fields. If someone thinks its better to have three separate direct links from the same Source, rather that one reference to the page where all of the rankings can be found, feel free to change this and put in the direct links.

(2) Having established that the Source, QS Rankings by Subject, does provide these rankings, let's examine the statement that Sciences Po's 'rankings in law, economics, and sociology are among the top in Europe' is "argumentative": By viewing the rankings by subject, one can see the top 100 schools in the world in each subject. For Law, I count 13 European schools ranked in the top 50. The 51-100 range of schools are not individually ranked, but there are 19 European schools in the 51-100 range, including Sciences Po. From this, we can deduct that Sciences Po is ranked in the 14-32 range for Law out of all European schools (including the UK and Non-EU countries). Using the same method for Economics, we can deduct Sciences Po is in the 17-34 range for European schools. For Sociology, counting again only the European schools on the rankings, Sciences Po is #17.

Doing a quick google search, there are 4,000 higher education establishments in Europe. Of course, not all 4,000 teach economics, or law, etc., so let's estimate that only half of them teach each subject (this is an assumption I am making, feel free to say I am wrong if you have sources). A #12 ranking is in the top 1% from a pool of 2,000 higher education establishments, and any ranking in the 14-32 and 17-34 range would be in the top 1-2%.

The question is thus is a ranking in the top 1-2% "among the top"? I think the answer has to be yes.

3. History / "self praising":

(1) History: If you look at peer institutions of Sciences Po's wikipedia pages, you will find a sentence or 2 describing how and/or why the institution was founded. See: Free University of Berlin, University of California, Berkeley, the LSE, and Paris I (Sciences Po offers double degrees with all of these schools, which is why I used them, and why I think it is a fair comparison. I don't think it's advisable to compare the wikis of lesser-known universities, or universities in the developing world). Besides having 1-2 sentences describing their history/founding, these other universities also maintain lengthy sections for history in the article. So, mentioning the reasons for founding the place is totally in line with what other pages are doing.

Launabee, please explain why this is not the case, and why the Free University of Berlin, University of California, Berkeley, LSE, and Paris I's pages are also wrong and should also be changed if you still disagree.

(2) "Self praising": Sciences Po was founded exactly for the reason of training new elites in France. There is no dispute about that. Perhaps a third-party source can be found saying so. This would be better, although the original founding documents / minutes from the meeting would be best as the primary source if anyone can find them.

4. Gallery:

I created the gallery after looking at Dartmouth College's, which has 13 people. Sciences Po's has 15. Cambridge and Oxford both have many pictures in their alumni sections (though not in a gallery format).

I think having a gallery improves the visual appeal of the article. This could be debated.

5. See 3 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.227 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bonus: I see you made a section entirely for Scandals. Could you please provide a link to any other serious school's wiki that contains a "Scandals" section? The University of Cambridge had a spy ring recruiting people to infiltrate British intelligence and spy for the Soviet Union - pretty big scandal. It's not even mentioned on its wiki. Georgetown University owned slaves and sold them, Harvard has had massive cheating scandals - these get 1 sentence and are placed in the "History" and "Teaching" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.227 (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Break

 Administrator note User:Launebee: Based on the comments above, please can you clarify which of your 7 proposed changes are supported by consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear 75.156.54.227,

1. One, they don’t encircles it, second, the main adress in on rue Saint Guillaume.

2. For you, the top 800 would be top 2% and then said in the lede to be the top of Europe? It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, precision is a key in encyclopedia.

3. If you want to edit other pages, please do it. Here, the sentence in not neutral. And it doesn’t work like that: you have to find a neutral source to add a praise in the article, not the other way.

"Bonus" : no institution has so many scandals, and so extensively covered by the press, and so many lawsuits and official reports mentioning it, that’s why a section was needed here. But you are only active on this article, feel free to edit the other ones.

--Launebee (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed Launebee deleted my responses to her points above. I am only coming back to put them back. And no, I am not the same person as 78.51.193.8, despite what Launebee alleged.

1. One, they don’t encircles it, second, the main adress in on rue Saint Guillaume.

My Response: View the map: http://blogs.cie.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SciencesPo-map.jpg. In English, "Encircle" means "surround." So saying the campus does not encircle Blvd Saint Germain is a lie.

2. For you, the top 800 would be top 2% and then said in the lede to be the top of Europe? It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, precision is a key in encyclopedia.

My Response: No, that's another lie. 800 / 2000 = 40%. So, 800 would be in the 40th percentile. 20 / 2,000 = 1%, 40 / 2000 = 2%. So, only the top 40 would be in the top 2%. It's basic maths.

3. If you want to edit other pages, please do it. Here, the sentence in not neutral. And it doesn’t work like that: you have to find a neutral source to add a praise in the article, not the other way.

"Bonus" : no institution has so many scandals, and so extensively covered by the press, and so many lawsuits and official reports mentioning it, that’s why a section was needed here. But you are only active on this article, feel free to edit the other ones.

My Response: Please provide evidence to support your claim that no other institution has had so many scandals.

Launebee, I don't think its constructive to bring your method of deleting anything you don't like also to the Talk page. No, this is not a personal attack against you. Just stop deleting everything you don't like.

--75.156.54.227 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.227 (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd ask you quietly to remove your inferences of lying from your comment please. Assume good faith on the part of Launebee, if they are incorrect comment on that, don't presume an intention to deceive. I've also re-instated your comment. I won't change it -excluding an indent- as I prefer not to edit others comments except where absolutely necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MSGJ,

It seems none. Since IP user, who said he’s an alumni from Sciences Po, and is only active on this article, insists on putting advertisement in it. --Launebee (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Unanimity is not required; rough consensus will suffice. I have disabled the request for now, but feel free to reactivate for any of your proposals if they have broad support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Response: I've written several things describing the information about admissions (standards and statistics), and listed the professional schools - I copied what other university's were doing on their wikis, and Launebee deleted this because it was "like an advertisement". If you look at the history of the article, this has been going on for a long time. I understand many people in France resent Sciences Po. I don't think they should come to wikipedia to try to ruin Sciences Po's reputation and re-write history.--75.156.54.227

Moderators: Does it strike you as odd that half of the page is about "Scandals", provided by Launebee, and this same Launebee has deleted anything someone has written to try describing the school under the pretenses that this is "advertising", then offers lies in response and accuses those who disagree with them of sexism? And then also, this same person has written glowing things about Sciences Po's rival university, Paris II, basically writing the whole page? I'll let you ladies and gentlemen decide what's really going on here (of course, no one has gone on the Paris II wiki to do the same thing Launebee is doing here.)--75.156.54.227

Conclusion: I will not be coming back to "debate". I've responded to that stuff above. Launebee can continue her campaign to run down Sciences Po on wikipedia while making Paris II seem like heaven. I will not be coming back to respond to anything whatsoever as I see I'm spending hours "debating" with a tro||. I would request that those banners at the top of the page be taken down, because they were put there by a tro|| for purposes of tro||ing.--75.156.54.227

From this experience, I see that Wikipedia is, like it's own founders have said, run by tro||s. I'm finished forever with this website. Any logic gets ignored and lies are thrown back in your face when you try to improve something and people pushing an agenda want to delete it. If you call those people out, they accuse you of being sexist. This is a waste of my valuable time. Best regards.--75.156.54.227

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.227 (talk)

If anyone disagrees with my propositions, please say so.

--Launebee (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If anyone agrees with Launebee's propositions, please say so.--75.156.54.227

Again, I want to strongly express my opposition to Launabee's style of editing. Critical voices are absolutely necessary for producing accurate and informative content on Wikipedia, especially where editors may directly benefit from inaccurate and overly positive content (i.e. universities, companies, film-productions, etc.). However, Launabee has been going the opposite direction, by unreasonably bashing Science Po on Wikipedia, in a way which would be unacceptable for any article. To the editor with the IP-address 75.156.54.227: Please do keep up your argumentative, rational and balanced work on the article. Kind regards, 78.51.193.8 (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I reported the personal attacks there. Attacking me, even in a civil manner, rather to discuss actual content will lead to nothing for you. --Launebee (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The critique against the editing of Launabee has been based on specific deletions and insertions. I understand that edits must be criticized themselves and not the editor - however, where one user unreasonably and continuously undoes hard work of other users, it must be possible to give opposition.

1.) Concerning the proposed changes 1) - 5): I find the points which were laid out against these changes clear, concise and very convincing. Therefore, I also strongly oppose these changes.

2.) Furthermore, I think that it would greatly improve the article, if there were a section which lays out the degree structure at Sciences Po. Firstly, this kind of information can be found in almost all Wikipedia articles on universities - it is not unencyclopedical. Secondly, the degree-structure at Sciences Po is comparatively complex and distinct. Thus, this kind of information would help the reader to easily get a better understanding of how Sciences Po works.

3.) I also propose that the "Reputation and scandals" part should be integrated into the schools history, rather than being an individual sub-section. This would keep the article in line with the standard practice on Wikipedia articles on universities. 78.51.195.242 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The standard practice is to have a reputation section, and here, there are so many scandals that it should be there.

Note that everybody is hard working here.

--Launebee (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up on the edit war: what to do about this article now?

Having briefly reviewed the above exchanges between Launebee and the unregistered user, I must say that the latter's responses to Launebee's points sound very sensible to me. Focusing *only* on content here (since I strongly regret the personal tone that this conversation has taken), I think that much of the material which had been added by the unregistered user was actually useful, and could have been improved upon or moved to other sections of the article. Looking at the edit history, Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative: massive deletion of the existing content, replaced by a negative tone and a strong focus on scandals right from the start. After all, every elite/elitist institution in the world has to face strong criticism (some of which is warranted), and I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits. I'm not saying that the scandals don't belong in the article. They do. Simply that the unregistered user's contributions did add something valuable, and I regret the fact that Launebee did not take them as an opportunity to reach a balance in his edits, which would have resulted in a significant improvement over the current write-up. So, do we really need to protect this article until March 2017? And Mr unregistered user, why don't you come back and register an actual account (it will take you a minute!) so that we could all have a productive conversation as to what needs to be done? SalimJah (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I reported here your comment about my "agressive edits".

Once again, again, it is false to say everyone has critics like Sciences Po does. If the section is so long, it’s because there are so many scandals, official reports and judicial sentences.

--Launebee (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on edit propositions

To the IP user:

1) No, it doesn’t.

2) It’s not a lie but a mistake. Top 80 considered as top doesn’t make sense neither.

3) I’m just kind by explaining you, this comparison is pointless.

--Launebee (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For further reference in this discussion, please note that my future username is "MePhisto". I have made edits under the following IP addresses: 78.51.193.8 ; 2003:42:2E00:1DB3:C09:D546:69B8:84C7 ; 2003:42:2E34:1105:8F8:10CD:6577:4006 ; 2003:42:2E34:1158:78D3:DDA5:7E1A:D570 ; 2003:42:2E66:436A:98D:9112:7EC7:E8BE ; 213.61.160.117.

Concerning the definition of "to encircle": Looking at the campus map of Sciences Po and at the definitions provided by "The Free Dictionary and "Merriam Webster", I can't understand how anyone could assume that the campus does not "encircle" Boulevard Saint-Germain. To say that the campus "encircles" Boulevard Saint-Germain would only be incorrect, if to "encircle" would require a literal, full geometrical circle of campus buildings. This however is not how the word is commonly used. Perhaps a non-native speaker might get this wrong though (hope this isn't counted as a personal attack).

Concerning the degree structure of Sciences Po: I would recommend to add the content which the user with the IP address 75.156.54.227 has added, but which was deleted by Launabee. MePhisto (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, MePhisto! :) I tend to agree with you. Much of the content which was added by the unregistered user was actually useful. Some of it could certainly be reframed with a more neutral tone and/or moved to other specific sections of the article as opposed to being inserted directly in the intro (e.g., the ranking details), but it should not be ignored. That said, I also do think that Launebee's contributions on the Sciences Po scandals are useful too. Maybe a sentence about that would be enough in the intro, and we could move the rest to some dedicated section of the article. +1 if you want to start this off! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalimJah (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As for encircle, third opinion is needed I think. It’s not the most important point.

And Wikipedia is not a catalog.

--Launebee (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I indented your above response for clarity, Launebee. We certainly agree with you that Wikipedia is not a catalog. And we can also find an alternative to describe the location of the campus accurately if you prefer. But focusing on substance here: would you be ready to forget about the irrelevant personal dispute and reconsider your position towards the contributions of the anonymous user, trying to (or, at least, letting other people) build upon them in order to improve the article? That would be laudable on your part! :) It would also benefit the article a lot: seriously, the content which he added was often informative and relevant, even though it could be edited. Cheers! SalimJah (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant, I never deleted any content because I have a dispute with the author on other things. --Launebee (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

1) a) Unlike most French universities, Sciences Po is a selective University (also known as a "Grande Ecole" in French) focused on the Social Sciences. I would therefore write: "Sciences Po (French pronunciation: ​[sjɑ̃s po]), also known as the Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: "Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris"), is a selective University (or "Grande École"[1] in French) focused on the Social Sciences."

1) b) The statement that the campus "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain" is accurate and precise, given the fact that nowadays, teaching and research activities are equally conducted Rue Saint Guilllaume, Rue des Saints-Pères, Rue de L'Université and (soon) Place Saint Thomas d'Aquin. If you don't like the wording we would need to find something else that conveys the same meaning.

2) a) b) The arguments of IP user 75.156.54.227 for ranking Sciences Po among the best European Universities are sourced and solid. I would write: "Sciences Po is consistently ranked among the best European Universities in the Social Sciences, especially in the field of Politics and International Studies, where it is ranked 4th in the world by the QS World University Rankings 2016." We can then put the details of the rankings in the corresponding sub-section.

3) The fact that Sciences Po was founded by Emile Boutmy in the aftermath of the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 in order to train a new political and intellectual elite is undisputed. This says nothing about whether this goal was eventually achieved. It is useful to have a sentence about the reasons for the foundation of the school in the lede. Also interesting to know that it inspired the model of the London School of Economics. We can work on the wording so that the info is conveyed with a more neutral tone, but those are the facts.

4) The gallery does look nice, but I have no opinion as to whether it should be reduced or expanded. What's the usual consensus on such matters?

5) Which paragraph are you referring to?

6) Comment on the "Scandals" section: I support the inclusion by Launebee of a "scandals" section in the body of the article. The content is sourced, although the write-up could sometimes be more neutral. We need more of that for all University articles! The corresponding sentence in the lede is fine on principle. It could be rewritten with a more neutral tone, however. To be sure, any elite institution in the world has to face criticisms and scandals, at the very least because it tends to attract a lot of attention. I don't see why the Sciences Po case should be treated differently. Therefore, I would modify the sentence as follows: "Sciences Po is seen as an elite institution in France and abroad[5][6][7]. As such, it has been subject to strong criticisms, and also faced a number of scandals.[8][9][10]" SalimJah (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1) a) Sorry but "Sciences Po is not a university" (p. 2), not at all.

b) Have you got a source for your "equally"?

2) It is simply not accurate, sourced nor precise.

3) It has to be neutrally worded. "The school was created in 1972 to improve the training available for public servants and politicians following a series of political catastrophes." (same source) is better.

6) No source, even the non French ones, says it is not seen as an elite institution abroad, in comparison to the universities for example, and the scandals are not linked to the status. No other university faces so regularly such structural scandals.

--Launebee (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, I am really sorry, but it appears that, in spite of all the sources and arguments that we provide, you simply refuse to recognize a number of facts which IP user 75.156.54.227, MePhisto and myself have been trying to bring to your attention. Could you please explain in which sense your positions reflect a consensus? Let me try one more time:

1) a) Doesn't Sciences Po correspond to this definition?

1) b) Those are the campus buildings. MePhisto provided the map. Why give priority to the Rue des Saints-Guillaume building? The economics department, for instance, is fully located Rue des Saints-Pères (see the bottom of this page), and the doctoral school is located on Boulevard Saint-Germain proper (see the bottom of this page).

2) Then it's on you to demonstrate that the rankings and calculations provided above by IP user 75.156.54.227 are false. You did not do that so far. Simply saying "no this is wrong" is no argument.

3) I'm sincerely happy that you're eventually willing to grant us a little something, but your wording does not convey the significant change that Emile Boutmy intended with the foundation of this institution. Quote (my own translation): "There was a need to 'provide a new head to the people' (those are Emile Boutmy's words) and train a more open, more inventive political elite than the one which had led France to a catastrophy." (See here for the original source in French.) To my mind, the fact that Sciences Po inspired the model of the LSE is also informative from an institutional standpoint.

6) Your sentence is not clear. Did you mean to say that Sciences Po is not seen as an elite institution abroad? I'd put forward the dual degrees and exchange programs that Sciences Po maintains with many top universities in the US and elsewhere as evidence against that claim. I would also bring to your attention that all of the recent scandals that Sciences Po faced and which you sourced are due to its unique governance structure, which provides it with some leeway in terms of finances and management than traditional universities simply don't have. So scandals and status *do* go together. But if you don't like it, we can still have two separate sentences: "Sciences Po is seen as an elite institution in France and abroad[5][6][7] and, as such, has been subject to strong criticisms. Sciences Po also faced a number of scandals.[8][9][10]" SalimJah (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. You have to provide source to put an information in an article, and not give your personal interpretation. Sincerely, it’s the first time I ever see here someone saying he wants the article to say its institution is the top in many fields, unless someone else proves the contrary. --Launebee (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For information, here is the link toward the closed incident talk on AN. --Launebee (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

After the AN talk, back on content

@NeilN:, @Mr rnddude: and @Jytdog:, could you tell us what do you think of my propositions of editing?

1) a) Remove "Collège universitaire" mentionned twice in the lede. Sciences Po is not a university but tries to add "university" everywhere to have people think it is. This is only a misleading advertisement name with no informative value (on the contrary, it is misleading), so it has not its place in an encyclopedia.

b) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain". It’s not in this street, not encircles it.

The previous paragraph was better: "Its main campus is located rue Saint-Guillaume in the 7th arrondissement. It maintains departments in political science, economics, history, sociology, law, finance, business, communication, social and urban policy, management, and journalism.

2) a) "Sciences Po is ranked 4th in Politics and International Studies by QS 2016 World University Rankings." is more objective than "Sciences Po is ranked 4th in the world for Politics and International Studies in 2016", it’s not a absolute rank but one ranking.

b) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe.", argumentative, the source does not states that.

3) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France."NOTRE HISTOIRE". Sciences Po.". Self‑praising from the School, not neutral and no independant source. Put instead "The school was created in 1972 to improve the training available for public servants and politicians following a series of political catastrophes." [1]

4) Shorten or delete the gallery.

5) Deletion of the first paragraph in History section, already explained in the relevant subsection.

--Launebee (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on content per WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 October 2016

It has been three weeks that nobody is answering. In short, I request

1) the shortening or the deletion of the gallery

2) the deletion of the paragraph between history and 1872–1945 sections

3) this as the three paragraphs in the middle of the lede:

Its main campus is located rue Saint-Guillaume in the 7th arrondissement. It maintains departments in political science, economics, history, sociology, law, finance, business, communication, social and urban policy, management, and journalism.

Sciences Po is ranked 4th in Politics and International Studies by QS 2016 World University Rankings. Sciences Po is a member of several academic consortia (including APSIA and the College Board).

The school was created in 1972 to improve the training available for public servants and politicians following a series of political catastrophes. --Launebee (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

References

 Done all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks! The only thing is that what is now the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede was meant to be deleted in the request (it wasn’t clear sorry). And could you correct the date please? (It’s 1872 actually). Thanks again. --Launebee (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 October 2016

It was created in 1872 not 1972

66.112.227.161 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The source (Paul Amis, The integrity of integration: the ethics of exchange student welfare in undergraduate programmes at a French higher education institution, p. 2) says 1972. You will need to be a reliable source stating 1872 if you think this is wrong. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107:[2] speaks about Sciences Po during the WW2. The 9 is clearly a typing mistake.

Could you also delete the sentence "The Institute is composed of the Collège universitaire for undergraduate studies, six professional schools, research divisions in law, economics, history, political science, and sociology, and the Doctoral School." ? This was accepted earlier, but not done on the article because I did not formulate things clearly enough. Thanks.

--Launebee (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the date and added a correct source to support. I have not made the other change as there seems to be a lot of discussion above and edit warring. I'm not familiar enough with the details to feel comfortable making that edit through full protection. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107:@MSGJ:@Launebee: I am wondering about due wiki process here: some of the edits that were required by Launebee and last implemented on this article are linked to a broader discussion that's still ongoing and not yet settled. The article has been protected following an edit war between Launebee and IP user 75.156.54.227. From there, several editors (myself included) have been engaged in a discussion around 6 main points related to the write-up of the article, all of which are documented above. Arguments were presented, and consensus did *not* emerge. We need to converge in the talk page before we request further modifications to the article being made. SalimJah (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@SalimJah: The change of date seemed fairly non-contentious to me given the link proved by Launabee above and the source that I found. If there is disagreement about that, I am happy for it to be changed back. I didn't implement the other change requested because I couldn't see any clear consensus among the discussion above, though I admit I only skimmed it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: I wasn't referring to the change of date, which is non-contentious indeed. We would need some external input in order to reach a suitable balance between Launebee's position and that of the few other editors who have participated in this discussion, however. The above arguments are set, and we haven't been making much progress since then. SalimJah (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 November 2016

Next to "Grande Ecole" (in the overview section), we could write "(roughly the equivalent of a US Ivy-League University)". This edit would help readers put things in context ("grande ecole" does not mean much outside of France). SSStarlastar (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That would amount to WP:SYNTH unless you have a reliable source for that. Easier to let people follow the blue link to the article where they can find out more. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

One way to achieve both clarity and precision within the article (since we know that following links is a cost to many users and some just don't do it) would be to say that "Sciences Po [...] is a selective University (also known as a Grande Ecole in French) located in Paris, France." Note, however, that Launebee objected to Sciences Po being a University in the above discussion, even though I don't see how this position can be maintained given the very definition of a University. SalimJah (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How did Launebee's proposals get accepted when there was a consensus against all of them? (see above). It does not seem like the editor who accepted them read the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.227 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 November 2016

Replace ''{{PDFlink|[http://www.cne-evaluation.fr/WCNE_pdf/IEPParis_2005.pdf Rapport d'évaluation de l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris]}}'' with [http://www.cne-evaluation.fr/WCNE_pdf/IEPParis_2005.pdf Rapport d'évaluation de l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris] per this TFD. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Post by IP 64.114.29.204

I propose the changes made by Martin on 21 October, which were proposed by Launebee on 18 September 2016, and from reading the entire discussion, voted down resoundingly, be reversed. No one agreed with any of Launebee's proposed changes; every participant in the discussion was, in fact, opposed to his proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.29.204 (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 20 November 2016

The mention of Sciences Po as a university is absolutely inaccurate.

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

--Launebee (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: as you know all changes need to be discussed and agreed on first — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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 [3]. But it retained its "independence" [4].
• It started offering degrees in 1999 [5].
• It joined the USPC in 2010 [6].

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. [7]. --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 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.

---

Edit request for discussion

Following the current text at the end of the lead, a simple factual statement would better serve this article than the vague "there has been criticism" sentence. I would suggest a first simple edit to the end of the lead, which requires moving the incompletely formatted reference 8 as described below.

<ref name="humanite.fr">[http://www.humanite.fr/politique/sages-oligarchie-et-pacte-budgetaire-504397]</ref>

This would be wise anyway because this article does not support the part of the sentence it cites, there is only one passing reference to Sciences Po in the entire article which is about the Conseil Constitutionnel and the Budgetary Pact. Rien à voir.

Proposed addition: what the text does say:

In September 2012, nine of the twelve counselors on the Conseil Constitutionnel had attended Sciences Po.

References

comment: This should be consensual as it 1) accurately represents the article, and 2) introduces wiki-text that should be OK with those who wish to criticize and those who wish to promote the school: seems like a useful, inert fact.

Also, I would suggest adding {{reflist|30em}} to the References section :)

I take it this template signs for me, so I'll just say I appreciate the time of whoever is looking into this. Best, SashiRolls (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, SashiRolls. I think this is useful information. (You're right that it can be interpreted both as a good and a bad thing. Clever on your part. ;) ) Not sure whether it belongs to the lead as opposed to the "alumni" section, however. I also agree with you and MePhisto that debating around the use of the term "university" for describing Sciences Po in the lead is kind of ridiculous. But you'll start to recognize the scope of the issue when you realize that this is the most straightforward of the 6 main topics or so that we've been discussing with Launebee. Check out the discussions starting here (origin of the edit war) and here (where I try to step in). We made many more suggestions to try and improve the article, *all* of which were rejected by Launebee, even in the face of simple, factual evidence. The question of the precise location of the campus is another crystal clear example. So what now? SalimJah (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I don't know the answer. I have mentioned this page in contrast to others on the project at AE here. SashiRolls (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SashiRolls. Considering the facts documented below by XIIIfromTOKYO, I think that this is something that we editors can't deal with. We need to bring this issue to the attention of an admin. @MSGJ, would you mind helping us with this process? SalimJah (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward: content (part one)

Hi all. I just want to clarify that I've come to the talk page only to help you move forward. It's often the case, I imagine, that when there is complete work stoppage on the public side of a Wikipedia page there are probably opposed interests lurking below. It seems to me that it's good to start with small things in everyone's interest. So. I would like to ask if we can all agree to the following technical edit concerning boring old references:

1) Replace the two occurences of <ref name="humanite.fr">[http://www.humanite.fr/politique/sages-oligarchie-et-pacte-budgetaire-504397]</ref> in the article. (ctrl-f)

<ref name="Pinçon">{{cite web|author1=Monique Pinçon-Charlot|author2=Michel Pincon|title=Sages, oligarchie et pacte budgétaire |website=humanite.fr|url=http://www.humanite.fr/politique/sages-oligarchie-et-pacte-budgetaire-504397|publisher=Humanité|accessdate=30 November 2016|language=French|date=20 September 2012}}

The second with <ref name="Pinçon" />

Please indicate if you support (or for some odd reason oppose) this technical edit to bring the reference up to WP standards ^^). Launebee, User:XIIIfromTOKYO could I please have your (preferably very short) feedback on this technical edit?

2) Make three columns in the references section by replacing {{reflist|30em}} as is conventional for non-squib articles, because it is visually pleasing and encourages disciplined referencing (well... sometimes it does^^)

Please indicate your support or opposition to these formal changes below. Thanks. ^^

---

support. SashiRolls (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward: RS (part two)

The above reference is only a reliable source concerning Sciences Po for the very limited claim I made above. In September 2012, nine of the twelve counselors on the Conseil Constitutionnel had attended Sciences Po That is why I had added the quote field: "Les études sont convergentes : dix des conseillers [of the Conseil Constitutionnel (analogous to the US Supreme Court)] ont étudié le droit. Mais surtout neuf sont passés par Sciences-Po, et cinq par l’ENA." If we do end up incorporating this quote into the reference later I suppose we'd have to edit out the OR English explanation. Wikipedia rules sometimes defy common sense. ^^

Of course, on the US election pages if you to tried to quote a communist party mag you might well be chased away with sharpened sticks, but this is about France after all. I suppose Humanité is considered an RS.

Now as for that unsigned contrepoints edito written by h16 and where the author's opinion is quite clear: " [...] Mon confrère blogueur l’Hérétique en a assez régulièrement parlé dans ses billets, et se réjouit que le système Descoings soit enfin exposé au grand jour. Il n’est pas le seul." there is no way this article can be considered an RS by WP standards and I'm sure there are literally dozens of better (or at least less overtly partisan) articles that criticize the golden elevator civil service via Sciences Po-ENA ticket. It looks like their journal (and certainly not publishing house, which is puffy translation) may have even touched on them as they also do some media studies apparently.

I agree with SalimJah above that the best place for the information about the golden ticket-holding Supreme Court Sages is in a (much shorter) notable alumni section. But wherever it lands, it needs to be cleaned up: I do think the Pinçon article is a good source finally, even though its passing reference to Sciences Po is .really. just a passing reference.

About h16 again: If that source were in English it would have been rejected pronto. ... there's better out there.

---

support removing h16 article.SashiRolls (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• support the inclusion of the information about the number of Supreme Court Sages who attended Sciences Po in a notable alumni section (it would also be good to revive and shorten the previous 'notably people' gallery). Agree that h16 needs to be removed. This is not RS by any standards. L'Humanité is probably fine as a source, even though in general, we should strive to stick to English sources (how are those useful if people can't read them). SalimJah (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward: articles of interest

• as former head of the IMF and PS heavyweight, I think Dominique Strauss Kahn's having taught there is notable:

• a not so wp:recent article on SciencesPo and the jobs it led to in 2008-2009.SashiRolls (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Anon-created section

Anything that remotely enhances the reputation of Sciences Po will be deleted by Launebee after this edit protect finishes. It would make a lot more sense for us to (1) delete everything on the Sciences Po wiki that does not degrade Sciences Po's reputation, so things like its address, its list of directors, and more or less everything else (we will need to keep a few things on here to not be so obvious and have our edits reversed by moderators. So, we should place the rankings publications where Sciences Po performs the worst, such as in fields where it does not operate, like literature. If anyone adds a favourable Sciences Po ranking, we will either delete it or put it at the end of the section, and jam as many low rankings as we can into the beginning of the section, as Launebee has done, (2) expand Launebee's Scandals section, and (3) come up with other ways to make Sciences Po look bad on here.

That is the only way our work will stay on this website, as Launebee will delete all of our contributions after the edit protect ends. Also, he will certainly keep adding many bad items, so we should also add bad items, as this is the only way our contributions will remain on Wikipedia. This is the only logical course to take with our time if we want it to not keep being wasted, and I think it will be fun. By writing bad things about Sciences Po on here and deleted anything else, we will also be saving time for Launebee, so we are also doing good for humanity. I will get the ball rolling for all of us with some proposals: "Sciences Po is seen in France as opposing human rights, as seen by its partnerships with Chinese universities." "Sciences Po is seen in France as very sexist, as it has never had a female president." "Sciences Po does not offer proper degrees, making it lower legal status than a French high school." "Sciences Po is viewed in France as promoting sexual assault, as seen by its hiring Dominique Strauss Kahn, as well as promoting other negative actions." "The administration at Sciences Po is known as being very unhelpful, unlike in the rest of France where administration is very simple and straightforward, particularly at Paris universities, such as Paris II." "Many wealthy families send their children to Sciences Po, who are the descendants of people who supported Nazi collaboration." Also, just consider saying instead that "Sciences Po supports Naziism."

Launebee, your persistence in degrading of Sciences Po on here and removal of everyone else's work have convinced me to join your side, as you are clearly singlehandedly winning a battle against several other people. I want to be on the winning side, so I have joined you. When you had my gallery deleted despite support from no one else, I was convinced. No hard feelings for deleting my hours of hard work on the gallery and describing the degree structure, I see how these are not encyclopedic ;). I now join you in deleting everyone else's and writing negative things to degrade Sciences Po, and am trying to convince everyone else on here to join you! We will do it all pretending everything is not encyclopedic while twisting everyone's argument against us into something they did not say, or just plain ignoring them ;). Vive Launebee! 75.156.49.94.

This is not helping much, Mr 75.156.49.94. You hard work is still here. It can be revived and enhanced. So I continue to urge you to create an account and help us move forward. That said, funny essay. After all those hours spent in (mostly meaningless) arguments, I thank you for making me laugh! ^^ SalimJah (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University‎

collapsed discussion of behaviour
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
=== Connections with the French article === Hello, I know that it's probably not the best place to deal with that (the problem is larger than the Sciences Po article), but it would be good if someone could have a look at the article about Panthéon-Assas University‎. I have 30.000+ contributions on the French Wikipedia, but WP:RAA seems to work in a very specific way here. In France Science-po and Assas are known to be rivals [8], and it feels like this fight is happening here now, as it was happening a few month ago on the French Wikipedia. On the French Wikipedia, a SPA was created on the 1st of Decembre 2015, and then started disruptive contributions about the Assas article (false claims about ranking, backed by a shady company... in order to promote that university)., and was blocked for a few weeks On the English Wikipedia, Launebee started to contribute on the very same day. I let you check by yourself what Launebee wrote on the Panthéon-"the top law school in France"-Assas article. @SalimJah and MePhisto: you should definitely have a look at the Talk:Panthéon-Assas University. Launebee has had the same behaviour there. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC) EDIT : and now Launebee is trying to cover paid contributions. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC) EDIT : to make it clear Launebee has just tryed to remove my message. And of course, he/she didn't even bother to tell me about it. The same method has been used on the French Wikipedia. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Comparative study I have checked the history of the Panthéon-Assas University article, and I have seen that @Launebee: and @Relsissi5588: have at many occasions tryed to remove warning templates : [9]March, 4 March, 13 April, 5 November, 29 November, 30 November, 30 November, 30 November, 30 Now let's see what Lannebee is doing on this article, Sciences Po, which is known to be a long standing rival of this university. Well, he/she is not endlessly removing put putting the warning templates on the lead : September, 17 August, 8 July, 17 Should I be surprised ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC) If you look at what Launabee submitted to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_schools_and_colleges_in_France things become even more clear. I'm afraid we really(!) need an administrator to step in. MePhisto (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Having done all this work, I would suggest you comment at WP:ANI. I don't know whether IP analysis can be conducted comparing the account on French Wikipedia with the one here... perhaps. I don't have all the facts, but I think this needs to be addressed, and have mentioned it to a couple admins now. The best course, I believe, is ANI adminstrator's notice board (incidents). Apparently Sciences Po and potential socking is not an AE issue in the way that GMOs and American Politics since 1932 are. SashiRolls (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Done! See here. SalimJah (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Yes I totally agree with MePhisto. I made several changes to the page (the vast majority were supported by other people), which were all deleted by Launabee. Also, Launabee placed all these warning templates on the page, which is strange because the only material that is on the page are stuff she wrote, as she has deleted everything else. What has been going on here is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.49.94 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Hi 75.156.49.94. I suggest that you create an account if you want to voice. (It'll take you 30 sec.) Not that we won't listen if you don't, but it's always nicer when people have a "face", right? :) SalimJah (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC) I would create an account if I thought that would help. I spent several hours improving this article, and it was all deleted by Launabee. Why the heck would I waste more time when this website is obviously run by trolls? I'm a doctor, I have other things I can be doing. If you and XIIIfromTOKYO succeed in turning this page from an anti-Sciences Po propaganda article disguised as an encyclopedia, which is what it is now, I would consider making an account. However, I have seen from spending a few hours on here that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia at all like it claims; it is a propaganda machine run by trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.49.94 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC) And guess who is trying to block the Panthéon-Assas University article for an long period on his/her version[10]. Does it look familiar ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC) An other attempt yesterday, this time for a month [11]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)